NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok so here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378352) is the thread if anybody is wondering.

Many liberals came to this thread, agreeing that it does need parental warning.

Parental warnings are a form of censorship, however. I thought liberals were against censorship . . . :eek:

Ok so here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378352) is the thread if anybody is wondering.

Many liberals came to this thread, agreeing that it does need parental warning.

Parental warnings are a form of censorship, however. I thought liberals were against censorship . . . :eek:
Looked more like a joke to me, using the irony that the warning labels so many christian groups would put on content they find offensive could also be applied to their holy book under the criteria they set forth. I doubt anyone actually wants to put a warning label on the bible.

Looked more like a joke to me, using the irony that the warning labels so many christian groups would put on content they find offensive could also be applied to their holy book under the criteria they set forth. I doubt anyone actually wants to put a warning label on the bible.
Curse my ability to mistake satire for seriousness . . . -_-

It was most certainly a joke.

How are parental warnings censorship? Unless you're talking about parents censoring what their children can read which I would have thought most liberals would agree with.

I thought conservatives were for small government and fiscal responsibility. ;)

Ok so here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378352) is the thread if anybody is wondering.

Many liberals came to this thread, agreeing that it does need parental warning.

Parental warnings are a form of censorship, however. I thought liberals were against censorship . . . :eek:

In that case then a warning should be placed on everything that can be considered offensive to someone!

Ha, that's funny.

Leftists do love censorship though.

Parental warnings prevent children from viewing material which could be potentially unsettling to them (for instance, the bible). It's not censorship; if the parents so wish, they can still allow their child to view the material. That's why it's called a parental warning. The parent is responsible for the child, and they know more than anyone what would be unsuitable for them. The warning will alert parents to things which are likely to be inappropriate.

Parental warnings prevent children from viewing material which could be potentially unsettling to them (for instance, the bible). It's not censorship; if the parents so wish, they can still allow their child to view the material. That's why it's called a parental warning. The parent is responsible for the child, and they know more than anyone what would be unsuitable for them. The warning will alert parents to things which are likely to be inappropriate.

But why should the Bible have a parental warning on it?

But why should the Bible have a parental warning on it?

I never said it should. The idea behind those who have suggested it is that the bible contains some explicit material which may ordinarily warrant such an advisory.

I never said it should. The idea behind those who have suggested it is that the bible contains some explicit material which may ordinarily warrant such an advisory.

Ok, can you point to examples?

Parental warnings prevent children from viewing material which could be potentially unsettling to them (for instance, the bible). It's not censorship; if the parents so wish, they can still allow their child to view the material. That's why it's called a parental warning. The parent is responsible for the child, and they know more than anyone what would be unsuitable for them. The warning will alert parents to things which are likely to be inappropriate.
Parents would do just as well by doing *actual* research into stuff which is likely inappropriate

Looked more like a joke to me, using the irony that the warning labels so many christian groups would put on content they find offensive could also be applied to their holy book under the criteria they set forth. I doubt anyone actually wants to put a warning label on the bible.

I actually don't think it's a bad idea. They put it on CDs with "fuck" and "shit" in it, why not in a book that tells women that they were made for men, condones slavery, and that says homosexuals are abominations to God?

God, I wish someone had warned me before I got sucked into that bullshit.

How are parental warnings censorship? Unless you're talking about parents censoring what their children can read which I would have thought most liberals would agree with.
Parental warnings are used by companies like walmart and Best Buy. to decide what products they will and will not sell. In many communities small record and book stores have closed down because the majority of shoppers left them for Best Buy and walmart's lower prices. They have become the only game in town, and they don't sell certain CDs and books due to their content.

It's a stretch to call it censorship, but it ammounts to the same thing. You can't get certain books at walmart, and you can only get "clean" versions of certain CDs at Best Buy.

Edit: Yes, I know, books don't carry parental warning stickers.

God, I wish someone had warned me before I got sucked into that bullshit.
Me too.

Ok, can you point to examples?

I haven't read the bible, nor do I intend to. I don't care whether it receives a parental warning or not, as religious parents will give it to their children regardless. I was just relaying their reasoning to you. You'd be better finding from first-hand sources than me.

I haven't read the bible, nor do I intend to. I don't care whether it receives a parental warning or not, as religious parents will give it to their children regardless. I was just relaying their reasoning to you. You'd be better finding from first-hand sources than me.

At least your honest. Something of a rarity on this board. thanks.

I've been to church. (Something of a requirement for anyone who grows up in the state of Alabama.) I've been require to read bits and pieces of the Bible and... not such great reading. And also extremely disturbing for a child.

And I am supposedly left-wing, and I do support parental warnings, so that I can ignore them as much as possible! :cool:

Parents would do just as well by doing *actual* research into stuff which is likely inappropriate

I agree with you, a lot of parents should be taking a greater interest in what their children get up to media-wise. I saw a debate on TV discussing the possible negative aspects certain video games could be having on kids. Part of the programme involved showing the parents what some of the video games were like. They had no idea that games like GTA 3 and Doom 3 were as violent as they are -- they were genuinely shocked, and that's with the big 'Aged 18+ ONLY!' warnings. I think it's better to just make the effort to stick a label on the sides of boxes and restrict sales of potentially inappropriate material to minors, rather than rely on parents' better judgement.

But why should the Bible have a parental warning on it?
In the OT god tells the Israelites to kill off the entire population of a nation, I forget the name of the civilization. There is also rape, incest, and murder. Should children be exposed to such things?

In the OT god tells the Israelites to kill off the entire population of a nation, I forget the name of the civilization. There is also rape, incest, and murder. Should children be exposed to such things?

And they were told that it was also wrong! Welcome to the real world! Don't you think then that the real world should have a parental warning on it?

It goes back to what I asked earlier. Should everything have a warning on it because it could be offensive to someone?

In the OT god tells the Israelites to kill off the entire population of a nation, I forget the name of the civilization. There is also rape, incest, and murder Should children be exposed to such things?
Yes, with parental guidance. ;)

Yes, with parental guidance. ;)

HAHAHA!!! best answer I've heard all night!

And they were told that it was also wrong! Welcome to the real world! Don't you think then that the real world should have a parental warning on it?

It goes back to what I asked earlier. Should everything have a warning on it because it could be offensive to someone?
Nope, you're wrong. God tells the Israelites to commit murder. There is no condemnation when Noah's daughters get him drunk and screw him. Slavery is legal. Virgins captured in battle are allowed by god to be kept as concubines by his chosen people. The bible is clearly not for impressionable minds.

My god, I dont think I've ever seen a joke over analysed as much as this.

And they were told that it was also wrong! Welcome to the real world! Don't you think then that the real world should have a parental warning on it?

It goes back to what I asked earlier. Should everything have a warning on it because it could be offensive to someone?

I'm sorry. I've never seen talking serpents, a boat filled with 2 kinds of every species on the planet and an entire family, walking on/through water or anything else to that extent in the real world before.

Nope, you're wrong. God tells the Israelites to commit murder. There is no condemnation when Noah's daughters get him drunk and screw him. Slavery is legal. Virgins captured in battle are allowed by god to be kept as concubines by his chosen people. The bible is clearly not for impressionable minds.

Noah had daughters? News to me my friend. I know he had 3 sons and they had wives.

I suggest you look at it again.

Noah had daughters? News to me my friend. I know he had 3 sons and they had wives.

I suggest you look at it again.

That doesn't answer to everything else DC said.
I love how you avoid the real issue here.

That doesn't answer to everything else DC said.
I love how you avoid the real issue here.

No I didn't ignore it! I just chose not to answer it. He had an inconsistency and I pointed it out to him.

My god, I dont think I've ever seen a joke over analysed as much as this.

Really? What planet have you been residing on up to this point? :p

Really? What planet have you been residing on up to this point? :p

Zotona, your really cheering me up! Thanks!

No I didn't ignore it! I just chose not to answer it. He had an inconsistency and I pointed it out to him.

Well, you asked a question, DC responded, quite well, might I add, and all you can do to answer for yourself is point out a mistake?

Well, you asked a question, DC responded, quite well, might I add, and all you can do to answer for yourself is point out a mistake?

If your going to make a point, the point has to be accurate.

Noah had daughters? News to me my friend. I know he had 3 sons and they had wives.

I suggest you look at it again.
I haven't read the bible in a while. Perhaps it was Lot. Could someone with a bible handy check it out?

If your going to make a point, the point has to be accurate.
DC MADE accurate statements, even if one can be called into question. There's nothing inaccurate about the other statements.
If you think otherwise, then it's you that needs to reread the Bible.

Zotona, your really cheering me up! Thanks!
NP! I have no clue why I even care about politics or religion today. I think I'll go play Paper Mario 2. It dumbs me down instantly!

If your going to make a point, the point has to be accurate.

What the hell do you know about making points?

What the hell do you know about making points?

hahahaha.
i love you. :fluffle:

No I didn't ignore it! I just chose not to answer it. He had an inconsistency and I pointed it out to him.

You could easily have pointed out that there may have been a mistake as well as answering his points. I don't think whose daughters they were really makes much difference to his argument.

Ok, can you point to examples?

If you read the thread this thread is about (link on the start of the thread) it has plenty of examples.

Looked more like a joke to me, using the irony that the warning labels so many christian groups would put on content they find offensive could also be applied to their holy book under the criteria they set forth. I doubt anyone actually wants to put a warning label on the bible.

What he said ^^^

I haven't read the bible in a while. Perhaps it was Lot. Could someone with a bible handy check it out?

It was Lot!

However, if you continue to look at it, they were punished in a way.

What the hell do you know about making points?

I make alot of points. However most of my points go against most of the thinking on these boards so my points get ignored.

I thought that stupid thread was a joke...

Bible problems (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bible.htm) is a good place to start if you want to know all the "strange" things in the bible so to speak.

There are no problems whatsoever with the Bible, certainly nothing that would warrant "warning labels."

There are no problems whatsoever with the Bible, certainly nothing that would warrant "warning labels."
But, if it weren't the Bible would you have a problem with a book that told the story of two young girls who get dad drunk and bonk him?

God Fails to Break His Own Record for Killing
True Christian™ World News:
God's Wrath Touches Down in Asia

Freehold, Iowa - Not since the time of Noah has God used water so effectively to harass sinners and wreak havoc upon those who don't flatter Him with sufficient regularity. As unsaved, impoverished Hindus toiled in beachside shacks on Christmas instead of exchanging expensive gifts from American department stores to celebrate the Baby Jesus' Birthday, the Lord was plotting their horrific, briny demise. True Christians know from the Great Flood that one of God's favorite ways to indiscriminately kill enormous swaths of children is by drowning them and watching them gasp for air and while floating like little discarded Styrofoam cups in the tide. Sometimes, He extends an enormous hand as if He is about to rescue the bobbing tot, only to retract it at the last minute to teach the drowning child a valuable lesson about the ineffable nature of God's love....

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0105/asia.html

Ha, that's funny.

Leftists do love censorship though.
What? Most calls for censorship I hear typically come from religious right-wing conservatives.

God Fails to Break His Own Record for Killing
True Christian™ World News:
God's Wrath Touches Down in Asia

Freehold, Iowa - Not since the time of Noah has God used water so effectively to harass sinners and wreak havoc upon those who don't flatter Him with sufficient regularity. As unsaved, impoverished Hindus toiled in beachside shacks on Christmas instead of exchanging expensive gifts from American department stores to celebrate the Baby Jesus' Birthday, the Lord was plotting their horrific, briny demise. True Christians know from the Great Flood that one of God's favorite ways to indiscriminately kill enormous swaths of children is by drowning them and watching them gasp for air and while floating like little discarded Styrofoam cups in the tide. Sometimes, He extends an enormous hand as if He is about to rescue the bobbing tot, only to retract it at the last minute to teach the drowning child a valuable lesson about the ineffable nature of God's love....

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0105/asia.html

HAHAHA!!! If you actually believed that God caused the Tsunami, then your even more nuts than I thought! Thanks for the laugh!

BTW: You did know that it was an underwater Earthquake that caused the Tsunami right?

HAHAHA!!! If you actually believed that God caused the Tsunami, then your even more nuts than I thought! Thanks for the laugh!

BTW: You did know that it was an underwater Earthquake that caused the Tsunami right?

I love it!

There are no problems whatsoever with the Bible, certainly nothing that would warrant "warning labels."
Hm.
Taken from Pubicona's link:
ABUSE OF WOMEN, WOMAN'S INFERIORITY
The Bible holds women in an inferior position, as property.
See also Prostitution, Polygamy, Abandonment of
Wife

A mother is unclean for twice as long after the birth of a
daughter as after a son (Lev 12).
A woman is "unclean" during her menstrual period and for seven
days afterward, i.e. for approximately half her adult life
(Lev 15:19-28, Ezek 18:6). To purify herself each month she
must make a "sin offering" (Lev 15:29-30).
Only males can enter the covenant, since it requires the rite of
circumcision.
Adam blames Eve for his sin in the Garden (Gen 3:12).
Eve's curse is that Adam shall rule over her (Gen 3:16).
Lot offers his virgin daughters to strangers to do to them
whatever they wish in order to protect his male guests (Gen
19:8).
A wife is listed among her husbands property, after the
house (Ex 20:17, Deut 5:21).
God gives the Israelites rules and regulations for selling their
daughters (but not their sons) into slavery (Ex 21:7-11).
Miriam is made a leper temporarily for speaking against Moses
(Num 12:1-10), but Aaron, who was equally guilty, is not
punished.
Moses enslaves 32,000 virgins (Num 31:18, 35).
Israelites slaughter their fellow Israelites of Jabesh-Gilead to
obtain wives (Judg 21:1-14).
Males of Benjamin are advised to get wives by abducting women of
Shiloh (Judg 21:16-23).
A divorced woman is as unclean as a whore and unsuited as the
wife of a priest (Lev 21:7, Ezek 44:22).
A woman cannot remarry her first husband if she married another
and was widowed or again divorced (Deut 24:1-4).
Rules for taking a captive woman to wife and what to do if you
decide you don't like her after all (Deut 21:10-14).
A rape victim must marry her rapist. The rapist must pay a
penalty to the victim's father, but not to her (Deut 22:28-
29).
If a man has sex with another man's female slave, the slave is to
be scourged, but the man will be forgiven if he offers a ram
as sacrifice (Lev 19:20-22).
A man may divorce his wife, but there is no provision for a wife
to divorce her husband (Deut 24:1, Jer 3:8, Isa 50:1, Matt
19:9, 1 Cor 7:10, Rom 7:2-3).
A man who is suspicious of his wife may require her to undergo
the ordeal of drinking the "bitter water that causeth the
curse," which causes the thigh to rot and the belly to swell
(Num 5:11-31).
The Levite and the Israelite offer to the mob a concubine and a
virgin daughter for the mob to "humble" them and do "what
seemeth good unto [them]." The men in the mob abuse the
concubine all night. The Levite then kills her (or finds
her dead?) and dismembers her body (Judges 19:22-29; this is
a doublet of the story at Gen 19 about Lot).
Saul uses his daughter Michal for his own ends, by giving her to
David "to be a snare to him" (1 Sam 18:21).
Absalom has sex with his father's (David's) concubines to insult
him. David then punishes the concubines by imprisoning them
for life (2 Sam 16:21-22, 20:3).
David purchases Michal from Saul (2 Sam 3:13).
Amnon loves Tamar until he rapes her, then he hates her and casts
her out (2 Sam 13:1-17).
God orders Hosea to purchase a harlot (Hos 1:2, 3:1-2).
God will punish the men by causing their wives to be ravished
(Isa 13:16, Zech 14:2).
The woman is subordinate to the man (Gen 3:6, 1 Cor 11:3-11, Eph
5:22-33, 1 Pet 3:1-6).
Women should cover the head when praying; men should not
do so (1 Cor 11:5).
Women should keep silent in church (1 Cor 14:34).
Woman is "snares and nets, her hands are as bands" (Eccl 7:26-
29).
No woman should have authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12)

Hm.
Taken from Pubicona's link:
ABUSE OF WOMEN, WOMAN'S INFERIORITY
The Bible holds women in an inferior position, as property.
See also Prostitution, Polygamy, Abandonment of
Wife

A mother is unclean for twice as long after the birth of a
daughter as after a son (Lev 12).
A woman is "unclean" during her menstrual period and for seven
days afterward, i.e. for approximately half her adult life
(Lev 15:19-28, Ezek 18:6). To purify herself each month she
must make a "sin offering" (Lev 15:29-30).
Only males can enter the covenant, since it requires the rite of
circumcision.
Adam blames Eve for his sin in the Garden (Gen 3:12).
Eve's curse is that Adam shall rule over her (Gen 3:16).
Lot offers his virgin daughters to strangers to do to them
whatever they wish in order to protect his male guests (Gen
19:8).
A wife is listed among her husbands property, after the
house (Ex 20:17, Deut 5:21).
God gives the Israelites rules and regulations for selling their
daughters (but not their sons) into slavery (Ex 21:7-11).
Miriam is made a leper temporarily for speaking against Moses
(Num 12:1-10), but Aaron, who was equally guilty, is not
punished.
Moses enslaves 32,000 virgins (Num 31:18, 35).
Israelites slaughter their fellow Israelites of Jabesh-Gilead to
obtain wives (Judg 21:1-14).
Males of Benjamin are advised to get wives by abducting women of
Shiloh (Judg 21:16-23).
A divorced woman is as unclean as a whore and unsuited as the
wife of a priest (Lev 21:7, Ezek 44:22).
A woman cannot remarry her first husband if she married another
and was widowed or again divorced (Deut 24:1-4).
Rules for taking a captive woman to wife and what to do if you
decide you don't like her after all (Deut 21:10-14).
A rape victim must marry her rapist. The rapist must pay a
penalty to the victim's father, but not to her (Deut 22:28-
29).
If a man has sex with another man's female slave, the slave is to
be scourged, but the man will be forgiven if he offers a ram
as sacrifice (Lev 19:20-22).
A man may divorce his wife, but there is no provision for a wife
to divorce her husband (Deut 24:1, Jer 3:8, Isa 50:1, Matt
19:9, 1 Cor 7:10, Rom 7:2-3).
A man who is suspicious of his wife may require her to undergo
the ordeal of drinking the "bitter water that causeth the
curse," which causes the thigh to rot and the belly to swell
(Num 5:11-31).
The Levite and the Israelite offer to the mob a concubine and a
virgin daughter for the mob to "humble" them and do "what
seemeth good unto [them]." The men in the mob abuse the
concubine all night. The Levite then kills her (or finds
her dead?) and dismembers her body (Judges 19:22-29; this is
a doublet of the story at Gen 19 about Lot).
Saul uses his daughter Michal for his own ends, by giving her to
David "to be a snare to him" (1 Sam 18:21).
Absalom has sex with his father's (David's) concubines to insult
him. David then punishes the concubines by imprisoning them
for life (2 Sam 16:21-22, 20:3).
David purchases Michal from Saul (2 Sam 3:13).
Amnon loves Tamar until he rapes her, then he hates her and casts
her out (2 Sam 13:1-17).
God orders Hosea to purchase a harlot (Hos 1:2, 3:1-2).
God will punish the men by causing their wives to be ravished
(Isa 13:16, Zech 14:2).
The woman is subordinate to the man (Gen 3:6, 1 Cor 11:3-11, Eph
5:22-33, 1 Pet 3:1-6).
Women should cover the head when praying; men should not
do so (1 Cor 11:5).
Women should keep silent in church (1 Cor 14:34).
Woman is "snares and nets, her hands are as bands" (Eccl 7:26-
29).
No woman should have authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12)


And...?

And...?
and it's like, sexist or something.

and it's like, sexist or something.

And back then, that was normal! What's your point?

And...?
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you need to be castrated.

This promotes hatred of women. This is much worse than Eminem, whom conservatives line up to censor every day.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, you need to be castrated.

This promotes hatred of women. This is much worse than Eminem, whom conservatives line up to censor every day.

Promotes it? HAHAHA!!! Thanks for the life ma'am!

And back then, that was normal! What's your point?
Why would god write something that's sexist? It was normal for back then, but god doesn't follow the latest trends, does he?

It is not hatred. It is fact that woman was created from man. And this is why certain practices, such as women covering their heads in worship, are symbolic of their being subject.

Why would god write something that's sexist? It was normal for back then, but god doesn't follow the latest trends, does he?

The Bible is a History Book DC! I'm sure that God does follow the latest trends.

The Bible is a History Book DC! I'm sure that God does follow the latest trends.
Well it sure as hell ain't a science book.

It is not hatred. It is fact that woman was created from man. And this is why certain practices, such as women covering their heads in worship, are symbolic of their being subject.

Best explination I've ever heard.

It is not hatred. It is fact that woman was created from man. And this is why certain practices, such as women covering their heads in worship, are symbolic of their being subject.
Do you take the creation myths in the bible literally? I'm not trying to turn this thread into an evolution thread, I just want to see where you're coming from.

It is not hatred. It is fact that woman was created from man. And this is why certain practices, such as women covering their heads in worship, are symbolic of their being subject.

You need to be castrated.

Do you take the creation myths in the bible literally? I'm not trying to turn this thread into an evolution thread, I just want to see where you're coming from.
I don't believe in any mythology. The facts of Creation as found in Genesis, are of course what I believe. Evolutionism is atheism.

Do you take the creation myths in the bible literally? I'm not trying to turn this thread into an evolution thread, I just want to see where you're coming from.

I do! I believe in what the Bible says.

You need to be castrated.

And you need to take something to calm yourself down.

Best explination I've ever heard.

You, too.

:headbang: And you need to take something to calm yourself down.
Make me, since you're male, right? Well, I'm female. Make me submit, asshole. Rape me. Your God won't care.
It's people like you that make Christians look bad.
God, do you have a mother?! :headbang:

You, too.

Get your horomones in check!

:headbang:
Make me, since you're male, right? Well, I'm female. Make me submit, asshole. Rape me. Your God won't care.
You will...

It's people like you that make Christians look bad.
God, do you have a mother?! :headbang:
He does....

:headbang:
Make me, since you're male, right? Well, I'm female. Make me submit, asshole. Rape me. Your God won't care.
It's people like you that make Christians look bad.
God, do you have a mother?! :headbang:

Oh brother! I don't need an Irate female right now. How am I making christians look bad? Right now, I'm not the one going off on a tangent. You are.

And Yes I have a mother!

@Servus & Corn
Am I correct in understanding that your position is that men being in authority over women is natural and nothing wrong with it?

Have you ever heard of the Tchambuli? You might want to Google that word if you haven't. They're studied a lot in Sociology classes... you see, in Tchambuli culture, gender is exactly opposite to what it is here. The women are the hunter-gatherers, make all the decisions, and are sexually aggressive, while the men are passive, shy around the women, and spend all their time fussing over their appearance.

You don't need to be majoring in Soc (I am) to understand how this proves that men being dominant over women is in no way, shape or form a "normative state of creation," or anything of the sort. Rather, it is a cultural condition, learned from our parents. Women were not created to serve men -- the prevalent cultures of the modern world merely like to think that they were.

@Corn
How are you making Christians look bad? You are a sexist. Pure and simple. A bigot, to be either re-educated or to be reviled, depending on your age and level of experience. By making sexist statements on the behalf of your religion, you make your religion look sexist as a whole -- and hence to be reviled, since you can hardly re-educate a book.

But why should the Bible have a parental warning on it?
Because it obtains adult themes, objectionable material and deals with themes that may be disturbing to some. Most particularly it deals with adult themes in a manner utterly incomprehensible to most children. Rather than having to explain why you should kill your daughter in law for being a whore, unless you find out you happened to be her customer, or why it's ok to rape your slaves as long as you scourge them afterwards, I'd rather be warned the material may not be appropriate for my child, so I can review it and decide whether or not I want my child to have access to such material at this point in their life.

As for being censorship, as it happens I dont see how informing someone about the content of a book is in any way shape of form censorship of that book. As for parents who choose to not let their children have access, you can call it anything you like, but I call it parenting, I see no reason why it should be assumed that every 'leftest' is 'anti-parenting'.

Parents would do just as well by doing *actual* research into stuff which is likely inappropriate
The reality is few parents can afford to not work and still provide material necessities for their children. Time is limited, I certainly do not have the time and money necessary to review every peice of media before my child has access to it. Tell me, are you going to sit through every single episode of the teletubbies?

I agree that parents should research things likely to be objectional or inappropriate, which is why I agree with the ideology behind warning labels, the whole point is such labels clearly point out that the material may be likely to be inappropriate. This narrows down greatly the material which I must review, I can confidently take my children to watch the latest G rated movie, and review PGR movies on video before deciding whether or not it is appropriate for my child. I cannot afford to go to the movies by myself, simply to preview the movie before taking my child to see it, neither (considering the age appropriate content) am I inclined to sit throught a child's movie more times than I must.

Parental warnings are used by companies like walmart and Best Buy. to decide what products they will and will not sell. In many communities small record and book stores have closed down because the majority of shoppers left them for Best Buy and walmart's lower prices. They have become the only game in town, and they don't sell certain CDs and books due to their content.
Welcome to free marketing, where private entities get to choose what they will and wont sell, and customers get to choose where they buy things....you do realise that leftism and free marketism are far from synomous terms?

It's a stretch to call it censorship, but it ammounts to the same thing. You can't get certain books at walmart, and you can only get "clean" versions of certain CDs at Best Buy.
It's not a stretch, it's downright false. Customers choose to only shop at certain stores until no other stores are viable, isnt censorship, it's free markets doing their free market thing.

And they were told that it was also wrong! Welcome to the real world! Don't you think then that the real world should have a parental warning on it?
Were they, where? As an adult I missed it, dont you think children with their shorter concentration spans, more limited vocabulary etc will most certainly not comprehend this, even if it is in there?

....the biblical presentation of adult themes isnt straight forward enough that adults can agree on what it means, you can be certain that presenting such adult themes to children in such a confusing, difficult to interpret manner, isnt a good idea.

As for exposing children to the 'real world', no sensible parent exposes their child to all of the 'real world' ahead of that child's ability to cope, and/or in a manner not consistent with the particular child's comprehension. Where such themes are addressed in media, parents should be forewarned so that they can decide if their child is ready to deal with the themes as they are presented.

I haven't read the bible in a while. Perhaps it was Lot.
Indeed it was Lot, that is if you are referring to the fellow who wanted to give his virgin daughters to a whole city, so they could do whatever they wanted with them, and whose wife conviniently disapeared on the journey to the mountain, purportedly because she 'turned around', but in my opinion (especially since we all know that there were no 'witnesses' except Lot who conviniently was the one to explain to the daughter the demise of their mother), really because Lot wanted some 'alone' time with the soon not to be virgin daughters.

There are no problems whatsoever with the Bible, certainly nothing that would warrant "warning labels."
That is your opinion, you may choose to expose your children to such adult themes in such an incomprehensible format, however I believe I too should be able to choose whether or not my children are exposed to the adult themes and their questionable presentation, in for instance, the Old Testament of the bible. A warning label doesnt prevent you from exposing your children or yourself to such material, so it should be no skin off your nose if such a label is placed on the bible.

And back then, that was normal! What's your point?
It's not normal now, so are you suggesting the bible is outdated, and the word of God has a use by date, or are you actually conceding that the bible isnt the word of God, but rather the dated writings of the current religious leaders at the time/s of it's authoring?

It is not hatred. It is fact that woman was created from man. And this is why certain practices, such as women covering their heads in worship, are symbolic of their being subject.
Children are created of the bodies of their parents, but they are not subserviant to, or less than their parents, not morally or in the eyes of the law. The authority that parents have over their children is soley for the purpose of ensuring the well being of the child/ren until the child/ren are of an age where they can ensure their own well-being. Anyone who considers that their children are subserviant to them, is in my mind sick. Just like a national leader, the respect and obediance due a parent is soley for the purpose of ensuring the well being of those whose well being they have been entrusted with. The authority exists not for it's own sake, but rather so that the person so entrusted is able to carry out the duty they bear their charge. Women are not needful of being in the charge of another. The kind of authority granted to men over women, in the bible isnt for the well being of the women, but rather is exploitive and about ownership and the ego/desires of the men placed in authority over them. That is not moral or ethical, indeed exploitation never is either moral or ethical. No person should ever exercise authority over any other person, simply to suit their own ends.

@Servus & Corn
Am I correct in understanding that your position is that men being in authority over women is natural and nothing wrong with it?

Have you ever heard of the Tchambuli? You might want to Google that word if you haven't. They're studied a lot in Sociology classes... you see, in Tchambuli culture, gender is exactly opposite to what it is here. The women are the hunter-gatherers, make all the decisions, and are sexually aggressive, while the men are passive, shy around the women, and spend all their time fussing over their appearance.

You don't need to be majoring in Soc (I am) to understand how this proves that men being dominant over women is in no way, shape or form a "normative state of creation," or anything of the sort. Rather, it is a cultural condition, learned from our parents. Women were not created to serve men -- the prevalent cultures of the modern world merely like to think that they were.

Who cares about some savage tribe?

God created woman to be subject to man. This is re-iterated throughout the Word of God.

Who cares about some savage tribe?
:rolleyes:
Because they so happen to invalidate the myth that it is somehow innate that women are supposed to submit and men are supposed to dominate.

:rolleyes:
Because they so happen to invalidate the myth that it is somehow innate that women are supposed to submit and men are supposed to dominate.
And this is why they are savages....

Hmm, so you're a racist, too. Awesome.

Define savage. Does savage just mean "doesn't fit the mold"?

Hmm, so you're a racist, too. Awesome.

Define savage. Does savage just mean "doesn't fit the mold"?
No, in this case savage appears to mean 'non-mysogonist'. What's not savage about refusing to disregard the individuality of more than half the population....

It's a funny thing, really, if women were actually an appendage of men, made from men, one expect there to be no more women than there are men...

@Corn
How are you making Christians look bad? You are a sexist. Pure and simple. A bigot, to be either re-educated or to be reviled, depending on your age and level of experience. By making sexist statements on the behalf of your religion, you make your religion look sexist as a whole -- and hence to be reviled, since you can hardly re-educate a book.

I'm a sexist? Wow! I didn't know I was! I respect women and I know that they are fully capable of taking care of themselves. My mom basically raised me alone because my dad was always gone. I was brought up to be a gentlemen.

As for a sexist comment, care to point one out? I know that I didn't make any.

As for making my religion look bad, I know people that have done a far better job of it. Its called the Christian right! Something that I am NOT apart of! I oppose the Federal Marraige Amendment and I support Civil Unions.

Who cares about some savage tribe?

God created woman to be subject to man. This is re-iterated throughout the Word of God.

Does the bible really say that? I know that the bible says that a woman shall leave her father to be with her husband. So does it truely say that God Created woman to be subject to men?

I'm a sexist? Wow! I didn't know I was!
Yes you are a sexist.

Yes you are a sexist.

Prove it!

Prove it!
Why, when you've already done such a fine job of it.

You do realise that discrimating (ie judging, categorising) someone based on sex is sexism? You do realise that suggesting the role of all women relative to all men is discriminating on the basis of sex? Whatever is left to prove?

Why, when you've already done such a fine job of it.

Point it out! I'm asking you to back it up. If you can't back it up Peopleandstuff, then I guess I'm not sexist!

You do realise that discrimating (ie judging, categorising) someone based on sex is sexism? You do realise that suggesting the role of all women relative to all men is discriminating on the basis of sex? Whatever is left to prove?

I haven't discriminated anyone, especially women. I don't care what a woman does. I don't care if she is the CEO! If she can perform the job then she should have the position. How is that being sexist? Are you saying because an old practice that forbid women from showing because of religion that I said was a best explaination of the past as sexist? Boy man, you don't know crap about me at all.

Let me put it another way.

In many cultures, women are 2nd class citizens. In many of these though, that is slowly changing. Japan is a prime example. I may not like this but it is their culture and it should be respected.

In the Muslim World, women can't do much without their husbands permission. I may not like this however, because it is their culture I have to respect it.

I respect every ones culture be it ethnicity or religion.

Now if you pardon me, I have a 8:00 AM class tomorrow so I'm off to bed!

Point it out! I'm asking you to back it up. If you can't back it up Peopleandstuff, then I guess I'm not sexist!
I already did point it out.



I haven't discriminated anyone, especially women.
Indeed you have.

I don't care what a woman does. I don't care if she is the CEO!
Doesnt change the fact that you choose to judge people's roles based on their sex.

If she can perform the job then she should have the position. How is that being sexist?
What has that got to do with whether or not you hold sexists beliefs. The fact that I dont think anyone not white should be a slave does not prove that I dont have any racists beliefs at all.

Are you saying because an old practice that forbid women from showing because of religion that I said was a best explaination of the past as sexist? Boy man, you don't know crap about me at all.
No.

Who cares about some savage tribe?

God created woman to be subject to man. This is re-iterated throughout the Word of God.
I am referring to you stating that God created women subject to men and the obvious implication that women should be subject to men, which is re-enforced by you referring to alternate configurations as being 'savage'.

Ok...Here it goes...What I feel both sides are missing is perspective...Woman (Eve) was created from man (Adam) not to be solely subservient but to compliment man. All verses can be taken out of context if read individually...Take Lott and his daughters for example...He offered his daughters to the people of Gomorah and Sodom to protect the angels sent to him by God as a warning of what was about to befall those two cities. Lott felt that it was more important to honour God then defend his daughters...He was wrong on the defense part but his intentions were good...The angels were in no danger but the reaction of the people of the two condemned cities was telling...Look up the account of this in Genesis...As to his daughters trying to get him drunk and lay with him to preserve the seed of their family....It only shows that they too had been corrupted by the wanton sinful nature of the two cities afore mentioned...Every instance in the bible where these issues arise God follows up with just punishment...And just a reminder too all of you out there Christians do not live by Old Test. law they live by and under the grace of Christ who dimissed all of the laws of the OT. but the Ten Commandments....So no we do not believe that slavery is fine or that women should be stoned for being insolent or children for that matter either. God demands through his son that we treat one another with love and forgiveness and grace..."That which you do to the least of these you do also unto me..." So by taking things out of context you can twist Christainity into a religion of hypocrisy and feel justified doing it. Many Christians today make it very easy to do mind you but if one were to delve deeper into the whole teachings of Christ one would see that Christ was not a hypocrit and there for any one Christian or non-Christian using the scriptures improperly will stand in judgement for that... And remember that in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that who so ever should believeth in him will have eternal life and never perish..." I am open to reasonable and intelligent discussion on this... email me at ....
airbornvet2gen@yahoo.com...Thanx and God Bless....

Ok...Here it goes...What I feel both sides are missing is perspective...Woman (Eve) was created from man (Adam) not to be solely subservient but to compliment man.
The OT makes it very clear that females are the subserviant property of men. Why else should a man be allowed to sell his daughter into slavery, why is that a women found to be not virgin on her wedding night is to be stoned to death in front of the house of her father, yet men who attempt to wrongfully have their wives murdered by falsely accusing them of being not virgin on the wedding night, recieve only a fine?
All verses can be taken out of context if read individually...
And how many children do you know who can concentrate long enough to get the full context?

Take Lott and his daughters for example...He offered his daughters to the people of Gomorah and Sodom to protect the angels sent to him by God as a warning of what was about to befall those two cities.
No actually, Lott had no idea they were angels, to him they were simply two strangers.
Lott felt that it was more important to honour God then defend his daughters...
As pointed out, the two were simply strangers to him, he had no idea they were messangers of God, or agents of God, or angels etc. He just thought they were a couple of passers through he had offered his hospitality to.
He was wrong on the defense part but his intentions were good...The angels were in no danger but the reaction of the people of the two condemned cities was telling...Look up the account of this in Genesis...
I've read the story, it is part of the reason why I believe that parents should be forewarned about the content of the bible, so they can read it and decide for themselve if it is appropriate material for their children.

As to his daughters trying to get him drunk and lay with him to preserve the seed of their family....
I for one do not believe a couple of virgins who couldnt have been out of their teens, got their father drunk and raped him. I do find it easy to believe that a man got drunk and raped both his daughters. It may not be common place, but it sure as heck happens more often than does fathers getting raped by their daughters. Frankly unless he was concious, how did he get it up? If he were concious, I dont care how drunk he is, I wouldnt accept 'my daughters got me drunk' if a pedophillic incestuous father was in court accused of raping his children and I was on the jury. Would you?

It only shows that they too had been corrupted by the wanton sinful nature of the two cities afore mentioned...
Actually it just goes to show how sexist the writers of the bible were.

Every instance in the bible where these issues arise God follows up with just punishment...
No that isnt true, or if it is, an adult can miss the point, which means it is certain that a child would. We are not discussing whether or not the themes presented are acceptable, or done so morally, we are discussing whether or not they be presented inappropriately for children, to the extent where parents should be warned so they can make their own decision about the suitability of the text with regards to their children. The fact is few if any children are able to comprehend and cognisise to the extent where the presentation of the themes contained in the OT bible is appropriate material for them.
And just a reminder too all of you out there Christians do not live by Old Test. law they live by and under the grace of Christ who dimissed all of the laws of the OT.
Whether or not all, or no people abide by the OT isnt relevent to deciding whether or not the themes therein are appropriate, either in themselves or as presented, for children.
but the Ten Commandments....So no we do not believe that slavery is fine or that women should be stoned for being insolent or children for that matter either.
Aha, so why do we assume that reading about these things as though they are good and right, is appropriate reading for children.

God demands through his son that we treat one another with love and forgiveness and grace..."'
Something that is not made apparent throughout much of the OT.

That which you do to the least of these you do also unto me..." So by taking things out of context you can twist Christainity into a religion of hypocrisy and feel justified doing it.
Actually so far as I can see, taken in context, much of the OT is simply perverse. Regardless, the point is if adults have trouble comprehending the alledged finer message in amongst the rape, genocide, endorsement of slavery and the general hypocrisy presented in the bible, you can be certain that most children will have more trouble doing so.

Many Christians today make it very easy to do mind you but if one were to delve deeper into the whole teachings of Christ one would see that Christ was not a hypocrit and there for any one Christian or non-Christian using the scriptures improperly will stand in judgement for that... And remember that in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that who so ever should believeth in him will have eternal life and never perish..." I am open to reasonable and intelligent discussion on this... email me at ....
airbornvet2gen@yahoo.com...Thanx and God Bless....
Many christians any day are neither a credit to themselves or their religion, but then the OT isnt a credit to itself or the religion it espouses either. It is most unfortunate that many people lack the ability to understand that some christians are 'X', is entirely distinct from all christians are 'X'. I can only suggest that you continue your efforts to prove otherwise, although I sadly can offer you no gaurentee of success. The unfortunate fact is common sense is more common than good sense.

And this is why they are savages....

Ladies and gentlemen, please do not feed this troll.

Ok so here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378352) is the thread if anybody is wondering.

Many liberals came to this thread, agreeing that it does need parental warning.

Parental warnings are a form of censorship, however. I thought liberals were against censorship . . . :eek:


Well The Bible is a bit harsh fantasy, but I don't think it is much different than Harry Potter. There's also some rough stuff. Maybe a notification that remainds us that it's only a story. I don't know... Or something

Well The Bible is a bit harsh fantasy, but I don't think it is much different than Harry Potter. There's also some rough stuff. Maybe a notification that remainds us that it's only a story. I don't know... Or something
I'm sorry, where exactly in Harry Potter does it set forth the acceptable manner in which to rape one's slaves....I clearly missed that.

The fact is Harry Potter is written in a manner not inappropriate for most children. The wrongness of immoral acts is clearly and unambiguously portrayed, something that cannot be claimed of the OT.

I'm sorry, where exactly in Harry Potter does it set forth the acceptable manner in which to rape one's slaves....I clearly missed that.

The fact is Harry Potter is written in a manner not inappropriate for most children. The wrongness of immoral acts is clearly and unambiguously portrayed, something that cannot be claimed of the OT.


Yeah but Harry Potter is meant for kids... I think that The Bible is more for adults. I mean it's a story told by adults for adults. In that sence it's just as harsh as Potter... Or somethig... ;)

Yeah but Harry Potter is meant for kids... I think that The Bible is more for adults. I mean it's a story told by adults for adults. In that sence it's just as harsh as Potter... Or somethig... ;)
Er, hang on, isnt the point of a parental warning to inform parents that the content is of an 'adult nature'? :confused:

Does the bible really say that? I know that the bible says that a woman shall leave her father to be with her husband. So does it truely say that God Created woman to be subject to men?

The head of the woman is man. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovers dishonors her head.... A man ought not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of man.For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 corinthians 11:3-11:9

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says 1 corinthians 14:34

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-5:24

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.1 Timothy 2:11

Do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 Timothy 2:12

Don't get me started on what the bible says about slaves. :gundge:

Many liberals came to this thread, agreeing that it does need parental warning.

Parental warnings are a form of censorship, however. I thought liberals were against censorship . . . :eek:

Who are you defining as liberals? Would that be anyone who thinks the bible is a dung heap? Just curious...

The Bible is the one true record of God's Word. Some weak-kneed, cowardly, luke-warm Christians cannot handle the Word in all its glory. In my church, Landover Baptist, we don't throw out the parts that make us feel uncomfortable. We acknowledge that every single word written is the True Word of God and must be obeyed by those who wish to avoid being cast into the pit.

Landover Baptist Church

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Let me put it another way.

In many cultures, women are 2nd class citizens. In many of these though, that is slowly changing. Japan is a prime example. I may not like this but it is their culture and it should be respected.

In the Muslim World, women can't do much without their husbands permission. I may not like this however, because it is their culture I have to respect it.

I respect every ones culture be it ethnicity or religion.

Now if you pardon me, I have a 8:00 AM class tomorrow so I'm off to bed!

I guess people decided not to respond to this quote which explains better my stances.

Corneliu,
I could tell you that I ignored your post because it doesnt change the implications of your earlier posts, I could point out how you ignored the point of someone's argument because they 'mis-named' a character, so it's tit for tat....

...I'd be lying though.... :eek:

The first is almost true, however having reviewed back through the thread, I realised that I had attributed posts to you, that were not yours (oops). :rolleyes:

Having ascertained that certain comments that I had evaluated the implications of, were not in fact made by you, I've reconsidered my position, and although it has not changed materially, my former comments are not a full, accurate and fair response to your comments.

Let me put it another way.

In many cultures, women are 2nd class citizens. In many of these though, that is slowly changing. Japan is a prime example. I may not like this but it is their culture and it should be respected.

In the Muslim World, women can't do much without their husbands permission. I may not like this however, because it is their culture I have to respect it.

I respect every ones culture be it ethnicity or religion.
You are talking about relativism. However it is beside the point.

The point is not whether or not the bible should be censored, ridiculed, denounced, restricted, banned, etc. A warning label is simply that, a label that warns, or alerts, or notifies, or informs. If we called them 'notification labels' they would serve the same effect. Not 1 single person has to pay a jot of attention, but they can if they choose to. Respecting religion has nothing to do with it. No one will be denied access except those whose legal guardians choose that they should be. No one's religion is being interfered with, it would simply alert parents that adult themes were presented in an adult fashion, that may not be suitable for their child at this time, or that may only be suitable with parental guidence. People who choose or allow their child/ren access to the OT are entirely within their rights to do so, and certainly no one should interfere with them doing so. However 3 years ago, I wouldnt have known that the OT is inappropriate for many, if not most children to read without adult guidence, if at all....it's the BIBLE, the last place I expected to find that kind of material, presented in that manner.

With regards to being sexist, I still believe that you appear to be sexist due to some of your comments. However, knowing some of the comments I had attributed to you earlier were not yours, I am now more inclined to wonder if perhaps you are young?

@Corn
It is not hatred. It is fact that woman was created from man. And this is why certain practices, such as women covering their heads in worship, are symbolic of their being subject.Best explination I've ever heard.That would be the quote in question. Servus made a hateful comment, and you supported it. That suggests that you agree with his beliefs, and are therefore a sexist. If this is not the case, then I apologize for my accusations.

It's of particular note that not only does Lott not get punished for his actions, he is actually celebrated after the fact, with God saying how it showed how great a man he was.

The chapter I generally point at for sexism is 1 Timothy 2. Contains a number of gems... "I do not allow a woman to speak or to have authority over a man," "man was created first, and then woman, and it was not man who fell into sin but woman who was tempted and sinned," "man was not created for woman, but woman for man," etc. (each is paraphrased from memory)

Paul was clearly a bigot. The question arises about whether you feel his remarks were true, and whether you live by him. If you do not, then you are admiting that it is either not the word of God, or that it has an expiry date on it. If you do, you are a bigot. For fear of creating a false dichotomy, I cannot think of any other alternatives.

@Corn
That would be the quote in question. Servus made a hateful comment, and you supported it. That suggests that you agree with his beliefs, and are therefore a sexist. If this is not the case, then I apologize for my accusations.

It's of particular note that not only does Lott not get punished for his actions, he is actually celebrated after the fact, with God saying how it showed how great a man he was.

The chapter I generally point at for sexism is 1 Timothy 2. Contains a number of gems... "I do not allow a woman to speak or to have authority over a man," "man was created first, and then woman, and it was not man who fell into sin but woman who was tempted and sinned," "man was not created for woman, but woman for man," etc. (each is paraphrased from memory)

Paul was clearly a bigot. The question arises about whether you feel his remarks were true, and whether you live by him. If you do not, then you are admiting that it is either not the word of God, or that it has an expiry date on it. If you do, you are a bigot. For fear of creating a false dichotomy, I cannot think of any other alternatives.

I realized that was the post that was being referred too. I think I took what he said out of context now that I'm looking at it again with a clearer mind. Some of what he said is correct but also on the flip side, it can be taken the wrong way.

As for Paul, I think, and this is my opinion now, he was following the social norms at the time. Remember the area that they are in. They value tradition. I cannot fault them for this. Paul being a bigot is basically correct but also remember that he was also known as the Great Persecutor of Christians too till he was struck blind by God. People Change as does Society. I believe in the social norms of [/b]TODAY[/b] but I juggle it with what the Bible says. I said earlier that the Bible is like a history book. I belive that was his position but it was also the position of many at the time. I do believe however that there were moderates that believe just the opposite from him.

I apologize if I caused some confusion of my own.

With regards to being sexist, I still believe that you appear to be sexist due to some of your comments. However, knowing some of the comments I had attributed to you earlier were not yours, I am now more inclined to wonder if perhaps you are young?

I am young if you can consider 22 young :p

Good. Then we're in agreement. :)

You still haven't made a definitive statement on the Bible, however. You agree that Paul was bigotted, and say that it's a history book... but does that mean you don't consider it to be inspired (and therefore that it is not something we need to live by, even if there are some things in it which we can learn from)?

The Bible is the one true record of God's Word. Some weak-kneed, cowardly, luke-warm Christians cannot handle the Word in all its glory. In my church, Landover Baptist, we don't throw out the parts that make us feel uncomfortable. We acknowledge that every single word written is the True Word of God and must be obeyed by those who wish to avoid being cast into the pit.

Landover Baptist Church

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Ah yes, but please keep in mind that no matter how on-fire you may be for Jesus, Betty Bowers will always be a better Christian than you.

Does the bible really say that? I know that the bible says that a woman shall leave her father to be with her husband. So does it truely say that God Created woman to be subject to men?

Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
(First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians xiI-XV)



Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it...
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.
(Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Ephesians vXXI-XXV, XXXI-XXXIII)

Ok...Here it goes...What I feel both sides are missing is perspective...Woman (Eve) was created from man (Adam) not to be solely subservient but to compliment man. All verses can be taken out of context if read individually...Take Lott and his daughters for example...He offered his daughters to the people of Gomorah and Sodom to protect the angels sent to him by God as a warning of what was about to befall those two cities. Lott felt that it was more important to honour God then defend his daughters...He was wrong on the defense part but his intentions were good...The angels were in no danger but the reaction of the people of the two condemned cities was telling...Look up the account of this in Genesis...As to his daughters trying to get him drunk and lay with him to preserve the seed of their family....It only shows that they too had been corrupted by the wanton sinful nature of the two cities afore mentioned...Every instance in the bible where these issues arise God follows up with just punishment...And just a reminder too all of you out there Christians do not live by Old Test. law they live by and under the grace of Christ who dimissed all of the laws of the OT. but the Ten Commandments....So no we do not believe that slavery is fine or that women should be stoned for being insolent or children for that matter either. God demands through his son that we treat one another with love and forgiveness and grace..."That which you do to the least of these you do also unto me..." So by taking things out of context you can twist Christainity into a religion of hypocrisy and feel justified doing it. Many Christians today make it very easy to do mind you but if one were to delve deeper into the whole teachings of Christ one would see that Christ was not a hypocrit and there for any one Christian or non-Christian using the scriptures improperly will stand in judgement for that... And remember that in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that who so ever should believeth in him will have eternal life and never perish..." I am open to reasonable and intelligent discussion on this... email me at ....
airbornvet2gen@yahoo.com...Thanx and God Bless....
If God's Word is truely holy, then one wouldn't need a history less or theology class to understand it. The very fact that you need to explain anyway all these issues points to the fact that there's a serious issue.

Good. Then we're in agreement. :)

I guess so! LOL!!!

You still haven't made a definitive statement on the Bible, however. You agree that Paul was bigotted, and say that it's a history book... but does that mean you don't consider it to be inspired (and therefore that it is not something we need to live by, even if there are some things in it which we can learn from)?

I never said that I don't consider it to be inspired. There are alot of inspirational stories in there. I have to use the word stories. One of those stories is Ruth and the other one is Esther. These are just two from the Old Testiment. From the New Testiment, Jesus is inspirational. I like how he went against the norms of the day. And yes, Jesus was a real person otherwise, the Muslims wouldn't hold him up to be a prophet. So yea, I consider the Bible to be inspirational. Some of the things in there are archiac by today's standards and I don't hold up all of them at all.

The purpise of that thread was to try point out that the ludicris censorship enfored by the Christian-right-wing-soccer mom, and to point out that it is unfounded. You see, if it is corrupting our youth, then why do they take their moral lessons from a book like this?

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."

And then they claim that they follow the word of god to the letter, and all these evil atheists should move to Canada. Except, they then wear mixed-fabric cloths.

Looked more like a joke to me, using the irony that the warning labels so many christian groups would put on content they find offensive could also be applied to their holy book under the criteria they set forth. I doubt anyone actually wants to put a warning label on the bible.

I, personally, would put Warning stickers on the Bible.

I consider the material utterly inappropriate for minors, and think that the book wouldn't even be in print, but for a special allowance made for 'religious' texts.

I don't think minors should even be allowed to read it, or have it read to them.

Also - warning labels aren't censorship - they are a warning... a device to help the purchaser aware, and to enable self-censorship... which I think IS something that the average 'liberal' could support.

The purpise of that thread was to try point out that the ludicris censorship enfored by the Christian-right-wing-soccer mom, and to point out that it is unfounded. You see, if it is corrupting our youth, then why do they take their moral lessons from a book like this?

And then they claim that they follow the word of god to the letter, and all these evil atheists should move to Canada. Except, they then wear mixed-fabric cloths.

And, on the subject of the Song of Solomon - how is it that the christian right objects to pornographic literature, and yet promotes the reading of pornographic verse to children?

Song of Solomon 2:3 "As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste".

"I sat under his shadow" is a romantic way of saying that the girl in question is on her knees before the man... and it takes no real imagination to work out which 'fruit' she was tasting.


Song of Solomon 4:16 "Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits".

Once again, though slightly romanticised, we have a direct oral reference... the man in question is so tempted by the 'spices of her garden' that he comes to 'eat her fruits'.


Song of Solomon 5:4 "My beloved put in his hand by the hole (of the door), and my bowels were moved for him".

Notice that the words "of the door" are not from the Hebrew - they are an edit, added at a later date to try to reduce the raciness of the imagery. So, the man in question puts his hand by her 'hole' (or translatable as 'cave'), and her 'bowels are moved for him', which is, again, a romantic way of saying she becomes aroused, sexually.


Song of Solomon 7:1 "How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman".

Note, in biblical 'language', the "joint of the thighs" is the area between them.


Song of Solomon 8:2 "I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate".

The 'spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate' is euphemistic - for the 'juice' of the young lady... Yet again, the Song of Solomon delves into the realms of oral techniques.

I, personally, would put Warning stickers on the Bible.

I consider the material utterly inappropriate for minors, and think that the book wouldn't even be in print, but for a special allowance made for 'religious' texts.

I don't think minors should even be allowed to read it, or have it read to them.

Also - warning labels aren't censorship - they are a warning... a device to help the purchaser aware, and to enable self-censorship... which I think IS something that the average 'liberal' could support.

Then I want the samething done to the Koran! Do it for the Bible then do it for ALL religious books.

Then I want the samething done to the Koran! Do it for the Bible then do it for ALL religious books.
i dunno, does the koran have all the sex scenes the bible has? its practically porn

The Bible is the Word of God and is exempt from the censors' interpretation.

The Bible is the Word of God and is exempt from the censors' interpretation.
who needs interpretation, it has this stuff verbatem.

i dunno, does the koran have all the sex scenes the bible has? its practically porn

no just says kill infidels and anyone that isn't muslim so I want that censored

who needs interpretation, it has this stuff verbatem.

What he means is that it can't be censored due to the Constitution of the United States just like the Koran can't be censored for the same reason.

What he means is that it can't be censored due to the Constitution of the United States just like the Koran can't be censored for the same reason.
actually the US is pretty nazi on sexual things, violence is a-ok

actually the US is pretty nazi on sexual things, violence is a-ok

Thanks for the laugh friend. This has got to be the funniest post I've seen tonight.

Ha, that's funny.

Leftists do love censorship though.
Yeah, you just gotta know it's the "leftists" who decide public indecency and obscenity laws as well as traditional/CONSERVATIVE perspectives coupled with religious "morality" that results in censorship. Just gotta be them leftists.
Gotta be them leftists who decide how much of a fine comes across for objectionable material through the FCC, all those leftists running it and bitching about what the public has a right to hear or see.

The Bible is the Word of God and is exempt from the censors' interpretation.
Interesting point since the "Word of God" has been translated and RE-translated HOW MANY TIMES for HOW MANY LANGUAGES?
If it were truly the "word of God" you wouldn't even have a finished version of the Bible as is this far along. Think about it.
Maybe you know some of the original tongues from the original texts but i seriously doubt it.
And furthermore you can't say censorship wasn't involved in the gnostic gospels of St Thomas AND the apocrypha.
So which is it?
Besides, why do so many arrogant humans think they can pin down any sound bite from "god" and think that they have it right since so many of the people who had and do profess (ed) to have ACTUALLY HEARD god don't merit an unmonitored, controlled, or askew involvement with society?
Right, only a couple of people ever "heard" god. Sheesh. The rest of "us" are "deceived".
Sounds like something a few people need to look up. There's already a thread up on IQ ... maybe emotional/psychological stability tests with a focus on delusion are in order.

Parental warnings prevent children from viewing material which could be potentially unsettling to them (for instance, the bible). It's not censorship; if the parents so wish, they can still allow their child to view the material. That's why it's called a parental warning. The parent is responsible for the child, and they know more than anyone what would be unsuitable for them. The warning will alert parents to things which are likely to be inappropriate.
Yep.

Ok, can you point to examples?
How about Onan, where he had to pull out (from WHO? AHEM?) and shoot his load all over the ground?

I actually don't think it's a bad idea. They put it on CDs with "fuck" and "shit" in it, why not in a book that tells women that they were made for men, condones slavery, and that says homosexuals are abominations to God?

God, I wish someone had warned me before I got sucked into that bullshit.
You have my condolences. No sarcasm here.

Interesting point since the "Word of God" has been translated and RE-translated HOW MANY TIMES for HOW MANY LANGUAGES?
If it were truly the "word of God" you wouldn't even have a finished version of the Bible as is this far along. Think about it.
Maybe you know some of the original tongues from the original texts but i seriously doubt it.
And furthermore you can't say censorship wasn't involved in the gnostic gospels of St Thomas AND the apocrypha.
So which is it?
Besides, why do so many arrogant humans think they can pin down any sound bite from "god" and think that they have it right since so many of the people who had and do profess (ed) to have ACTUALLY HEARD god don't merit an unmonitored, controlled, or askew involvement with society?
Right, only a couple of people ever "heard" god. Sheesh. The rest of "us" are "deceived".
Sounds like something a few people need to look up. There's already a thread up on IQ ... maybe emotional/psychological stability tests with a focus on delusion are in order.

The Biblical manuscripts were translated once- no more.

The so-called "gospel of thomas" is late forgery, not a true and canonical Gospel.

You are indeed deceived.

HAHAHA!!! If you actually believed that God caused the Tsunami, then your even more nuts than I thought! Thanks for the laugh!

BTW: You did know that it was an underwater Earthquake that caused the Tsunami right?
and do you need to be reminded how many cases of earthshaking that in the bible are directly attributed to the will and might of "god"?
Are you a "Passion Of the Christ" fan .... remember the embellishment at the crucifixion? Remember? Where do you think the idea came from?

But why should the Bible have a parental warning on it?

Look, if grown adults want to be Christians in the privacy of their own home then that's their own business, but why should their irrational practices mean that I have to explain to my 5 year-old about burnings at the stake, anal pears, and some 2000 year old blood drinking zombie ghost being his own father. That sort of filth does not belong in the public sphere and I deserve the right to protect my family from it.

Look, if grown adults want to be Christians in the privacy of their own home then that's their own business, but why should their practices mean that I have to explain to my 5 year-old about burnings at the stake, anal pears, and some 2000 year old blood drinking zombie ghost being his own father.
Deus vult!

The Biblical manuscripts were translated once- no more.

The so-called "gospel of thomas" is late forgery, not a true and canonical Gospel.

You are indeed deceived.
You are indeed deceived. Nice line. Notice you completely ignored the apocrypha. Who's TRYING to deceive here? I think it's more that you are deceived and simply don't want to feel foolish. Enough people breathe a lie and they can't hear past it. Save yourself before it's too late.
As well, an example of changing through "translation" is the issue of only attaining salvation BY MEANS OF ME for King James (about Jesus) and THROUGH ME for NIV, which mean two different things. Maybe you haven't read them.
And what exact proof that anything posted after 3 AD is either a forgery or not? You are actually committing false witness here, so whatever pseudo-authority you think you can espouse on part of the book is on obviously faulted and convoluted ground.
Canonical meaning by the authority of the church, who are the people who were doing the original editing IN THE FIRST PLACE (as well as a summation and arbitrary date for Xmas while borrowing a few other significances) then you managed to shoot your own arse on your authority as well. They had scripts pertinent to the life of Jesus and kept them but NOTICED THEY DIDN'T FLOW WELL WITH THEIR IDEA OF THE biblical CONSUMMATION AND THUS EXCISED THEM. That didn't in any way diminish their significance, that only prevented large-scale communicability of thought and importance.
So why don't you try one of the tests i mentioned? Before it's too late and you inflict some ignorance on someone else?
You are indeed deceived to think there's only one translation of "the word".
...waiting ....

Well it sure as hell ain't a science book.
Hahaha!

You are indeed deceived. Nice line. Notice you completely ignored the apocrypha. Who's TRYING to deceive here? I think it's more that you are deceived and simply don't want to feel foolish. Enough people breathe a lie and they can't hear past it. Save yourself before it's too late.
As well, an example of changing through "translation" is the issue of only attaining salvation BY MEANS OF ME for King James (about Jesus) and THROUGH ME for NIV, which mean two different things. Maybe you haven't read them.
And what exact proof that anything posted after 3 AD is either a forgery or not? You are actually committing false witness here, so whatever pseudo-authority you think you can espouse on part of the book is on obviously faulted and convoluted ground.
Canonical meaning by the authority of the church, who are the people who were doing the original editing IN THE FIRST PLACE (as well as a summation and arbitrary date for Xmas while borrowing a few other significances) then you managed to shoot your own arse on your authority as well. They had scripts pertinent to the life of Jesus and kept them but NOTICED THEY DIDN'T FLOW WELL WITH THEIR IDEA OF THE biblical CONSUMMATION AND THUS EXCISED THEM. That didn't in any way diminish their significance, that only prevented large-scale communicability of thought and importance.
So why don't you try one of the tests i mentioned? Before it's too late and you inflict some ignorance on someone else?
You are indeed deceived to think there's only one translation of "the word".
...waiting ....


I) What "Apocrypha?"

II) Exactly which verse are you referencing in your "translation issue?"

Then I want the samething done to the Koran! Do it for the Bible then do it for ALL religious books.
Whether or not other religions have a 'warning label' free book from which to worship, isnt really your business in so far as the bible goes. I believe the particular biblical reference to such behaviour is the admonition to not covert thy neighbour.
Tit for tat, isnt the point, of the warning label, the bible, or the Christian faith. If you wish to demonstrate that there are sound reasons due to the content, for placing a warning label on any particular media, I'll happily hear you out with an open mind. This has to be the most childish comment I have read on the forums today....admittedly it's only 2.30 in the afternoon, so perhaps someone will trump it before the day is out...

The Bible is the Word of God and is exempt from the censors' interpretation.
I doubt that you can prove that there is a God, much less that the bible is God's word, and even if you could, what has that got to do with it? At the risk of repeating myself and others, a warning label is not censorship.

no just says kill infidels and anyone that isn't muslim so I want that censored
I doubt you'll get far with that. Religious writings tend to get a certain leeway here that other writings do not.

What he means is that it can't be censored due to the Constitution of the United States just like the Koran can't be censored for the same reason.
Be that as it may, since there seems to be little support for any attempt to censor the bible, it's not particularly relevent either way.

The Biblical manuscripts were translated once- no more.

The so-called "gospel of thomas" is late forgery, not a true and canonical Gospel.

You are indeed deceived.
And you have what proof of this? Those who control the past, control the future, those that control the present control the past. Mayhap you are correct, and equally mayhap dead people who in the past controlled their present, now in their future control you.

My apologies to Mr Orwell...

Whether or not other religions have a 'warning label' free book from which to worship, isnt really your business in so far as the bible goes. I believe the particular biblical reference to such behaviour is the admonition to not covert thy neighbour.
Tit for tat, isnt the point, of the warning label, the bible, or the Christian faith. If you wish to demonstrate that there are sound reasons due to the content, for placing a warning label on any particular media, I'll happily hear you out with an open mind. This has to be the most childish comment I have read on the forums today....admittedly it's only 2.30 in the afternoon, so perhaps someone will trump it before the day is out...


I doubt that you can prove that there is a God, much less that the bible is God's word, and even if you could, what has that got to do with it? At the risk of repeating myself and others, a warning label is not censorship.


I doubt you'll get far with that. Religious writings tend to get a certain leeway here that other writings do not.


Be that as it may, since there seems to be little support for any attempt to censor the bible, it's not particularly relevent either way.


And you have what proof of this? Those who control the past, control the future, those that control the present control the past. Mayhap you are correct, and equally mayhap dead people who in the past controlled their present, now in their future control you.

My apologies to Mr Orwell...
Good post.

and do you need to be reminded how many cases of earthshaking that in the bible are directly attributed to the will and might of "god"?
Are you a "Passion Of the Christ" fan .... remember the embellishment at the crucifixion? Remember? Where do you think the idea came from?

One minor problem! I never saw the Passion of the Christ so I don't know what your talking about. As for earthquakes that are in the Bible attributed to God, I'm sure that is what they thought. Look at where the Fault Lines run in conjuction with the Earthquakes. Some of those areas are Earthquake prone.

I don't believe in any mythology. The facts of Creation as found in Genesis, are of course what I believe. Evolutionism is atheism.
Okay, you like to think you're an authority here, and not for contradiction's sake but curiosity and the appreciation of spirit,
i implore you prove your last statement. Show any/all of us, either write me specifically or post it for everyone to see, just exactly which lines in the bible specifically exclude any possibility of evolution as part of the manifestation of god's will. Prove it. I don't mean parable. I don't mean summation. I mean a literal understanding of the subject matter and a case of definition IN THE BIBLE. Not from some ego-inflated idiot with a damaged case of script envy.
...waiting ...

Because it obtains adult themes, objectionable material and deals with themes that may be disturbing to some. Most particularly it deals with adult themes in a manner utterly incomprehensible to most children. Rather than having to explain why you should kill your daughter in law for being a whore, unless you find out you happened to be her customer, or why it's ok to rape your slaves as long as you scourge them afterwards, I'd rather be warned the material may not be appropriate for my child, so I can review it and decide whether or not I want my child to have access to such material at this point in their life.

As for being censorship, as it happens I dont see how informing someone about the content of a book is in any way shape of form censorship of that book. As for parents who choose to not let their children have access, you can call it anything you like, but I call it parenting, I see no reason why it should be assumed that every 'leftest' is 'anti-parenting'.


The reality is few parents can afford to not work and still provide material necessities for their children. Time is limited, I certainly do not have the time and money necessary to review every peice of media before my child has access to it. Tell me, are you going to sit through every single episode of the teletubbies?

I agree that parents should research things likely to be objectional or inappropriate, which is why I agree with the ideology behind warning labels, the whole point is such labels clearly point out that the material may be likely to be inappropriate. This narrows down greatly the material which I must review, I can confidently take my children to watch the latest G rated movie, and review PGR movies on video before deciding whether or not it is appropriate for my child. I cannot afford to go to the movies by myself, simply to preview the movie before taking my child to see it, neither (considering the age appropriate content) am I inclined to sit throught a child's movie more times than I must.


Welcome to free marketing, where private entities get to choose what they will and wont sell, and customers get to choose where they buy things....you do realise that leftism and free marketism are far from synomous terms?


It's not a stretch, it's downright false. Customers choose to only shop at certain stores until no other stores are viable, isnt censorship, it's free markets doing their free market thing.


Were they, where? As an adult I missed it, dont you think children with their shorter concentration spans, more limited vocabulary etc will most certainly not comprehend this, even if it is in there?

....the biblical presentation of adult themes isnt straight forward enough that adults can agree on what it means, you can be certain that presenting such adult themes to children in such a confusing, difficult to interpret manner, isnt a good idea.

As for exposing children to the 'real world', no sensible parent exposes their child to all of the 'real world' ahead of that child's ability to cope, and/or in a manner not consistent with the particular child's comprehension. Where such themes are addressed in media, parents should be forewarned so that they can decide if their child is ready to deal with the themes as they are presented.

I
Indeed it was Lot, that is if you are referring to the fellow who wanted to give his virgin daughters to a whole city, so they could do whatever they wanted with them, and whose wife conviniently disapeared on the journey to the mountain, purportedly because she 'turned around', but in my opinion (especially since we all know that there were no 'witnesses' except Lot who conviniently was the one to explain to the daughter the demise of their mother), really because Lot wanted some 'alone' time with the soon not to be virgin daughters.


That is your opinion, you may choose to expose your children to such adult themes in such an incomprehensible format, however I believe I too should be able to choose whether or not my children are exposed to the adult themes and their questionable presentation, in for instance, the Old Testament of the bible. A warning label doesnt prevent you from exposing your children or yourself to such material, so it should be no skin off your nose if such a label is placed on the bible.


It's not normal now, so are you suggesting the bible is outdated, and the word of God has a use by date, or are you actually conceding that the bible isnt the word of God, but rather the dated writings of the current religious leaders at the time/s of it's authoring?


Children are created of the bodies of their parents, but they are not subserviant to, or less than their parents, not morally or in the eyes of the law. The authority that parents have over their children is soley for the purpose of ensuring the well being of the child/ren until the child/ren are of an age where they can ensure their own well-being. Anyone who considers that their children are subserviant to them, is in my mind sick. Just like a national leader, the respect and obediance due a parent is soley for the purpose of ensuring the well being of those whose well being they have been entrusted with. The authority exists not for it's own sake, but rather so that the person so entrusted is able to carry out the duty they bear their charge. Women are not needful of being in the charge of another. The kind of authority granted to men over women, in the bible isnt for the well being of the women, but rather is exploitive and about ownership and the ego/desires of the men placed in authority over them. That is not moral or ethical, indeed exploitation never is either moral or ethical. No person should ever exercise authority over any other person, simply to suit their own ends.
Again a good post. Hats off to you, if i were wearing one.
Also, not just Teletubbies but Spongebob now! *shudder*

Hmm, so you're a racist, too. Awesome.

Define savage. Does savage just mean "doesn't fit the mold"?
According to right-wing radio, it also means "Michael".
;)

According to right-wing radio, it also means "Michael".
;)
Right-wing radio with a "Michael" and savage? :confused:

Okay, you like to think you're an authority here, and not for contradiction's sake but curiosity and the appreciation of spirit,
i implore you prove your last statement. Show any/all of us, either write me specifically or post it for everyone to see, just exactly which lines in the bible specifically exclude any possibility of evolution as part of the manifestation of god's will. Prove it. I don't mean parable. I don't mean summation. I mean a literal understanding of the subject matter and a case of definition IN THE BIBLE. Not from some ego-inflated idiot with a damaged case of script envy.
...waiting ...
Just open Genesis...

Are you a Protestant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Servus Dei
Who cares about some savage tribe?

God created woman to be subject to man. This is re-iterated throughout the Word of God.

Does the bible really say that? I know that the bible says that a woman shall leave her father to be with her husband. So does it truely say that God Created woman to be subject to men?
I'm unconvinced this "individual" has bothered to read the book or maybe even all the Cliff's notes. Nothing i've seen from "it" so far is any better than a ho-hum Sunday school diatribe.
Good of you to keep "it" in check, though. I'm sure a few other questions of veracity will come to mind if this keeps up long enough.

I'm unconvinced this "individual" has bothered to read the book or maybe even all the Cliff's notes. Nothing i've seen from "it" so far is any better than a ho-hum Sunday school diatribe.
Good of you to keep "it" in check, though. I'm sure a few other questions of veracity will come to mind if this keeps up long enough.
Reading this thread selectively, Straughn?

Several quotations (out of many) from the Bible were already put into use in proving that point.

Just open Genesis...

Are you a Protestant?

WHat does knowing what type of demonination have to do with anything?

Just open Genesis...

Are you a Protestant?
Probably not by the average definition although i do protest the actions of the church that resulted in the split into protestantism, somewhat. I appreciate Luther as well. There are quite a few original trickle-offs in faith from the book that have good intent IMO but often get just as backloaded as the main church subscribers keep pertinent. For all using the same word, how come they all don't agree and become unitarian?
Not a facetious question. It's pertinent to my first lengthy post on this thread.

Reading this thread selectively, Straughn?

Several quotations (out of many) from the Bible were already put into use in proving that point.
I'm at page 7 or so, catching up as is often the case, and in fairness, you are probably interpreting my response selectively, as i did point out it's good to keep people in check here.

WHat does knowing what type of demonination have to do with anything?
Your misspelling as "demonination" was perhaps intentional by God...

Just open Genesis...

Are you a Protestant?
I read the King James and the NIV Genesis.
I asked you to provide a specific instance. You didn't. Hence the post on my part saying "....waiting ...."
So .....
And in response, are you a subscriber to tautology?

Probably not by the average definition although i do protest the actions of the church that resulted in the split into protestantism, somewhat. I appreciate Luther as well. There are quite a few original trickle-offs in faith from the book that have good intent IMO but often get just as backloaded as the main church subscribers keep pertinent. For all using the same word, how come they all don't agree and become unitarian?
Not a facetious question. It's pertinent to my first lengthy post on this thread.
How come who doesn't become unitarian? What word are they all using that justifies this?

Your misspelling as "demonination" was perhaps intentional by God...
Heh! FINALLY some good expressive humour.

Your misspelling as "demonination" was perhaps intentional by God...

Excuse the hell out of me!

How come who doesn't become unitarian? What word are they all using that justifies this?
The "WORD OF GOD" that you espouse has only one translation. Interesting theory but through the function of living obviously comes across very different in intent function and ultimately form. Why do you think "DEMON-ination" means anything at all? You're keeping up, right?

Excuse the hell out of me!
Hahaha! More good humour!
(Not of the four humours, for those who are keeping track ...) ;)

I read the King James and the NIV Genesis.
I asked you to provide a specific instance. You didn't. Hence the post on my part saying "....waiting ...."
So .....
And in response, are you a subscriber to tautology?
Who asked about translations now?

Rather petty thing to require yet...

in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras appellavitque lucem diem et tenebras noctem factumque est vespere et mane dies unus dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus dixit vero Deus congregentur aquae quae sub caelo sunt in locum unum et appareat arida factumque est ita et vocavit Deus aridam terram congregationesque aquarum appellavit maria et vidit Deus quod esset bonum et ait germinet terra herbam virentem et facientem semen et lignum pomiferum faciens fructum iuxta genus suum cuius semen in semet ipso sit super terram et factum est ita et protulit terra herbam virentem et adferentem semen iuxta genus suum lignumque faciens fructum et habens unumquodque sementem secundum speciem suam et vidit Deus quod esset bonum factumque est vespere et mane dies tertius dixit autem Deus fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli ut dividant diem ac noctem et sint in signa et tempora et dies et annos ut luceant in firmamento caeli et inluminent terram et factum est ita fecitque Deus duo magna luminaria luminare maius ut praeesset diei et luminare minus ut praeesset nocti et stellas et posuit eas in firmamento caeli ut lucerent super terram et praeessent diei ac nocti et dividerent lucem ac tenebras et vidit Deus quod esset bonum et factum est vespere et mane dies quartus dixit etiam Deus producant aquae reptile animae viventis et volatile super terram sub firmamento caeli creavitque Deus cete grandia et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem quam produxerant aquae in species suas et omne volatile secundum genus suum et vidit Deus quod esset bonum benedixitque eis dicens crescite et multiplicamini et replete aquas maris avesque multiplicentur super terram et factum est vespere et mane dies quintus dixit quoque Deus producat terra animam viventem in genere suo iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas factumque est ita et fecit Deus bestias terrae iuxta species suas et iumenta et omne reptile terrae in genere suo et vidit Deus quod esset bonum et ait faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram et praesit piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et bestiis universaeque terrae omnique reptili quod movetur in terra et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos benedixitque illis Deus et ait crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram et subicite eam et dominamini piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et universis animantibus quae moventur super terram dixitque Deus ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam adferentem semen super terram et universa ligna quae habent in semet ipsis sementem generis sui ut sint vobis in escam et cunctis animantibus terrae omnique volucri caeli et universis quae moventur in terra et in quibus est anima vivens ut habeant ad vescendum et factum est ita viditque Deus cuncta quae fecit et erant valde bona et factum est vespere et mane dies sextus
(Liber Genesis i)

Ok...Here it goes...What I feel both sides are missing is perspective...Woman (Eve) was created from man (Adam) not to be solely subservient but to compliment man. All verses can be taken out of context if read individually...Take Lott and his daughters for example...He offered his daughters to the people of Gomorah and Sodom to protect the angels sent to him by God as a warning of what was about to befall those two cities. Lott felt that it was more important to honour God then defend his daughters...He was wrong on the defense part but his intentions were good...The angels were in no danger but the reaction of the people of the two condemned cities was telling...Look up the account of this in Genesis...As to his daughters trying to get him drunk and lay with him to preserve the seed of their family....It only shows that they too had been corrupted by the wanton sinful nature of the two cities afore mentioned...Every instance in the bible where these issues arise God follows up with just punishment...And just a reminder too all of you out there Christians do not live by Old Test. law they live by and under the grace of Christ who dimissed all of the laws of the OT. but the Ten Commandments....So no we do not believe that slavery is fine or that women should be stoned for being insolent or children for that matter either. God demands through his son that we treat one another with love and forgiveness and grace..."That which you do to the least of these you do also unto me..." So by taking things out of context you can twist Christainity into a religion of hypocrisy and feel justified doing it. Many Christians today make it very easy to do mind you but if one were to delve deeper into the whole teachings of Christ one would see that Christ was not a hypocrit and there for any one Christian or non-Christian using the scriptures improperly will stand in judgement for that... And remember that in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that who so ever should believeth in him will have eternal life and never perish..." I am open to reasonable and intelligent discussion on this... email me at ....
airbornvet2gen@yahoo.com...Thanx and God Bless....
Good for you. My hat's off to you as well.
However, it should be noted that there is quite a bit to say Jesus was a practicing Jew, and could not be the Christ as had been prophecied without being so. In effect, a true CHRISTIAN and not just a Jesus-of-Nazareth or even a Nazarene must observe Jewish law as well. Makes for quite the conundrum. I do appreciate your post though.

Good for you. My hat's off to you as well.
However, it should be noted that there is quite a bit to say Jesus was a practicing Jew, and could not be the Christ as had been prophecied without being so. In effect, a true CHRISTIAN and not just a Jesus-of-Nazareth or even a Nazarene must observe Jewish law as well. Makes for quite the conundrum. I do appreciate your post though.

But Jesus didn't come for the Jews. He came to save the Gentiles (non-believers)!

Who asked about translations now?

Rather petty thing to require yet...

in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras appellavitque lucem diem et tenebras noctem factumque est vespere et mane dies unus dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus dixit vero Deus congregentur aquae quae sub caelo sunt in locum unum et appareat arida factumque est ita et vocavit Deus aridam terram congregationesque aquarum appellavit maria et vidit Deus quod esset bonum et ait germinet terra herbam virentem et facientem semen et lignum pomiferum faciens fructum iuxta genus suum cuius semen in semet ipso sit super terram et factum est ita et protulit terra herbam virentem et adferentem semen iuxta genus suum lignumque faciens fructum et habens unumquodque sementem secundum speciem suam et vidit Deus quod esset bonum factumque est vespere et mane dies tertius dixit autem Deus fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli ut dividant diem ac noctem et sint in signa et tempora et dies et annos ut luceant in firmamento caeli et inluminent terram et factum est ita fecitque Deus duo magna luminaria luminare maius ut praeesset diei et luminare minus ut praeesset nocti et stellas et posuit eas in firmamento caeli ut lucerent super terram et praeessent diei ac nocti et dividerent lucem ac tenebras et vidit Deus quod esset bonum et factum est vespere et mane dies quartus dixit etiam Deus producant aquae reptile animae viventis et volatile super terram sub firmamento caeli creavitque Deus cete grandia et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem quam produxerant aquae in species suas et omne volatile secundum genus suum et vidit Deus quod esset bonum benedixitque eis dicens crescite et multiplicamini et replete aquas maris avesque multiplicentur super terram et factum est vespere et mane dies quintus dixit quoque Deus producat terra animam viventem in genere suo iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas factumque est ita et fecit Deus bestias terrae iuxta species suas et iumenta et omne reptile terrae in genere suo et vidit Deus quod esset bonum et ait faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram et praesit piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et bestiis universaeque terrae omnique reptili quod movetur in terra et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos benedixitque illis Deus et ait crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram et subicite eam et dominamini piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et universis animantibus quae moventur super terram dixitque Deus ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam adferentem semen super terram et universa ligna quae habent in semet ipsis sementem generis sui ut sint vobis in escam et cunctis animantibus terrae omnique volucri caeli et universis quae moventur in terra et in quibus est anima vivens ut habeant ad vescendum et factum est ita viditque Deus cuncta quae fecit et erant valde bona et factum est vespere et mane dies sextus
(Liber Genesis i)
Again, you evade the point.
A thought, though, do you betray the "word of god" by using English and all of its connotation?
So in being the tongue of the "mother church" established in print after a good many of the people who'd been CONQUERED BY ROMANS, this represents the "word of god", or the "word of the converted"?
Your point is? BTW, it's a good thing that spanish and italian haven't swayed too much from the original text. Like they had in the Life of Brian, the trick is in the conjugation.
So list me the example where "god" says to ANYONE that evolution is not part of its plan. I wait. I'm not waiting for you to try and pull a superiority complex. Like i said, there's already another post up right now for people with that self-delusion, or "deception" as you so affectionably agree to put it.
....waiting...

But Jesus didn't come for the Jews. He came to save the Gentiles (non-believers)!
What i said was that he was A PRACTICING JEW. Although he rebelled ultimately against the elders, did he not continue to adhere to Jewish law? I didn't ask anything about who he came to save. I pointed out that in order to actually be a CHRISTIAN <---- Here is the point ----< then AS A TITLE REFERENTIAL TO THE PROPHECY he would have to be PAART & PARCEL of consummation of Jewish law and practice!

The OT makes it very clear that females are the subserviant property of men. Why else should a man be allowed to sell his daughter into slavery, why is that a women found to be not virgin on her wedding night is to be stoned to death in front of the house of her father, yet men who attempt to wrongfully have their wives murdered by falsely accusing them of being not virgin on the wedding night, recieve only a fine?

And how many children do you know who can concentrate long enough to get the full context?


No actually, Lott had no idea they were angels, to him they were simply two strangers.

As pointed out, the two were simply strangers to him, he had no idea they were messangers of God, or agents of God, or angels etc. He just thought they were a couple of passers through he had offered his hospitality to.

I've read the story, it is part of the reason why I believe that parents should be forewarned about the content of the bible, so they can read it and decide for themselve if it is appropriate material for their children.


I for one do not believe a couple of virgins who couldnt have been out of their teens, got their father drunk and raped him. I do find it easy to believe that a man got drunk and raped both his daughters. It may not be common place, but it sure as heck happens more often than does fathers getting raped by their daughters. Frankly unless he was concious, how did he get it up? If he were concious, I dont care how drunk he is, I wouldnt accept 'my daughters got me drunk' if a pedophillic incestuous father was in court accused of raping his children and I was on the jury. Would you?


Actually it just goes to show how sexist the writers of the bible were.


No that isnt true, or if it is, an adult can miss the point, which means it is certain that a child would. We are not discussing whether or not the themes presented are acceptable, or done so morally, we are discussing whether or not they be presented inappropriately for children, to the extent where parents should be warned so they can make their own decision about the suitability of the text with regards to their children. The fact is few if any children are able to comprehend and cognisise to the extent where the presentation of the themes contained in the OT bible is appropriate material for them.

Whether or not all, or no people abide by the OT isnt relevent to deciding whether or not the themes therein are appropriate, either in themselves or as presented, for children.

Aha, so why do we assume that reading about these things as though they are good and right, is appropriate reading for children.

'
Something that is not made apparent throughout much of the OT.


Actually so far as I can see, taken in context, much of the OT is simply perverse. Regardless, the point is if adults have trouble comprehending the alledged finer message in amongst the rape, genocide, endorsement of slavery and the general hypocrisy presented in the bible, you can be certain that most children will have more trouble doing so.


Many christians any day are neither a credit to themselves or their religion, but then the OT isnt a credit to itself or the religion it espouses either. It is most unfortunate that many people lack the ability to understand that some christians are 'X', is entirely distinct from all christians are 'X'. I can only suggest that you continue your efforts to prove otherwise, although I sadly can offer you no gaurentee of success. The unfortunate fact is common sense is more common than good sense.
Again a good post.

Ok so here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378352) is the thread if anybody is wondering.

Many liberals came to this thread, agreeing that it does need parental warning.

Parental warnings are a form of censorship, however. I thought liberals were against censorship . . . :eek:
Wow I didn't beleive it, but republicans really don't get sarcasm or irony do they.

Again, you evade the point.
A thought, though, do you betray the "word of god" by using English and all of its connotation?
So in being the tongue of the "mother church" established in print after a good many of the people who'd been CONQUERED BY ROMANS, this represents the "word of god", or the "word of the converted"?
Your point is? BTW, it's a good thing that spanish and italian haven't swayed too much from the original text. Like they had in the Life of Brian, the trick is in the conjugation.
I'm really trying to figure that out about you right now here.

So list me the example where "god" says to ANYONE that evolution is not part of its plan. I wait. I'm not waiting for you to try and pull a superiority complex. Like i said, there's already another post up right now for people with that self-delusion, or "deception" as you so affectionably agree to put it.
....waiting...

God created the world and everything on it in six days, as stated in the Bible.
This is incompatible with the atheist poison of evolution.

@Corn
That would be the quote in question. Servus made a hateful comment, and you supported it. That suggests that you agree with his beliefs, and are therefore a sexist. If this is not the case, then I apologize for my accusations.

It's of particular note that not only does Lott not get punished for his actions, he is actually celebrated after the fact, with God saying how it showed how great a man he was.

The chapter I generally point at for sexism is 1 Timothy 2. Contains a number of gems... "I do not allow a woman to speak or to have authority over a man," "man was created first, and then woman, and it was not man who fell into sin but woman who was tempted and sinned," "man was not created for woman, but woman for man," etc. (each is paraphrased from memory)

Paul was clearly a bigot. The question arises about whether you feel his remarks were true, and whether you live by him. If you do not, then you are admiting that it is either not the word of God, or that it has an expiry date on it. If you do, you are a bigot. For fear of creating a false dichotomy, I cannot think of any other alternatives.
Good post.

Good post.
You just love any way you can increase your post count....

I'm really trying to figure that out about you right now here.



God created the world and everything on it in six days, as stated in the Bible.
This is incompatible with the atheist poison of evolution.
M'kay, here's where the ignorance glares off the monitor. Or the skull, from the inside.
What i said SPECIFICALLY is show me ANY post where evolution is NOT A MANIFESTATION OF god's will. You still haven't. You merely re,re,reiterated script that says god created things.
As for poison, you've obviously never considered how your spiritual vessel of a body came to be as an amalgamation in the first place.
The CHURCH was the one responsible for the idea of "static earth", since there ISN'T any text to support it literally at all. Evidence also clearly supports that biological organisms change and morph. That's the whole point.
If you want to argue about evolution in terms of man coming from monkeys and not "the image of god" (and there's definitely a misunderstanding of the word "image" here) then you obviously don't know very much about evolution itself and are simply parroting things you've heard. Other than the boat that Darwin was on (quick, what is it), when he determined that mutability of species was legit, just who do you think you're quoting when you think you represent an understanding of what evolution is?
....waiting ....
Deceived, indeed. I hope you aren't crying out for deific mercy on your deathbed due being too stunted in life to accept the obvious.

Straughn, even if they didnt come from such an erudite source your kind compliments would have me blushing....
I'd prove it with a smiley face, but none of the 'red faced' ones seem appropriate somehow....

maybe this one :cool:, red faced and hiding behind glasses....plus it kinda doubles a :cool: 'secret agent' smiley :cool: ('cause we all know secret agent types are never without they raybans) for added protection.....

You just love any way you can increase your post count....
Heh! Not so shallow, unfortunately, else i'd be popping on every other post as well, and not bothering to quantify AND qualify my argument. If you don't have any legit answer to any of my other posts, okay, take a smoke break and give me your strawman attack. You're a latin fan, or at least act like one, here's one for you .... non sequitir. You would do well for the right-wing mouthpieces with that type of "logical" perogative.
And you still haven't addressed your fondness for tautology.
...waiting...

Straughn, even if they didnt come from such an erudite source your kind compliments would have me blushing....
I'd prove it with a smiley face, but none of the 'red faced' ones seem appropriate somehow....

maybe this one :cool:, red faced and hiding behind glasses....plus it kinda doubles a :cool: 'secret agent' smiley :cool: ('cause we all know secret agent types are never without they raybans) for added protection.....
If that's sarcasm, good. ;)
I admire your posts. More people should be as noble in expression as yourself. You've earned it.

Zounds! (means: God's wounds)
I didn't get enough time to argue. I didn't pay for the whole half-hour .... ;)
Telegrams are an option, if brevity is a necessity here, else i'll pop on some time tonight ....
real life again takes precedence. maybe that mirrors something i recently posted ... *sigh*
BTW, that was fun. No hardships for any who don't deserve, in my hopes.
Shalom (literally)

If that's sarcasm, good. ;)
Well maybe I wasnt completely serious about the secret agent smileys...


but I really am blushing....compliments always did scare me more than challenges...

If you see a bright red glow on the horizon, that'll be me....

Well maybe I wasnt completely serious about the secret agent smileys...


but I really am blushing....compliments always did scare me more than challenges...

If you see a bright red glow on the horizon, that'll be me....
Seems to me that keeping noble in intent, and the risks that come with it, are a challenge enough, especially in days of late where there is so much betrayal of thought and ideal. Good luck to you.
BTW, just poppin' in. There's a "What do Humans think" thread i'm gonna check out. I'll be off again soon anyway, offer still stands on the telegrams.
Nasdravlje

Then I want the samething done to the Koran! Do it for the Bible then do it for ALL religious books.

I totally agree.

I think all such texts should come with a warning.

If they were 'secular' texts - they'd be banned... they should AT LEAST carry a warning label.

"Warning: Content may not be suitable for minors".

That kind of thing.

Grave n Idle, I have a question (out of curiosity) . . . what is your political orientation?

Ok, I really think that that is utterly ridiculous... why would you put a warning on God's word, yes it may be harsh sometimes but children eventually need to learn about what God has to say to us. PLAIN RIDICULOUSNESS!

My god, I dont think I've ever seen a joke over analysed as much as this. Hmm, you obviously haven't done English classes recently.

Anyway - I'm generally opposed to censorship (probably because it effects me). The idea that Alien and Doom 3 will turn me into a psychopath is ridiculous, as is the legality that you can go to war when 16, but you can't watch certain war films.

But I digress.

Grave n Idle, I have a question (out of curiosity) . . . what is your political orientation?

Depends on how you define 'political orientation'.

Ok, I really think that that is utterly ridiculous... why would you put a warning on God's word, yes it may be harsh sometimes but children eventually need to learn about what God has to say to us. PLAIN RIDICULOUSNESS!
The bible may or may not be God's word, parents have a right to choose or not choose to teach or expose their children to what may or may not be God's word, and when (if at all) to do so. Many parents may be utterly unaware that the bible contains material that is in itself inappropriate, or inappropriately presented. If you truely believe that all parents should have to abide by your religious beliefs, you are welcome to be a religious bigot, but the rest of us are equally welcome to ignore your biggotry to whatever extent we are able. And that includes having warning labels on material that might be inappropriate for children, regardless how ridiculous you think it is. No one is saying that you must take any notice whatsoever of such warnings, so why does it even effect you, much less bother you either way?

What i said was that he was A PRACTICING JEW. Although he rebelled ultimately against the elders, did he not continue to adhere to Jewish law? I didn't ask anything about who he came to save. I pointed out that in order to actually be a CHRISTIAN <---- Here is the point ----< then AS A TITLE REFERENTIAL TO THE PROPHECY he would have to be PAART & PARCEL of consummation of Jewish law and practice!
Yes Jesus was a practicing Jew...And he did come for the Jews first but when they rejected him he took his ministry to the gentiles...

Looked more like a joke to me, using the irony that the warning labels so many christian groups would put on content they find offensive could also be applied to their holy book under the criteria they set forth. I doubt anyone actually wants to put a warning label on the bible.
Why not? Should dangerous literature not be labelled? Parents could then see that someone else has actually read it instead of just picking the more pleasing parts.

Yes Jesus was a practicing Jew...And he did come for the Jews first but when they rejected him he took his ministry to the gentiles...??? Any evidence for that statement? BTW if the Jews had not "rejected" him and had him executed, how would he then have died to achieve his "purpose" ?

Look, if grown adults want to be Christians in the privacy of their own home then that's their own business, but why should their irrational practices mean that I have to explain to my 5 year-old about burnings at the stake, anal pears, and some 2000 year old blood drinking zombie ghost being his own father. That sort of filth does not belong in the public sphere and I deserve the right to protect my family from it.Are you being sarcastic ?

??? Any evidence for that statement? BTW if the Jews had not "rejected" him and had him executed, how would he then have died to achieve his "purpose" ?I am not condemning the Jews...I am stating the facts..Christ was to die no matter and the Jews are not responsible for that....Sinners are...And we are all sinners..Most especially me...

The head of the woman is man. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovers dishonors her head.... A man ought not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of man.For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 corinthians 11:3-11:9

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says 1 corinthians 14:34

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-5:24

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.1 Timothy 2:11

Do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 Timothy 2:12

Don't get me started on what the bible says about slaves. :gundge:
Please read further on your quote from Ephesians where Paul waxes on about how Men are to love their wives just as Christ Loves the Church...So wha tyou do not understand is that God/Christ layed out many very explicit ways for men and women to treat one another and it was all intended to lead to more loving and stable marriages and families...

And the letters don't count anyways.

And the letters don't count anyways.

And why not?