Hong Kong Authorities Ponder Labeling Bible 'Indecent'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, May 19, 2007.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    [​IMG]

     
  2. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
  3. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #3
    Well, here's the website truthbible from which some 838 complaints originated. I wonder how spontaneous their epiphany converged? Bible readers and sympathizers should thank them as reading interest ratings are sure to increase.
     
  4. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #4
    Ha! I support this 100%. We can debate the wisdom of ratings for movies - and surely it's a very imperfect and subjective affair, and the criteria are culturally driven and arbitrary to some degree. Yet, what about pure pornography? I do not advocate banning it for adults, but I do think it's right to protect children from such content in general - they are vulnerable, and do not have the psychological sophistication to deal with such things. It is exactly the same for all religion. I'd advocate banning pornography and all religious instruction for anyone who is not an adult - at least the age of consent, or voting, or maybe even (this is personally what I would choose) age at which you are legally allowed to ingest poison such as alcohol (drinking age - 21). No child is equipped to understand theological underpinnings of religion and is not capable of making an informed judgment for themselves (which is why we have statutory rape - a child cannot give informed consent) to have their minds warped and raped and twisted with religion.

    Of course, the HK authorities, I'm sure have some ulterior motives here, which is a separate issue. I do believe in freedom of religion (within the limits of the law) - somehow I get the feeling that's not what the HK authorities are all about, and I can't support that aspect of it.
     
  5. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5
    I remember reading about parents who took their kids of all ages to the movie The Passion of the Christ based on an assumption that anything Bible-related must be good for them. That didn't seem like good parenting to me. Having authorities rate the Bible is sure to be controversial, but it does make sense that there are Children's Bibles with more age-appropriate stories.
     
  6. Spock macrumors 68000

    Spock

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Vulcan
    #6
    Im not one to push my beliefs on other people, but I do not think that the Bible is fiction I dont have proof beyond my faith that it is all true, but I would like to see some proof that it is fiction. It is weird to me that in this world today and things the way they are that the BIBLE is "indecent" what a world we live in.
     
  7. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #7
    Err... that's not how it works. If YOU make an extraordinary claim, YOU have to provide the proof, the burden is on you. The bible with its fantastic claims of miracles is the one that needs to prove its truth. The burden is not on rational people to disprove the blithering nonsense and fantastic claims. If someone breathlessly runs in and claims that there's a giant Spaghetti Monster orbiting the earth, he better have some proof. We don't need to prove that there isn't one. You can't prove a negative.

    And the bible is filled with genocide perpetrated and urged by god, murder and rape sanctioned by god ("kill them and take their women") and the sickest kind of sadism sanctioned by god. Well, we regulate hardcore pornography, especially the kind that deals with rape and murder - frankly, the bible is more hardcore than all but the sickest and most vile pornography. For that reason alone, it should be carefully exposed only to people above 21, and regulated as strictly as the sickest pornography. Of course, there are other reasons the bible is offensive (as is Mein Kampf), the genocide that is approvingly cited in god's words and generally it's been used as a book of hatred for millenia now. Evil, vile, disgusting stuff.
     
  8. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #8
    nah, you have it backwards....people who have religious beliefs don't have to "prove" anything. They have a basic right to their beliefs. Those of you that don't share those beliefs aren't allowed to demand "proofs" before those that do are allowed their religious convictions. And in turn, you have a right to your own beliefs, even if it's just hatred of other peoples religions.

    You have a right not to have their religion imposed on you, but they also have their right not to have your beliefs imposed on them, no matter how much you hate their religion.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  10. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    Ah, but you are overlooking one very big thing. Many people want their faith, their beliefs, to be regarded as fact. When that's the case the onus is on them to provide evidence to support their position. There is a big difference between "believing" there was a man named Jesus Christ that died for our sins and "knowing" there was a man named Jesus Christ that died for our sins. If more people could wrap their head's around the concept that faith does not equal fact the world would be a giant step closer to being a much better place.


    Just out of curiosity would you feel the same way if the title read, "Hong Kong Authorities Ponder Labeling The Satanic Bible 'Indecent'."


    Lethal
     
  11. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #11
    Yeah, LethalWolfe nailed it in the post above: of course everyone is entitled to their own set of beliefs - however nobody is entitled to their own set of facts. If you say: I can cannot prove it, but I believe the bible is not fiction (as Spock did), I'll say "that's fine, I know this one guy who believes he's Napoleon, I can introduce you, you'll probably get along famously - he can receive visitors at the hospital between 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Mon-Fri." If you say however (as Spock did) "I would like to see some proof that the bible is fiction", I'll answer as I did "the burden is on you, since you believe the bible and its claims" - you can go on believing, but you cannot reverse the burden of proof - extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. However, good luck believing anything you wish. I affirm freedom of religion (within the limits of the law).
     
  12. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #12
    I can't wait for Matthew24's opinion on this.:)

    Me, I don't think anything should have warning stickers on.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    It's only a short step from here to book-burning. I have a great dislike of being told what is correct and incorrect, decent and indecent. Are they going to ban the Iliad next? Lots of killing in there.
     
  14. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #14
    it is not a belief of any sort to request proof from the person upon which the burden of proof lies when they use their beliefs to do certain things that encroach on my right not to have their religion imposed on me.

    If you want to believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is your God, fine. But I'm not fine with saying something like "...one nation under the Flying Spaghetti Monster, indivisible, ..." or having my ability to have an abortion for any reason at any time being restricted because the FSM's followers think that's murder whether it be in the 4th week or early third trimester. (just an example..)

    I do not go around picketing abortion clinics and disturbing religious ceremonies when I hate/disagree with them, instead I am respectfully silent when I have to deal with it. Nor do I discriminate or hate anyone based on their religion, because that's just nonsensical. Why the hell do I have to put up with biased treatment because of the mere fact of being atheist, and why is religious discrimination so much more acceptable here than blatant race, age, or gender discrimination (among others)?


    for the record, I just want those stickers. I dislike any sort of labelling, particularly by the government, as that's censorship.
     
  15. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #15
    I sympathize with your point of view. I am pretty much a first amendment absolutist. There are very few restrictions I'd feel comfortable with.

    At the same time, we all accept that there is such a thing as "age appropriate". For example, our constitution gives us the right to vote... but not before 18.

    No censorship, but that doesn't mean there's no difference in it applied to children and adults. Example: hardcore extreme pornography. Adults: OK. Kids: not so OK.

    Same with the bible. It should be available (in a brown paper wrapper) at any store, to be purchased like liquor if you show I.D. proving you are of age to ingest poison. I already gave reasons why: this is a product which contains extreme violence, sexual, genocidal, sadism, advocates mass murder, advocates hate, has been proven historically harmful to many people etc. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold or distributed, just that the consumer has the right to know what's inside to protect the underaged.
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    There's "age appropriate", there's "the news", there's "South Park", and there's "Tom and Jerry". There isn't much we all accept in the way of boundaries.
     
  17. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #17
    That movie wasn't really for kids, I don't think. A kid around 13 may be able to handle it but younger than that I'm saying no.
     
  18. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #18
    Those who believe that the Bible is a line by line translation of The Word of God have the freedom to believe what they choose as long as they also
    allow others to believe that one day religion itself may be proven false some day in the future when a superior extraterrestrial civilization finally chooses to expose themselves beyond all doubt.
     
  19. Winterfell macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    #19
    While I do not support government-sanctioned censorship of any kind (this is still a form of censorship, imo), I have to admit I giggled a little when I read that article. :D
     
  20. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #20
    there should be no censorship on books. period.

    but IF a rating system is in place, it reasonable and fair that the bible would be rated objectively as any other book.

    The old testament is certainly a very violent book, with what modern standards would consider an "immoral" underlying phylosophy based on hatred, racism and revenge (of course this is true for most ancient religious texts, and it even applies to lots of traditional fairy tales in their original format).
    The new testament has a morally acceptable phylosophy, but there are 'scenes' that probably many would consider not appropriate for children (crucifixion, torture) if they were in a different kind of text (let's say a novel).

    eliminate all censorship, and let parent and teachers decide what is appropriate for kids to read.
    that said, i don't see many issues with a non-binding 'guidance system' as for movies or videogames.
    So the 'children's bibles' would be rated 'E' and the unabridged bible would be rated 'R', why would anyone have a problem with that?
     
  21. biturbomunkie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Location:
    cali
  22. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #22
    What a stupid question. Please don't compare the Holy Bible with a satanic bible.


    And saying the Bible is fiction is just even more stupid. You may not believe that Jesus is the son if God, or that the Bible is the word of God. OK, no problem there, you aren't obliged to do that.
    But a lot of what happens there is proven scientifically. It was a part of history and you can't deny that.

    And come on, saying the Bible may lead you to commit suicide or kill someone else is wrong.
     
  23. Winterfell macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    #23
    Why not? They're both a religious books. Why should one be treated differently than another?
    I'm seeing a lot of claims made here with nothing to back them up.
    What has been proven scientifically from the bible?
    Ever heard of the crusades? More wars have been fought because of religion, and more people have died because of religion, than any other cause in history. Saying Christianity is somehow exempt from this is completely false.
     
  24. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #24
    I am a non-believing Jew, but I love this quote from John Lennon:

     
  25. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #25
    Charles Kimball’s book "When Religion Becomes Evil" begins with the following claim: “It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history”.

    Kimball apparently considers this claim too trite to need proving, for he makes no attempt to reinforce it with evidence. If one were to try and prove it, one would need a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of history. Kimball does not identify those rival institutional forces, but an obvious contender might be political institutions: tribes, empires, kingdoms, fiefs, states, and so on.

    The problem is that religion was not considered something separable from such political institutions until the modern era, and then primarily in the West. What sense could be made of separating out Egyptian or Roman “religion” from the Egyptian or Roman “state”? Is Aztec “politics” to blame for their bloody human sacrifices, or is Aztec “religion” to blame?

    I guess I’m challenging the veracity of this much quoted phrase as one not wanting to believe everything I read as gospel, even though it may a quote from a reputable Professor of Religion at Wake Forest University.

    Anyone have hard, comparative proof to back this alleged statement? Just a question.
     

Share This Page