NationStates Jolt Archive

Not quite, but close. Activists are asking censors in Hong Kong to ban it on grounds that it's obscene, as it contains incest, violence and assorted obscenity not suitable for general consumption. I looked up the link after reading it in the local papers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG26218320070516


HONG KONG (Reuters) - More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon Wednesday.

The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- www.truthbible.net -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.

The Web site said the Bible's sexual content "far exceeds" that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University's "Student Press" magazine, which had asked readers whether they'd ever fantasized about incest or bestiality.

That column was later deemed "indecent" by the Obscene Articles Tribunal, sparking a storm of debate about social morality and freedom of speech. Student editors of the journal defended it, saying open sexual debate was a basic right.

If the Bible is similarly classified as "indecent" by authorities, only those over 18 could buy the holy book and it would need to be sealed in a wrapper with a statutory warning notice.

TELA said it was still undecided on whether the Bible had violated Hong Kong's obscene and indecent articles laws.

But a local protestant minister shrugged off this possibility.


"If there is rape mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't mean it encourages those activities," said Reverend Wu Chi-wai. "It's just common sense ... I don't think that criticism will have strong support from the public," he added.

You'd think a reverend would know if there is or isn't rape mentioned in it. As for not encouraging it, well, that's never usually worked as an excuse for non-censorship.

I can hear the 'oh how we're persecuted' crowd now.

I can hear the 'oh how we're persecuted' crowd now.

Christianity is a religion that was created from persecution, driven by exclusion, and founded by a group of batshit crazy Romans. I really don't see why it got so popular.

Sweet poetic justice. Not really justice, as banning reading material/religion is against everything I stand for, but whatever.

They're not wrong!

Well, it is. If religious types want stuff to be censored, they need to be able to deal with their stuff being censored.

ROFL!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D This is by far the most amusing thing I've read today! :D

Anyway... the Bible doesn't just have incest or indecent amounts of sex... it has alcohol too! And the Song (or book, depending on which version you have) of Solomon! It has gays and wine and incest and tons of begetting...and sex... and swearing (count how many times you see the word "ass")! If any author had written such a book today they would be banned and burned and flamed out the wazoo, but the Bible is perfectly fine since it was written 2000 years ago and is the holy text of an entire religion! :rolleyes: :p :D

Sorry... but this is really funny...

haha

the holy text of an entire religion! :rolleyes: :p :D

Exactly like the Kama Sutra!

I'm making a joke, I'm not actually this thick.

Exactly like the Kama Sutra!

I'm making a joke, I'm not actually this thick.

But the Bible is Christianity's only holy text, the Kama Sutra isn't the only one for its religion.

Christianity is a religion that was created from persecution, driven by exclusion, and founded by a group of batshit crazy Romans. I really don't see why it got so popular.

Not to mention that its one holy text is filled with sex, violence, rape, wine, and swearing. And some of its writers were quite clearly on drugs (have you ever read Revelations? :eek:)

As I said, if somebody today tried writing that, they'd have their work banned and burned and flamed out hte wazoo.

But the Bible is Christianity's only holy text, the Kama Sutra isn't the only one for its religion.

It's really not even part of the religion...

But the Bible is Christianity's only holy text, the Kama Sutra isn't the only one for its religion.

...Are YOU that thick?

Not to be rude, but...you do know what the Kama Sutra IS, don't you?

...Are YOU that thick?

Not to be rude, but...you do know what the Kama Sutra IS, don't you?

You do realize she's 15...right? Tad young to know what the Kama Sutra is...

You do realize she's 15...right? Tad young to know what the Kama Sutra is...

I knew what the Kama Sutra was when I was even younger then that...

You do realize she's 15...right? Tad young to know what the Kama Sutra is...

I have to admit, I only have an extremely vague idea. I've heard of it, that's pretty much it. :(

I have to admit, I only have an extremely vague idea. I've heard of it, that's pretty much it. :(

It's a great big book of sexual positions, many of which, from what I understand, no human is capable of.

...Are YOU that thick?

Not to be rude, but...you do know what the Kama Sutra IS, don't you?
Filled with sex, that's it. And associated (though very loosely, from what I understand... though I undersand little) with religion. Kind of.

Feh...

I knew what the Kama Sutra was when I was even younger then that...

I have to admit, I only have an extremely vague idea. I've heard of it, that's pretty much it. :(

Why is it that, suddenly, at the age of 20, I feel so fucking old? :(

It's a great big book of sexual positions, many of which, from what I understand, no human is capable of.

You'd be surprised...

Why is it that, suddenly, at the age of 20, I feel so fucking old? :(

You must've lived in a lame place.

It's a great big book of sexual positions, many of which, from what I understand, no human is capable of.

I see... actually I don't want to :eek:

I also seem to vaguely recall that another site that did an article on religion said that it said not to sleep with redheads... or was that another one? :confused:

Hey, finally people are realising that such things need to be censored! It's about time! But really, they're not going far enough! We need to outlaw Shakespeare, and all the other nutters like him! I mean, for crying out loud, have you ever even READ Shakespeare's works? OH THE HORROR! They're disgusting and vile, and all shakespearian actors need to be locked up and never released!

And that travesty of a book, the 'encyclopaedia'... ugh, what a violent, horrid pile of evil! What with all the nasty wars and sordid descriptions of naughty bits... IT HAS TO GO! I won't even mention the hated dictionary... why I read one the other day with THREE naughty words in it! For shame!

And when you turn on the TV it just gets worse! I watched this terrible program last night called the 'evening news' and I almost threw up then and there! Murder, wars, violence... it's disgraceful!

And while we're at it, we need to ban the laws forbidding rape and murder, because they mention rape and murder! Oh please, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

You must've lived in a lame place.

Suburban NJ counts I suppose.


God damnit, I need to go down to Philly and get wasted. NOW. Memorial Day weekend is too far away.

I see... actually I don't want to :eek:

I also seem to vaguely recall that another site that did an article on religion said that it said not to sleep with redheads... or was that another one? :confused:

I don't recall that being in the- err I don't recall hearing of that being in there...

Funny story:

I'm Indian, as a few of you know. I was volunteering at the Liberty Science Center in upstate NJ back in the summer of 2001, and was at the time keeping an eye on the laser lights show with my one indian friend and two guys who were also volunteering there.

So we were sitting out in the exit area, between the doors leading into the laser show and the doors leading out into the main area of the LSC.
We get to talking about movies, and one of the guys goes "Hey, you know, I saw an Indian movie the other day."
This is virtually unheard of at the time, so me and my friend are a bit surprised/amused. We naturally ask him what movie he saw, expecting a good laugh over his mispronounciation of one of the clunky titles Indian movies tend to have.

His response? Yeah. Kama Sutra. We had an even harder laugh and then tried explaining to him that not all indian movies were about random difficult to pull of sex acts.

I also seem to vaguely recall that another site that did an article on religion said that it said not to sleep with redheads... or was that another one? :confused:

Clearly a flawed text.

Christianity is a religion that was created from persecution, driven by exclusion, and founded by a group of batshit crazy Romans. I really don't see why it got so popular.

It offered a simple solution to all the poor uneducated peasants of Rome. Life sucks now, but if you lead a good life and worship our god you get to go to Heaven....i think....

Why is it that, suddenly, at the age of 20, I feel so fucking old? :(

when i hit 20 i too started to feel old

It offered a simple solution to all the poor uneducated peasants of Rome. Life sucks now, but if you lead a good life and worship our god you get to go to Heaven....i think....

This is also how Catholicism managed to get a foothold with the untouchables in India.

when i hit 20 i too started to fell old

Don't think of it as your life being over a fourth of the way over, think that you have three-fourths of you life left!

Doesn't it strike you as odd that people want the bible censored for similar reasons that the mad fundies wanted Harry Potter banned? The argument sounds to me like "We must ban the bible! The bible says that the stuff in the bible is bad, so we need to ban the bible!"

And I find it hard to believe that a book like the bible written in this day and age would be 'flamed out the wazoo' (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean... can't you just say 'arse' and be done with it?). Not when Tolkien's new incest-filled book is freely available to preschoolers and Kama Sutra can be found on the shelves of any library...

Not when Tolkien's new incest-filled book is freely available to preschoolers and Karma Sutra can be found on the shelves of any library...

1. Tolkein's new book is incest-filled? Didn't see that one coming...
2. It's Kama, not Karma.

1. Tolkein's new book is incest-filled? Didn't see that one coming...
2. It's Kama, not Karma.

Tolkien's writing from beyond the grave? :eek:

Doesn't it strike you as odd that people want the bible censored for similar reasons that the mad fundies wanted Harry Potter banned? The argument sounds to me like "We must ban the bible! The bible says that the stuff in the bible is bad, so we need to ban the bible!"

And I find it hard to believe that a book like the bible written in this day and age would be 'flamed out the wazoo' (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean... can't you morons just say 'arse' and be done with it?). Not when Tolkien's new incest-filled book is freely available to preschoolers and Karma Sutra can be found on the shelves of any library...

Well, look at it this way. "To Kill A Mockingbird" is often banned in schools in the USA. It's filled with the N-word and racism (prevalent in the Bible), some alcohol (though admittedly not as prevalent as in the Bible), rape (though in TKAM it's a court case, though there is also rape in the Bible), sex (very little admittedly) and tons of violence (as there is tons of violence in the Bible).

The Bible has much more racism (well, not necessarily racism so much as discrimination), sexism, rape, and violence that TKAM has, yet TKAM gets banned because "the bible says that it's evil."

No, I'm not actually comparing To Kill A Mockingbird ot the Bible... okay, I am... but still...

No, I'm not actually comparing To Kill A Mockingbird ot the Bible... okay, I am... but still...


For one thing, To Kill A Mockingbird is social commentary and the Bible is...

Well, the Bible is The Lord of The Rings for the belief-oriented.

Tolkien's writing from beyond the grave? :eek:

You didn't know that? It's called 'The Children of Húrin' (Well actually it was his son Christopher that put his dad's manuscripts and notes together and made the book)

I'm pretty sure the Bible is no more obscene than any book of history, theology, or mythology. But then again, this is China, where the government likes to play hard and fast with the truth and doesn't give a damn how stupid it looks when it does it. No book should be banned because some people think it's obscene.

And if it were classified as indecent, this would be a genuine case of religious oppression and Christians would have every right to call it such.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that people want the bible censored for similar reasons that the mad fundies wanted Harry Potter banned? The argument sounds to me like "We must ban the bible! The bible says that the stuff in the bible is bad, so we need to ban the bible!"

I didn't know Harry Potter had abundant sexual perversions, advocated genocide and other obscenities.

I didn't know Harry Potter had abundant sexual perversions, advocated genocide and other obscenities.

Muggles? That's at least bigotry...

For one thing, To Kill A Mockingbird is social commentary and the Bible is...

Well, the Bible is The Lord of The Rings for the belief-oriented.

I was under the impression that the Bible was (at least some bits) social commentary... I know there's (some) history in it...

Well, look at it this way. "To Kill A Mockingbird" is often banned in schools in the USA. It's filled with the N-word and racism (prevalent in the Bible), some alcohol (though admittedly not as prevalent as in the Bible), rape (though in TKAM it's a court case, though there is also rape in the Bible), sex (very little admittedly) and tons of violence (as there is tons of violence in the Bible).

The Bible has much more racism (well, not necessarily racism so much as discrimination), sexism, rape, and violence that TKAM has, yet TKAM gets banned because "the bible says that it's evil."

No, I'm not actually comparing To Kill A Mockingbird ot the Bible... okay, I am... but still...

Yeah, both books contain violence, rape and general bad stuff. I didn't know they had banned To Kill A Mockingbird in some places, but that, too, is full of crap. I mean you don't want preschoolers learning their alphabet with the 'n-word' but classifying it the same as hardcore porn is outright ridiculous

Christianity is a religion that was created from persecution, driven by exclusion, and founded by a group of batshit crazy Romans. I really don't see why it got so popular.

It became popular because to be saved you dont need to do anything besides praying.

Meanwhile, all other religions either ask that you meditate, get rich, sacrifice animals, kill infidels or spend 1000 days walking in the rain to achieve salvation.

Christianity asks that you go one hour every week to church and dont eat meat one day of the year. Its the perfect religion for losers.

At the same time, if youre a muslim you need to pray 5 times a day, and there is a period of time where you can only eat during the night.

Christianity is the "easy and painless" package of religions.

I didn't know Harry Potter had abundant sexual perversions, advocated genocide and other obscenities.

You weren't reading between the lines. The Gryffindors have nightly orgies, the Death Eaters kill Muggles left and right (okay so they do even not between the lines), and Dumbledore likes to talk ghetto. :p

Yeah, both books contain violence, rape and general bad stuff. I didn't know they had banned To Kill A Mockingbird in some places, but that, too, is full of crap. I mean you don't want preschoolers learning their alphabet with the 'n-word' but classifying it the same as hardcore porn is outright ridiculous

The Bible has hardcore porn? :confused: (no, I know you weren't talking about my comparison of it to TKAM). I wasn't even aware that the Song/Book of Solomon could even classify as hardcore porn (though certainly the sort of sexual stuff that appears in PG-13 movies that should be rated R).

You weren't reading between the lines. The Gryffindors have nightly orgies, the Death Eaters kill Muggles left and right (okay so they do even not between the lines), and Dumbledore likes to talk ghetto. :p

"Entar mah office, mah homes! We as goa to be talkin' 'bout dis bidness wit Voldemort."

Christianity is the "easy and painless" package of religions.

Christianity is equally as well developed and spiritually rich as any other religion on Earth.

I didn't know Harry Potter had abundant sexual perversions, advocated genocide and other obscenities.

I said similar, not identical. Replace Harry Potter with 'Saw II' or such like and you get the idea

Christianity is equally as well developed and spiritually rich as any other religion on Earth.

So in other words, it's barbaric and sucks as a philosophy?

I'm pretty sure the Bible is no more obscene than any book of history, theology, or mythology. But then again, this is China, where the government likes to play hard and fast with the truth and doesn't give a damn how stupid it looks when it does it. No book should be banned because some people think it's obscene.

And if it were classified as indecent, this would be a genuine case of religious oppression and Christians would have every right to call it such.

The article is kind of odd, especially considering the way that the Bible was brought into consideration for obscenity. 800 people comparing it to a banned column? I didn't think that such small numbers and one website would get Chinese bureaucracy moving, but it did in this case. Even if it was ruled indecent, apparently all you need to do is meet an age requirement to buy it. It's oddly tame for persecution or the Chinese government in general.

Hey, finally people are realising that such things need to be censored! It's about time! But really, they're not going far enough! We need to outlaw Shakespeare, and all the other nutters like him! I mean, for crying out loud, have you ever even READ Shakespeare's works? OH THE HORROR! They're disgusting and vile, and all shakespearian actors need to be locked up and never released!

And that travesty of a book, the 'encyclopaedia'... ugh, what a violent, horrid pile of evil! What with all the nasty wars and sordid descriptions of naughty bits... IT HAS TO GO! I won't even mention the hated dictionary... why I read one the other day with THREE naughty words in it! For shame!

And when you turn on the TV it just gets worse! I watched this terrible program last night called the 'evening news' and I almost threw up then and there! Murder, wars, violence... it's disgraceful!

And while we're at it, we need to ban the laws forbidding rape and murder, because they mention rape and murder! Oh please, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Yeah, but those books teach you something.

The bible teaches you that no one fucks with god because he is badass. If you eat his fruits, you and your entire species get punished and cursed for eternity. If god gets bored with the earth he floods the entire world and onlys saves one family and a pair of each animal species, killing hundreds of millions in the process. And if you´re an angel and try to do a strike on heaven and demand as many rights as the humans, you lose your wings and get punished to live your remaining days in the depths of hell.

God is a pretty badass pimp if you ask me. You either bend and pray or get your ass fucked. And they are right in censoring the books, it has tons of naughty stuff (like brothers killing each other, people betraying their saviors and petty criminals being more important to the people than the son of god).

God is so lame he couldnt even save his son lol.

"Entar mah office, mah homes! We as goa to be talkin' 'bout dis bidness wit Voldemort."

:p

ROFL!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D This is by far the most amusing thing I've read today! :D

Anyway... the Bible doesn't just have incest or indecent amounts of sex... it has alcohol too! And the Song (or book, depending on which version you have) of Solomon! It has gays and wine and incest and tons of begetting...and sex... and swearing (count how many times you see the word "ass")! If any author had written such a book today they would be banned and burned and flamed out the wazoo, but the Bible is perfectly fine since it was written 2000 years ago and is the holy text of an entire religion! :rolleyes: :p :D

Sorry... but this is really funny...

The word "ass", as it is used in the Bible, is NOT a swear word; the word means "donkey".

It is today's modern society that uses the word profanely to mean "butt" or "buttocks".

And just because the Bible MENTIONS sex, "gays", alcohol consumption and incest, does NOT mean these things are right or morally acceptable. It speaks of these things in a NEGATIVE way

Christianity is equally as well developed and spiritually rich as any other religion on Earth.

You clearly know nothing about hinduism, buddhist or taoism.

Chistianity is pretty "standart" compared to them.

The Vedas alone, which are just SOME of the holy books in hinduism, have more than 5 times the content of the bible. And most of it was created more than 10 centuries before christ.

I'm pretty sure the Bible is no more obscene than any book of history, theology, or mythology.

Obviously you have not read Song of Solomon, in which the author of it compares his religion to having sex with a queen (or that's the interpretation I picked up from bible camp... don't ask)

And it has "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass." :p

Doesn't it strike you as odd that people want the bible censored for similar reasons that the mad fundies wanted Harry Potter banned? The argument sounds to me like "We must ban the bible! The bible says that the stuff in the bible is bad, so we need to ban the bible!"

And I find it hard to believe that a book like the bible written in this day and age would be 'flamed out the wazoo' (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean... can't you just say 'arse' and be done with it?). Not when Tolkien's new incest-filled book is freely available to preschoolers and Kama Sutra can be found on the shelves of any library...

Its more of a reaction. Sorta like 'If you think this is obscene, you should see this'. It is defense against freedom of speech. It is a brilliant tactic.

God is so lame he couldnt even save his son lol.

No. God was so hardcore, he sacrificed his only son! Come on!

Obviously you have not read Song of Solomon, in which the author of it compares his religion to having sex with a queen (or that's the interpretation I picked up from bible camp... don't ask)

The Song of Solomon was one of our main focuses in Sexuality in Literature. Prof. Sandy was the best, and he cursed a storm. Its the best to see the only fundamentalist Christian who applied for the class despite the 'Sexuality' in the course title storm out of the class fuming about how much sex was in the Bible.

Not quite, but close. Activists are asking censors in Hong Kong to ban it on grounds that it's obscene, as it contains incest, violence and assorted obscenity not suitable for general consumption. I looked up the link after reading it in the local papers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG26218320070516



You'd think a reverend would know if there is or isn't rape mentioned in it. As for not encouraging it, well, that's never usually worked as an excuse for non-censorship.

I can hear the 'oh how we're persecuted' crowd now.

We ARE persecuted. People are looking for an excuse to ban OUR "Holy Book", but not the "holy books" of OTHER religions. Why not ban, say, the Koran, to name one?

ROFL!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D This is by far the most amusing thing I've read today! :D

Anyway... the Bible doesn't just have incest or indecent amounts of sex... it has alcohol too! And the Song (or book, depending on which version you have) of Solomon! It has gays and wine and incest and tons of begetting...and sex... and swearing (count how many times you see the word "ass")! If any author had written such a book today they would be banned and burned and flamed out the wazoo, but the Bible is perfectly fine since it was written 2000 years ago and is the holy text of an entire religion! :rolleyes: :p :D

Sorry... but this is really funny...

You clearly know nothing about hinduism, buddhist or taoism.

And you clearly know nothing about Christianity and Judaism.

Chistianity is pretty "standart" compared to them.

I'm interested in what a "standard" religion is and what makes a religion unique as opposed to standard.

The Vedas alone, which are just SOME of the holy books in hinduism, have more than 5 times the content of the bible. And most of it was created more than 10 centuries before christ.

The Vedas also contain a lot of prayers, poems, hymns, and other rituals that are not included in the Bible, and in addition it is a lot older and has had more time to develop compared to the Bible, which is only around 5,000 years old in its earliest texts. In addition, the Bible is a lot more bare-bones compared to other religious texts since there are a lot of materials that are meant to accompany it; it was never a stand-alone book when it was written by various Jewish scholars and prophets, and there ways always a large corpus of supporting material that was meant to accompany it.

Christianity itself has produced a colossal amount of work in its 2,000 year history, including the writings of all of the fathers of the Catholic Church, the work of philosophers like Aquinas and Abelard, various myths and legends surrounding the saints, tons of song and music, rituals for different holidays and occurrences, and a developed system of beliefs surrounding the Eucharist and its role in the Christian religion.

The Song of Solomon was one of our main focuses in Sexuality in Literature. Prof. Sandy was the best, and he cursed a storm. Its the best to see the only fundamentalist Christian who applied for the class despite the 'Sexuality' in the course title storm out of the class fuming about how much sex was in the Bible.

:p I only know about it because hte camp counselours brought it up at Bible camp... I don't knwo that this is the right place to tell that story though.

Obviously you have not read Song of Solomon, in which the author of it compares his religion to having sex with a queen (or that's the interpretation I picked up from bible camp... don't ask)

Hey, it still has nothing on some of the stuff in other religious texts. But then again, I'm all for sex in literature. People need to lighten up.

And it has "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass." :p

Hey, that's important! I wouldn't want someone coveting my ass, or my donkey's ass, or anyone else's. That is not meant to be stolen under any circumstances.

I think any piece of literature that bends the reality of the malleable minds of the masses, should be considered as obscene as incest. Although looking below of the mason-dixon, the two may be related.

The article is kind of odd, especially considering the way that the Bible was brought into consideration for obscenity. 800 people comparing it to a banned column? I didn't think that such small numbers and one website would get Chinese bureaucracy moving, but it did in this case. Even if it was ruled indecent, apparently all you need to do is meet an age requirement to buy it. It's oddly tame for persecution or the Chinese government in general.

Some of it is because Hong Kong doesn't have the same censorship or repression that the rest of China does; it was part of the agreement for transferring sovereignty back in 1997 that they would preserve most of Hong Kong's democratic and civil freedoms.

They probably did as much as they legally could.

Hey, it still has nothing on some of the stuff in other religious texts. But then again, I'm all for sex in literature. People need to lighten up. True. I don't see why people are so puritanical about sex-- it's only natural (and now i got "bones" in my head... :headbang:)



Hey, that's important! I wouldn't want someone coveting my ass, or my donkey's ass, or anyone else's. That is not meant to be stolen under any circumstances. I know. PEople would kill jsut to have my ass. :(

I don't know why but this strikes me as very amusing. In fact, I have no reason to speak out against it. Probably because it seems that the first group here in western world to want anything censored are various Christian groups...

Obviously you have not read Song of Solomon, in which the author of it compares his religion to having sex with a queen (or that's the interpretation I picked up from bible camp... don't ask)

And it has "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass." :p

"Ass", as it is used in the Bible, means "donkey", not "butt", "buttocks", or "posterior".

I don't know why but this strikes me as very amusing. In fact, I have no reason to speak out against it. Probably because it seems that the first group here in western world to want anything censored are various Christian groups...

That's why I ROFL'd at first. :D

I think any piece of literature that bends the reality of the malleable minds of the masses, should be considered as obscene as incest. Although looking below of the mason-dixon, the two may be related.

Then every book that has ever challenged the status quo in human history is obscene. Every new philosophy, every piece of samizdat, every person who decided that the way things were wasn't good enough, every book that tried to change people's minds and the way they interacted with their world...all of it is obscene. If you want a way to kill society, that's a good starting point.

As much as it may not seem so now, Christianity was a very radical idea when it first spread and was for much of its history. The concepts outlined in it hadn't really ever existed before in the belief systems of the time.

True. I don't see why people are so puritanical about sex-- it's only natural (and now i got "bones" in my head... :headbang:)

A lot of the puritanical stuff associated with Christianity is thanks to "Saint" Augustine, who apparently hated any kind of intimate relationship or emotion and was able to shift the overall theology of the Church towards disdain for the flesh and for human emotion.

I mean, there's a world of difference between saying that adultery or sexual promiscuity is wrong and saying that people shouldn't enjoy sex or think of it as anything more than a means of procreation.

I know. PEople would kill jsut to have my ass. :(

Yeah, that'll teach them....hopefully.

A lot of the puritanical stuff associated with Christianity is thanks to "Saint" Augustine, who apparently hated any kind of intimate relationship or emotion and was able to shift the overall theology of the Church towards disdain for the flesh and for human emotion.

I mean, there's a world of difference between saying that adultery or sexual promiscuity is wrong and saying that people shouldn't enjoy sex or think of it as anything more than a means of procreation.



Yeah, that'll teach them....hopefully.

What an arse.

I mean, there's a world of difference between saying that adultery or sexual promiscuity is wrong and saying that people shouldn't enjoy sex or think of it as anything more than a means of procreation.

And there's another world of difference between adultery and sexual promiscuity.

As for the origins of Christian puritanism, it goes right back to Jesus and his condemnation of lust and divorce, and his support for celibacy.

Christianity asks that you go one hour every week to church and dont eat meat one day of the year. Its the perfect religion for losers.
You're pretty ignorant of religion. I know plenty of Christians who are intelligent, good-looking, and successful. Hardly losers.

The Vedas alone, which are just SOME of the holy books in hinduism, have more than 5 times the content of the bible. And most of it was created more than 10 centuries before christ.
I don't see how having more holy scriptures, and having it older is relevant to how valid a religion is spiritually.

the peoples behind this are a bunch of uni students from the Chinese University.
The reason why they're petitioning to have it classified as an obscene publication is because the recent issue of the student uni mag has been referred to the obscene publications authority (OBA) after a multitude of complaints about it's sexuality column.
This is just a token protest taken in order to highlight what the supporters of the student rag editorial staff view as the hypocrisy of the OBA, in banning the mag but not something even more 'obscene'.
The editors were admonished but otherwise let off by the University, who have even said they would give advice, but not financial support, to them if they decide to appeal.

If enough people complain about an publication, the OBA has to look into it. In the case of the Bible they won't reclassify it, as the law does allow for publications which have strong historical, political and/or social importance to be exempt from review. Regardless of one's opinions of the Bible, I think you can agree it falls within that category.


As for the student rag, I can believe the editors and supporters are making such a fuss of this. You can't tell me they did not honestly think no-one would be offended by a survey that asked such questions as 'Which animal would you most like to fuck?", and "Which of your parents would you most like to fuck?"

I don't see how having more holy scriptures, and having it older is relevant to how valid a religion is spiritually.
Neither do I for that matter.
As for the origins of Christian puritanism, it goes right back to Jesus and his condemnation of lust and divorce, and his support for celibacy.
Yep. Jesus said some good things in his better moods. Doesn't mean he wasn't a dick sometimes, assuming he existed.

Yep. Jesus said some good things in his better moods. Doesn't mean he wasn't a dick sometimes, assuming he existed.
Depends whose accounts you believe. Have you read The Gospel According to Jesus? Or perhaps its predecessor, the Jefferson Bible?

No. God was so hardcore, he sacrificed his only son! Come on!

No, you are both wrong. God was so MERCIFUL He became a human being (in the form of Jesus Christ) and took the punishment of sin on Himself so He wouldn't have to pour it out on YOU or ME or ANYBODY WHO ACCEPTS HIM AS HIS/HER OWN PERSONAL SAVIOR.

No, you are both wrong. God was so MERCIFUL He became a human being (in the form of Jesus Christ) and took the punishment of sin on Himself so He wouldn't have to pour it out on YOU or ME or ANYBODY WHO ACCEPTS HIM AS HIS/HER OWN PERSONAL SAVIOR.

Depends on your point of view, really.

If you believe in the trinity, yes.
If you're a unitarian, then no.
If you believe it's all hogwash, then no.

ANYBODY WHO ACCEPTS HIM AS HIS/HER OWN PERSONAL SAVIOR.

Shit. Guess I'm screwed, then.

Then every book that has ever challenged the status quo in human history is obscene. Every new philosophy, every piece of samizdat, every person who decided that the way things were wasn't good enough, every book that tried to change people's minds and the way they interacted with their world...all of it is obscene. If you want a way to kill society, that's a good starting point.

As much as it may not seem so now, Christianity was a very radical idea when it first spread and was for much of its history. The concepts outlined in it hadn't really ever existed before in the belief systems of the time.

Woah there, I wasn't all that serious, but you do raise very good points. That means its obcene! Censor it Now! but serioulsy though, touche.:D

Woah there, I wasn't all that serious, but you do raise very good points. That means its obcene! Censor it Now! but serioulsy though, touche.:D

Honestly, I've heard things along this line before, but they were serious about it.

No, you are both wrong. God was so MERCIFUL He became a human being (in the form of Jesus Christ) and took the punishment of sin on Himself so He wouldn't have to pour it out on YOU or ME or ANYBODY WHO ACCEPTS HIM AS HIS/HER OWN PERSONAL SAVIOR.

Umm...Are you familiar with the concept of humor?

I knew what the Kama Sutra was when I was even younger then that...

I seriously think that more non-Indians have knowledge about Kama Sutra than Indians themselves.

The Vedas also contain a lot of prayers, poems, hymns, and other rituals that are not included in the Bible, and in addition it is a lot older and has had more time to develop compared to the Bible, which is only around 5,000 years old in its earliest texts. In addition, the Bible is a lot more bare-bones compared to other religious texts since there are a lot of materials that are meant to accompany it; it was never a stand-alone book when it was written by various Jewish scholars and prophets, and there ways always a large corpus of supporting material that was meant to accompany it.

Christianity itself has produced a colossal amount of work in its 2,000 year history, including the writings of all of the fathers of the Catholic Church, the work of philosophers like Aquinas and Abelard, various myths and legends surrounding the saints, tons of song and music, rituals for different holidays and occurrences, and a developed system of beliefs surrounding the Eucharist and its role in the Christian religion.

No offense, but if we go by theological output measured by scriptures then the collection of works in Hinduism (Mahabharatha and other puranas, Srimad Bhagavatham with 12 cantos, Vedas, Upanishads etc) will be more than all other theological works put together.

We are not even going into later works vedanta, advaitha and vishistadvaitha by Sankaracharya, Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya and the Hindu Bhakti renaissance movement led by Azhvars and Nayanmars of the south and the Chaithanya inspired movement in Bengal etc.

The sheer amount of literary theological works in Hinduism is unmatched by any other phenomenon.

We ARE persecuted. People are looking for an excuse to ban OUR "Holy Book", but not the "holy books" of OTHER religions. Why not ban, say, the Koran, to name one?

Come back when you're a minority group and can be thrown in jail for your beliefs. Then we'll talk.

Emo kid.

Not quite, but close. Activists are asking censors in Hong Kong to ban it on grounds that it's obscene, as it contains incest, violence and assorted obscenity not suitable for general consumption. I looked up the link after reading it in the local papers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG26218320070516



You'd think a reverend would know if there is or isn't rape mentioned in it. As for not encouraging it, well, that's never usually worked as an excuse for non-censorship.

I can hear the 'oh how we're persecuted' crowd now.

Actually, rape is encouraged in the story of Lot. He offered his young, virgin daughters to a raging mob to keep them from molesting two visitors. The story is this. He was visited by two men who, unknown to him, were incognito Angels of the Lord. The crowd outside, realizing that there was fresh meat" in town, demanded that Lot give the men to them so they could "know" them (to know someone in this context meant sexually). Lot offered his daughters to this crowd to do with as they pleased if they would only let his guests alone.

I can see why this might be considered obscene.

Christianity is a religion that was created from persecution, driven by exclusion, and founded by a group of batshit crazy Romans. I really don't see why it got so popular.

Human nature has a profound affinity for pawning responsibility off to things like "persecution," excluding people, for even the pettiest reasons, and abandoning cold reason at the first opportunity.

Would be hard to see how it wouldn't be popular.

You're pretty ignorant of religion. I know plenty of Christians who are intelligent, good-looking, and successful. Hardly losers.


I don't see how having more holy scriptures, and having it older is relevant to how valid a religion is spiritually.

Well it does make you wonder where God was for all that time..

Christianity is a religion that was created from persecution, driven by exclusion, and founded by a group of batshit crazy Romans. I really don't see why it got so popular.

Isn't it obvious?

Free wine and crackers. :D

But the Bible is Christianity's only holy text, the Kama Sutra isn't the only one for its religion.Ergo, the bible should be split into separate parts, each with a separate rating. You could put most of the old testament in one book and rate it NC-17 or something, and only allow it to be displayed on the top shelf.

when i hit 20 i too started to feel oldWhew, I started feeling old when I turned 22. Thank randy Jesus I'm not the only one.

Well, look at it this way. "To Kill A Mockingbird" is often banned in schools in the USA. It's filled with the N-word and racism (prevalent in the Bible), some alcohol (though admittedly not as prevalent as in the Bible), rape (though in TKAM it's a court case, though there is also rape in the Bible), sex (very little admittedly) and tons of violence (as there is tons of violence in the Bible).

The Bible has much more racism (well, not necessarily racism so much as discrimination), sexism, rape, and violence that TKAM has, yet TKAM gets banned because "the bible says that it's evil."

No, I'm not actually comparing To Kill A Mockingbird ot the Bible... okay, I am... but still...What?!... I feel a McEnroe moment coming on... *blinks*

Isn't it obvious?

Free wine and crackers. :DYeah, but then you get press ganged into donating ten times what the wine can crackers cost when the collection plate comes round.

For one thing, To Kill A Mockingbird is social commentary and the Bible is...

Well, the Bible is The Lord of The Rings for the belief-oriented.

Are you saying our Lord and Savior Frodo is just make believe? :eek:

Are you saying our Lord and Savior Frodo is just make believe? :eek:?? The god in LotR is not Frodo, silly. It's Eru. And he's a lot better than the infantile egomaniac deity named "jealousy" made up in the Bible.

Not quite, but close. Activists are asking censors in Hong Kong to ban it on grounds that it's obscene, as it contains incest, violence and assorted obscenity not suitable for general consumption. I looked up the link after reading it in the local papers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG26218320070516



You'd think a reverend would know if there is or isn't rape mentioned in it. As for not encouraging it, well, that's never usually worked as an excuse for non-censorship.

I can hear the 'oh how we're persecuted' crowd now.
Saw this on the South China Morning Post some few days ago...

While technically correct, it's religion...I don't know how to take a stance for either side, so I'm neutral on this case.

Anyone read the rejected Gospels detailing the early life of Jesus? He was a complete dick.

Anyone read the rejected Gospels detailing the early life of Jesus? He was a complete dick.Which ones in particular? The only persons who could have written anything meaningful about Jesus' youth would be his brothers, right?

Which ones in particular?

Unfortunately I can't name whichever one I was reading, so you might as well disregard this, but whatever one I was reading Lil' Christ killed a kid for either running past him or bumping into him, or something like that.

EDIT: I'm not claiming to have a remotely reliable memory, in the slightest.

Unfortunately I can't name whichever one I was reading, so you might as well disregard this, but whatever one I was reading Lil' Christ killed a kid for either running past him or bumping into him, or something like that.

EDIT: I'm not claiming to have a remotely reliable memory, in the slightest.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

YOU ARE SO HARDCORE. Hit me with your devastating eye-rolling smiley again.

Ever wonder why the gnostic gospels and others didn't make it into the canon of the Bible? Perhaps it was because they weren't authentic? I wouldn't place too much store on what's in them. Dan Brown did - and before you know it, he was associated with a really boring film, along with a compelling but factually inaccurate book. One can't be too careful.

I just did a little digging, and I probably read it in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Unfortunately I can't name whichever one I was reading, so you might as well disregard this, but whatever one I was reading Lil' Christ killed a kid for either running past him or bumping into him, or something like that.

EDIT: I'm not claiming to have a remotely reliable memory, in the slightest.

You're thinking of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

You're thinking of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Move your eyes up a couple of posts up from this one.

:rolleyes:

Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html).

Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Chapter 4:

(1) Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." (2) Immediately, he fell down and died.

Move your eyes up a couple of posts up from this one.

...which wasn't there when I clicked reply. :rolleyes:

He's referring to an actual document (http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html).

Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Chapter 4:

(1) Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." (2) Immediately, he fell down and died.

In gratitude, I give you all my internets.

EDIT: Also, apologies if I sounded somehow aggressive or something with that other post, but whenever someone posts the eye-rolling smiley I get the sudden urge to vomit.

Ever wonder why the gnostic gospels and others didn't make it into the canon of the Bible? Perhaps it was because they weren't authentic? I wouldn't place too much store on what's in them. Dan Brown did - and before you know it, he was associated with a really boring film, along with a compelling but factually inaccurate book. One can't be too careful.

What do you mean by authentic? Modern scholarship agrees that none of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses.

In gratitude, I give you all my internets.

YAY!!! :D

*flees to download music files with extra bandwidth*

EDIT: Also, apologies if I sounded somehow aggressive or something with that other post, but whenever someone posts the eye-rolling smiley I get the sudden urge to vomit.

No worries. :)

Bibles bad when it comes to violence, but I find the quranic description of hell to be far more imaginitive.

Qur'an 56:41

"But those of the left hand-how unhappy those of the left hand. They will be in the scorching hot wind and boiling water, under the shadow of thick black smoke, neither cool nor agreeable. ...They will be gathered together on a certain day which is predetermined. Then you, the erring and the deniers will eat Zaqqoom [a thorn tree]. Fill your bellies with it, and drink scalding water, lapping it up like female camels raging of thirst and diseased. Such will be their entertainment, their welcome on the Day of Doom...the welcome of boiling water and the entertainment of roasting in Hell. This is the ultimate truth.

Though, to be fair in the Quranic version of Lots story, he doesnt offer his daughters to be raped. Guess the Quran is worse in some aspects and the Old testament is worse in others. Both books are obscene by anyones standards, though I doubt that this will go very well for the activists in Hong Kong.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Chapter 4:

(1) Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." (2) Immediately, he fell down and died.

I find that hilarious for some reason.

What do you mean by authentic? Modern scholarship agrees that none of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses.

Nor is there documented contemporary evidence that he actually existed.

Nor is there documented contemporary evidence that he actually existed.

But there's no proof he didn't exist, so people can continue following the could-be 2,000 year-old teachings of maybe a carpenter who was possibly the son of God perhaps.

Nor is there documented contemporary evidence that he actually existed.

True, although I think there's probably enough evidence to conclude that a Jesus of Nazareth existed upon whom later stories were based.

True, although I think there's probably enough evidence to conclude that a Jesus of Nazareth existed upon whom later stories were based.

Well thats the thing...the first 'documented evidence' was from people who were several generations removed from the era in which Jesus was meant to exist in.

I still stand that the entire 'early years' of Christianity was in fact a revolutionary political movement using religion as a sop to the masses.

*ahem*

It's a great big book of sexual positions, many of which, from what I understand, no human is capable of.

Actually it appears you're equally ignorant of what the Kama Sutra is. Only a rather small part of it deals with sexual positions. Primarily it's concened with love in a much wider sense.

Filled with sex, that's it. And associated (though very loosely, from what I understand... though I undersand little) with religion. Kind of.

Feh...

Nope. Check it out for yourself. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/index.htm)

PREFACE

Salutation to Dharma, Artha and Kama

IN the beginning, the Lord of Beings created men and women, and in the form of commandments in one hundred thousand chapters laid down rules for regulating their existence with regard to Dharma, 1 Artha, 2 and Kama. 3 Some of these commandments, namely those which treated of Dharma, were separately written by Swayambhu Manu; those that related to Artha were compiled by Brihaspati; and those that referred to Kama were expounded by Nandi, the follower of Mahadeva, in one thousand chapters.

Now these 'Kama Sutra' (Aphorisms on Love), written by Nandi in one thousand chapters, were reproduced by Shvetaketu, the son of Uddvalaka, in an abbreviated form in five hundred chapters, and this work was again similarly reproduced in an abridged form, in one hundred and fifty chapters, by Babhravya, an inheritant of the Punchala (South of Delhi) country. These one hundred and fifty chapters were then put together under seven heads or parts named severally

1. Sadharana (general topics)
2. Samprayogika (embraces, etc.)
3. Kanya Samprayuktaka (union of males and females)
4. Bharyadhikarika (on one's own wife)
5. Paradika (on the wives of other people)
6. Vaisika (on courtesans)
7. Aupamishadika (on the arts of seduction, tonic medicines, etc.)

The sixth part of this last work was separately expounded by Dattaka at the request of the public women of Pataliputra (Patna), and in the same way Charayana explained the first part of it. The remaining parts, viz. the second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh, were each separately expounded by

Suvarnanabha (second part)
Ghotakamukha (third part)
Gonardiya (fourth part)
Gonikaputra (fifth part)
Kuchumara (seventh part), respectively.

Thus the work being written in parts by different authors was almost unobtainable and, as the parts which were expounded by Dattaka and the others treated only of the particular branches of the subject to which each part related, and moreover as the original work of Babhravya was difficult to be mastered on account of its length, Vatsyayana, therefore, composed his work in a small volume as an abstract of the whole of the works of the above named authors.

You'd be surprised...

I think he would.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html).

Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Chapter 4:

(1) Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." (2) Immediately, he fell down and died.Thanks, but, um, what's the origin of this "gospel" ? Was it written in Greek or Aramaic? Did Jesus really know the word "moron" ?

True, although I think there's probably enough evidence to conclude that a Jesus of Nazareth existed upon whom later stories were based.You mean Jesus the Nazirite? ;)

Thanks, but, um, what's the origin of this "gospel" ? Was it written in Greek or Aramaic?

Greek.

Did Jesus really know the word "moron" ?

Clearly the translator is paraphrasing. An even more telling example is to be found in chapter six:

(1) A teacher named Zacchaeus overheard everything Jesus said to Joseph and marveled, saying to himself, "As just a child, he utters these things." And taking Joseph aside, he said to him, "You have a wise child; he has a good mind, but give him to me that he may learn letters. I will teach him all knowledge so that he will not be rebellious."

(3) Replying, Joseph said to him, "Nobody except God can subordinate this child. Do not consider him to be a small cross, brother."

;)

It was probably written somewhere between 140 and 170 AD.

You mean Jesus the Nazirite? ;)

Aren't Nazirites obliged to shun alcohol and corpses? If the New Testament account is to be believed (even with a substantial pich of salt) Jesus did neither, and was even accused of being a drunkard.

Did Jesus really know the word "moron" ?

Well most Christians do believe that Jesus knew everything...

This will not get the censorship. I do not believe that Hong Kong will make the Bible for only those that are 18 and up. That is just rediculous.

Well most Christians do believe that Jesus knew everything...

I hate to break this to most Christians but Jesus himself does not know when He will be returning to Earth.

This will not get the censorship. I do not believe that Hong Kong will make the Bible for only those that are 18 and up. That is just rediculous.

Simply because it's a religious book?

What about other books, that aren't religious? What if they had their first 39 chapters filled with sex, rape, violence, and wine?

I hate to break this to most Christians but Jesus himself does not know when He will be returning to Earth.

IF you're trying to break it to me, I'm an atheist...

And I was under the impression that most Christians say that Jesus does know when He will be returning to Earth.

This will not get the censorship. I do not believe that Hong Kong will make the Bible for only those that are 18 and up. That is just rediculous.

Of course it's ridiculous, that's the point. If it's ridiculous to censor the Bible then it's ridiculous to censor a column in a magazine.

Simply because it's a religious book?

What about other books, that aren't religious? What if they had their first 39 chapters filled with sex, rape, violence, and wine?

*Shrugs*

In truth, no skin off of my nose.

IF you're trying to break it to me, I'm an atheist...

And I was under the impression that most Christians say that Jesus does know when He will be returning to Earth.

Any Christian that says that, is actually lying for Jesus himself even stated that he does not know when he will return.

Of course it's ridiculous, that's the point. If it's ridiculous to censor the Bible then it's ridiculous to censor a column in a magazine.

Yeah.

I mean it was pretty clear in the OP article...so am a bit confused as to why there are 9 pages of mental wanking.

Of course it's ridiculous, that's the point. If it's ridiculous to censor the Bible then it's ridiculous to censor a column in a magazine.

I agree entirely.

Yeah.

I mean it was pretty clear in the OP article...so am a bit confused as to why there are 9 pages of mental wanking.

Since when has NS needed an excuse for mental wanking? :p

Since when has NS needed an excuse for mental wanking? :p

Absolutely never :p LOL

Yeah.

I mean it was pretty clear in the OP article...so am a bit confused as to why there are 9 pages of mental wanking.

Probably because of the word Bible in the title probably has something to do with it.

Probably because of the word Bible in the title probably has something to do with it.

Possible.

Of course my contention that Christianity was actually a revolutionary political movement is not mental wanking ;)

Duh, this is just hilarious.

Aren't Nazirites obliged to shun alcohol and corpses? If the New Testament account is to be believed (even with a substantial pich of salt) Jesus did neither, and was even accused of being a drunkard.Well, the best known Nazirite of the bible wasn't an exemplary one either... ;) (שמשון)

I seriously think that more non-Indians have knowledge about Kama Sutra than Indians themselves.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised.

I seriously think that more non-Indians have knowledge about Kama Sutra than Indians themselves.What do you think then about an average Christian's knowledge of the Bible?

Well, the best known Nazirite of the bible wasn't an exemplary one either... ;) (שמשון)

Yeah, Samson definitely didn't shun corpses.

What do you think then about an average Christian's knowledge of the Bible?

Though not addressed to me, I shall answer that one.

First off, we have to consider what you mean by average! Are we talking about people who are not pastors or are we including them in it?

If we are going below pastors (which would make more sense) most people do not have an indepth knowledge to actually study the bible and sit down and really contemplate what the bible is saying.

The average Christian (and I am in no way judging) has rudamentary knowledge about it. Average christians (and even non-average Christians) have and will misinterpret the Bible to suit their own needs. This is why we have so many Christian denominations. Everyone interprets the Bible their own way. The Average Christian can and will get confused.

Even those that have a terrific knowledge of the Bible and good interpretive skills screw up. That is why most translations need to be taken with a grain of salt (no pun intended *staring at Lot's wife*) No one translation is correct and no one translation is wrong (save perhaps the Mormon bible but that is a whole different debate)

(save perhaps the Mormon bible but that is a whole different debate)

Couldn't the Mormon bible be the only one that's right and all the others are wrong?

Couldn't the Mormon bible be the only one that's right and all the others are wrong?What's a Mormon bible?

Couldn't the Mormon bible be the only one that's right and all the others are wrong?

From my understanding, there is stuff in the Mormon Bible that does not compute with Christianity. *shrugs*

Though your point is a good one. How do we know? I guess we will find out when the Lord comes down to Rapture his church eh? :D

What's a Mormon bible?

You do not know what the Mormon Bible is? You heard about the Church of Latter Day Saints?

From the title:

The Book of Mormon is an account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the Plates of Nephi

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever— And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

Depends whose accounts you believe. Have you read The Gospel According to Jesus? Or perhaps its predecessor, the Jefferson Bible?
Jesus couldn't write. Even if he existed, he is effectively a character of the disciples or those claiming to be them. The opinions that the man held during his life are irrelevant.

Christianity is a religion that was created from persecution, driven by exclusion, and founded by a group of batshit crazy Romans. I really don't see why it got so popular.

Check your history.

Not quite, but close. Activists are asking censors in Hong Kong to ban it on grounds that it's obscene, as it contains incest, violence and assorted obscenity not suitable for general consumption. I looked up the link after reading it in the local papers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG26218320070516



You'd think a reverend would know if there is or isn't rape mentioned in it. As for not encouraging it, well, that's never usually worked as an excuse for non-censorship.

I can hear the 'oh how we're persecuted' crowd now.

lol

lol

The Qu'ran contains much of the same material. ;)

Sweet poetic justice. Not really justice, as banning reading material/religion is against everything I stand for, but whatever.

Injustice can sometimes work to one's advantage, Oh, I'm evil, aren't I?

Injustice can sometimes work to one's advantage, Oh, I'm evil, aren't I?:eek: ??

Just to update, Hong Kong authorities (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG31748020070518) decided to not declare the Bible obscene, basically because it's a religious book. Alas.

Just to update, Hong Kong authorities (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG31748020070518) decided to not declare the Bible obscene, basically because it's a religious book. Alas.They should have at lest forbidden the contained theology...

Just to update, Hong Kong authorities (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG31748020070518) decided to not declare the Bible obscene, basically because it's a religious book. Alas.

Excellent. Now we can put this thread to rest.

Excellent. Now we can put this thread to rest.

Yeah--like that's gonna happen.

Just to update, Hong Kong authorities (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHKG31748020070518) decided to not declare the Bible obscene, basically because it's a religious book. Alas.

Alas?

They should have at lest forbidden the contained theology...

Forbidden?

Nice one guys....lets just censor what we don't like :rolleyes:

Alas?



Forbidden?

Nice one guys....lets just censor what we don't like :rolleyes:

Alas, people would support such censorship to. They are just as bad as the so called christians who wanted Harry Potter banned.

Forbidden?

Nice one guys....lets just censor what we don't like :rolleyes:Nah, just censor obvious rubbish ;)

Nah, just censor obvious rubbish ;)

If that was the case then you would not be posting ;)

Nah, just censor obvious rubbish ;)

Rubbish? I would not say it was rubbish. Irrational perhaps but not rubbish...I would think that 'thou shalt not kill' is not rubbish...in fact I would say that was quite admirable.

:eek: ??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

I wonder if we can get the Bible outlawed in Britain. If only we didn't live in a Theocracy...

I wonder if we can get the Bible outlawed in Britain. If only we didn't live in a Theocracy...

If you lived in a Theocracy, other religions would not be allowed inside Britain or they would not have the freedoms that they do.

Britain's head of state is also the head of the national Church, ergo it is a Theocracy.

Britain's head of state is also the head of the national Church, ergo it is a Theocracy.

Go back to the point I stated. Regardless of what you just said, it is NOT a theocracy.

the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s) KEY

NOUN:
pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

It is not governed as a theocracy nor is is ruled or subject to religious authority.

Britain's head of state is also the head of the national Church, ergo it is a Theocracy.The head of state and the head of the established religion being the same person does not a theocracy make.

Theocracy, n:
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

The highest authority in the nation is, theoretically, the Queen. Further to this, she is also the foremost member of the Church of England.

Edit: Infinite Dunes, the Queen can be considered High Priestess of the Church of England, and the Royal lineage rules Britain by Divine Right. So Britain is ruled by someone who a priest claiming leadership from a divine source.

The highest authority in the nation is, theoretically, the Queen. Further to this, she is also the foremost member of the Church of England.See the definition of theocracy that I gave.

The Queen is the Queen. She is theoretically the highest power and not God, nor does she claim divine right.

The highest authority in the nation is, theoretically, the Queen. Further to this, she is also the foremost member of the Church of England.

Edit: Infinite Dunes, the Queen can be considered High Priestess of the Church of England, and the Royal lineage rules Britain by Divine Right. So Britain is ruled by someone who a priest claiming leadership from a divine source.

The Divine Right of kings went out a couple of centuries ago.

The Bible is guide book from the creator write by man to show us on how we should live with one another. I belief with out it we would be in a moral stay of failure. With the Bible I would not know who is God and what he wants from me.
When we took the Bible out of the schools that is when things took a worse turn on how we should treat others. I do not belief it should be ban. :)

The highest authority in the nation is, theoretically, the Queen. Further to this, she is also the foremost member of the Church of England.

Edit: Infinite Dunes, the Queen can be considered High Priestess of the Church of England, and the Royal lineage rules Britain by Divine Right. So Britain is ruled by someone who a priest claiming leadership from a divine source.

Divine right? You are not serious are you? Rule by divine right ended centuries ago in Britain.

The highest authority is Parliament. Not the Royal family.

The highest authority in the nation is, theoretically, the Queen. Further to this, she is also the foremost member of the Church of England.

Edit: Infinite Dunes, the Queen can be considered High Priestess of the Church of England, and the Royal lineage rules Britain by Divine Right. So Britain is ruled by someone who a priest claiming leadership from a divine source.You may be right in technicalities, but I doubt that you would be able to reconcile your claim that the UK is a theocracy with the fact that the UK was the first country to try and execute its monarch for high treason.

You may be right in technicalities, but I doubt that you would be able to reconcile your claim that the UK is a theocracy with the fact that the UK was the first country to try and execute its monarch for high treason.

And succeeded when they lopped off King Charles I head. In the process, made Scotland mad.

You may be right in technicalities, but I doubt that you would be able to reconcile your claim that the UK is a theocracy with the fact that the UK was the first country to try and execute its monarch for high treason.

No. S/he's wrong about the technicalities. Parliament is the highest authority. Not the Royal Family.

And succeeded when they lopped off King Charles I head. In the process, made Scotland mad.That they executed him isn't really the big deal. They executed him because if they didn't he'd just garner support for an invasion from France.

The two big things are (a) he was tried, and (b) that he was convicted for high treason.

Until this point all judicial desicions had stemmed from his authority, and Charles ovbiously wasn't going to let himself be tried. Hence the court that tried him had to get its authority from some other place ie. the laws of the land.

That he was convicted for high treason meant that he had disloyal to the sovereign of the land. Since you can't be disloyal to oneself this meant that he could not be the sovereign in question. Hence it was Parliament that was claiming sovereignty.

No. S/he's wrong about the technicalities. Parliament is the highest authority. Not the Royal Family.I was browsing teh wiki and I found this under Divine Right.
Its symbolism remains in the coronations of the British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy. It is further evidenced by efforts to trace the genealogy of European monarchs to King David of the Old Testament, with the belief that it legitimizes the rule of the present monarch. The king or queen of the United Kingdom is the last monarch still to undergo such a ceremony, which in other countries has been replaced by an inauguration or other declaration. It is the reason why the British Royal Family's motto is Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and my [birth] Right - i.e. I rule with God's blessing).That is what I meant by techinicality. Perhaps techinicality isn't the right word.

I was browsing teh wiki and I found this under Divine Right.
That is what I meant by techinicality. Perhaps techinicality isn't the right word.

Ah right yeah the anointing with oil thing....I suspect that if/when Big Ears gets crowned they won't do that.

One thing is for certain though...there will be a debate regarding that...

I guess in 1953 it was more than symbolic to many people...but now in the 21st century I don't think that would hold...then again chances are that many people really would not care either...

Ah right yeah the anointing with oil thing....I suspect that if/when Big Ears gets crowned they won't do that.

One thing is for certain though...there will be a debate regarding that...

I guess in 1953 it was more than symbolic to many people...but now in the 21st century I don't think that would hold...then again chances are that many people really would not care either...Probably more than just the oils things. The biggest weapon in the monarchists' arsenal is that the Queen is good at what she is meant to do and more. Some see her as the sole reason that the monarchy has not been disolved sooner. Come her death Charles will have to fight to become king, let alone be annointed.

Probably more than just the oils things. The biggest weapon in the monarchists' arsenal is that the Queen is good at what she is meant to do and more. Some see her as the sole reason that the monarchy has not been disolved sooner. Come her death Charles will have to fight to become king, let alone be annointed.

Heh True....and personally I can't wait!

Rubbish? I would not say it was rubbish. Irrational perhaps but not rubbish...I would think that 'thou shalt not kill' is not rubbish...in fact I would say that was quite admirable.yeah, coming from a god who is nothing but genocidal maniac, that's indeed pure rubbish. and what happens as soon as this moses dude comes down from sinai for the first time? a mass slaughter. all very convincing. :rolleyes:

yeah, coming from a god who is nothing but genocidal maniac, that's indeed pure rubbish. and what happens as soon as this moses dude comes down from sinai for the first time? a mass slaughter. all very convincing. :rolleyes:Our Lord Jehovah has given unto us these fif... Oi!... these ten, ten comandments for all to obey.

Britain's head of state is also the head of the national Church, ergo it is a Theocracy.

It's a common misconception that the Monarch is the head of the Anglican church. In reality, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the church, and the Monarch is styled Defender of the Faith.

yeah, coming from a god who is nothing but genocidal maniac, that's indeed pure rubbish. and what happens as soon as this moses dude comes down from sinai for the first time? a mass slaughter. all very convincing. :rolleyes:

Still...its is an admirable idea/concept/morality...of course humans being humans we do tend to fuck up the good things...

Still...its is an admirable idea/concept/morality...of course humans being humans we do tend to fuck up the good things...no, the god already fucked this up

no, the god already fucked this up

Bit hard that seeing as there isn't one...and that these ideas on how live peacefully in a community came from the hand of man and not the flying spag bol...

Bit hard that seeing as there isn't one...and that these ideas on how live peacefully in a community came from the hand of man and not the flying spag bol...you see, although the commandment reads "thou shalt not kill'", the deeds of the god this commandment supposedly comes from and the deeds of those who follow this god (in scripture) teach otherwise. the whole killing in this god's name compromises the seriousness of the commandment, doesn't it? why make a commandment and then show hundreds of exceptions?

you see, although the commandment reads "thou shalt not kill'", the deeds of the god this commandment supposedly comes from and the deeds of those who follow this god (in scripture) teach otherwise. the whole killing in this god's name compromises the seriousness of the commandment, doesn't it? why make a commandment and then show hundreds of exceptions?

I blame lawyers :p

you see, although the commandment reads "thou shalt not kill'", the deeds of the god this commandment supposedly comes from and the deeds of those who follow this god (in scripture) teach otherwise. the whole killing in this god's name compromises the seriousness of the commandment, doesn't it? why make a commandment and then show hundreds of exceptions?

When one looks at what the commandment reads, it translate into murder. Killing in warfare is obviously not discouraged as the Armies of Israel did just that while they were securing the lands that God promised them.

When one looks at what the commandment reads, it translate into murder. Killing in warfare is obviously not discouraged as the Armies of Israel did just that while they were securing the lands that God promised them.

or could it possibly be that...the bible is inaccurate and inconsistant?

or could it possibly be that...the bible is inaccurate and inconsistant?

I am not going to get into that here.

or could it possibly be that...the bible is inaccurate and inconsistant?

I am not going to get into that here.

Make another thread if you have to discuss it. Though to be fair, the topic of this thread has more or less resolved itself.