Wow nice! i couldnt have said it better myself.Will Robinson wrote:I don't think christians "worship" the bible, they worship god and unlike the works of greek philosophers the bible would then hold a significantly more important place in their hearts. Do you ignore that distinction and equate the bible to other books in order to frame their reaction to the joke/insult as one that is reactionary?Tricord wrote:What value does the bible hold over other works in a non-religious context?
You seem to be ascribing your own perspective of non-belief to them, and then asking why they are unhappy with the joke/insult.
You would be better served by looking at it from their perspective and then judge what the proper reaction should be for a believer....
With that in mind you might see that the believers in this thread have behaved much more graciously than one who would offer to wipe his *** with something that is important to his friends.
Joke ? Not
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
You know what? You're right. Some people may find it funny and in their world, I guess it could be considered a joke. But rather than argue semantics, I think the heart of the matter is, in my world, it's in poor taste. You see, I'm not about disrespecting people's religion or culture. I don't find any humor in it at all. I wouldn't laugh at the sticker if it was on the Koran, the Talmud or any other book by which people define themselves and their culture. I wouldn't stomp through an indian burial ground either. I would never say I wipe my ass with the <insert holy book of choice here>. I wonder if people like Tricord even realize the depths of their bigotry and hubris.Ferno wrote: It makes a certain group of people laugh, much like a bumper sticker from 'moveon.org' makes people laugh.
Let me ask you this. Would you laugh at a sticker that was placed on the Qu'ran claiming it was a fable?
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
I repeat:Bet51987 wrote:Please close this...it wasn't meant to offend and it clearly has. Please?
Also, you need to be a little slower to assume people are angry, upset, or offended. It seems like every week, you post something controversial, and when someone responds in a way you didn't expect you assume they're sitting at their keyboard with smoke coming out their ears or tears pouring down their cheeks. In perhaps the strangest turn of irony yet... IMO, the most offensive thing you've ever posted is your continual "don't get offended" and "I'm sorry you're so angry" responses. We all graduated from fourth grade a long time ago; please assume we're all mature enough not to get flaming mad over little things.
So, no, I'm not going to close this thread. There's some interesting discussion going on, and so far almost everyone's remained civil (and the few who've tried to be offensive have been called out for it.) Some people have said the joke was in bad taste, but nobody is flying off the handle about it. If it starts to become a problem I'll close it, but for now, it's fine.
it's a matter of "you can please some of the people...", wait, no it's "you can't please some of...", err, no wait i remember it's "you can't ever make everyone happy. ever."
Bet, I don't think anyone here is 'angry' with you (except Iceman). Stick by what you said. If you aren't willing to discuss it fully, say so. It's alright to say you thought it was amusing, or could be amusing, and say that is the end of it. Speak your peice and stand by it. If someone says something in disagreement: debate, relate, or dissapate.
Most people now seem more worked up over Tricords ass wiping comment. He might be on the right track, but going about it all wrong.
I'm not sure I understand the 'Bible Worshipping' comment either, since Christians worship God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit. (well Catholics pray to Mary, which is just a ludacrous practice IMO, which is why i think the espicapalians made some good choices...), but beyond that they don't get together and 'worship the bible'.
The warning label itself is quite clearly sourced from anti-christian sentiment. that said, it's amusing, relativley truthful, and quite obviously, thought provoking. as we have gone over recently, most Christians haven't the first damned clue about what is contained in the Bible, which is why the 'knee-jerk' reaction most Christians will give about something like this is also amusing. (perhaps that sounds a bit arrogent, but i don't really care at this point).
Punisher: since kilarin brough it up. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, do you laugh at that? Would you mock it? IS THERE ANY REASON WHAT-SO-EVER to believe that this kid did not make it up? Yet, there could easily be such a religion that we could all laugh at and think is 'silly'. This, in way is the way this 'label' portrays the Bible. In africa there was a tribe that worshiped (yes WORSHIPPED) their own feces, as a part of their 'god', smearing it on their bodies and dancing and performing sexual acts upon each other while singing a song that tranlates to 'we love our poop, we love our poop'... you are so great that you wouldn't be amused by the clearly 'stupid' ways of these people? You've never laughed at a sideways comment regarding '1000 pristine virgins' waiting in the after life?
Bet, I don't think anyone here is 'angry' with you (except Iceman). Stick by what you said. If you aren't willing to discuss it fully, say so. It's alright to say you thought it was amusing, or could be amusing, and say that is the end of it. Speak your peice and stand by it. If someone says something in disagreement: debate, relate, or dissapate.
Most people now seem more worked up over Tricords ass wiping comment. He might be on the right track, but going about it all wrong.
I'm not sure I understand the 'Bible Worshipping' comment either, since Christians worship God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit. (well Catholics pray to Mary, which is just a ludacrous practice IMO, which is why i think the espicapalians made some good choices...), but beyond that they don't get together and 'worship the bible'.The warning label itself is quite clearly sourced from anti-christian sentiment. that said, it's amusing, relativley truthful, and quite obviously, thought provoking. as we have gone over recently, most Christians haven't the first damned clue about what is contained in the Bible, which is why the 'knee-jerk' reaction most Christians will give about something like this is also amusing. (perhaps that sounds a bit arrogent, but i don't really care at this point).
Punisher: since kilarin brough it up. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, do you laugh at that? Would you mock it? IS THERE ANY REASON WHAT-SO-EVER to believe that this kid did not make it up? Yet, there could easily be such a religion that we could all laugh at and think is 'silly'. This, in way is the way this 'label' portrays the Bible. In africa there was a tribe that worshiped (yes WORSHIPPED) their own feces, as a part of their 'god', smearing it on their bodies and dancing and performing sexual acts upon each other while singing a song that tranlates to 'we love our poop, we love our poop'... you are so great that you wouldn't be amused by the clearly 'stupid' ways of these people? You've never laughed at a sideways comment regarding '1000 pristine virgins' waiting in the after life?
Now that I got this compliment from FernoFerno wrote:Bet, this thread of yours turned out to be a pretty good contribution.
and I took my pills, I changed my mind. I don't want this closed. In fact, after reading some of these posts, I'm glad I did it and I would do it again. In fact, I'm going to look for some more. Bettina
You can criticize a person's beliefs, but going about it in a disprespectful way makes you seem like a low-life. No, I would not laugh at that label if it was put on the Qa'ran. Nether would I tell an <insert cultural/religious segment here> that I take a page out of whatever it is that they believe in and wipe my ass with it. I respect other people's beliefs and I criticize them in a respectful manner. What Tricord said is just downright low-life.
Actually, you're pretty much wrong on this point.fyrephlie wrote:(well Catholics pray to Mary, which is just a ludacrous practice IMO, which is why i think the espicapalians made some good choices...)
I won't get into specifics here and derail this thread, so PM me if you want to discuss it any further.Back on-topic,
@ DCrazy
No man, I dont think you get it. I dont care if you worship Bozo the Clown's a$$hair. I dont go there, regardless of how silly it seems. I can't make it any clearer than my earlier post. It's a respect thing. Be assured that I'm not suggesting you, or anyone else, live your life as I do, but it's just "not cool" in my book.fyrephlie wrote: Punisher: since kilarin brough it... etc etc etc.
People hold their beliefs close to them. Bet's post directly attacked the Bible, and thus those of us who hold it to be a holy book tend to take it as a personal attack. It isn't worth getting one's panties all in a wad over, but at the same time it's inherently a sensitive subject.Money! wrote:This whole ****ing thread is hilarious. Why the hell is everyone in here who's usually cool about stuff so uptight?
My personal opinion as well.punisher wrote:No man, I dont think you get it. I dont care if you worship Bozo the Clown's a$$hair. I dont go there, regardless of how silly it seems. I can't make it any clearer than my earlier post. It's a respect thing. Be assured that I'm not suggesting you, or anyone else, live your life as I do, but it's just "not cool" in my book.fyrephlie wrote: Punisher: since kilarin brough it... etc etc etc.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Two things that have nothing to do with the sticker:Bet51987 wrote:I'm curious as to which part has caused some to be angry.
1) Tricord's "I wipe my *** with the Bible" comment. This was intended to be offensive, and a lot of people (not all Christians, either!) thought it was lame of him to come in and try to stir stuff up. Regardless of what you think of the Bible, the Koran, indian burial grounds, etc. it's lame to disrespect them in front of people who think they're sacred just to stir up a reaction. This is the only thing that seems to have caused genuine anger.
2) It's questionable whether you meant the original post as a "ha ha let's laugh together" joke or as a "ha ha I'm going to disrespect you" joke. This seems to be what Behemoth, snoopy, Iceman, punisher, and Will Robinson were talking about (though none of them look "angry" to me; some are concerned, others are slightly annoyed.) Simply put, you appear to be acting, in Iceman's words, "two-faced", or in Behemoth's words, like "a fanatic". You know your own heart, and I won't presume to say whether or not you really are a fanatic or two-faced -- it's up to you to decide that. But I will say it *appears* that way, and that concerns me (if you want to know what, in particular, makes it appear that way, ask.) None of us want to see you turn into another Rican.
I guess I can add my own opinion in here. I have to seriously agree with the comments about Trichord's post concerning wiping his *** with the bible. I also have to strongly agree with Iceman's comments about being respectful towards someone else's religion. Sarcastic comments/jokes are okay... To a point. You just have to be careful what you say now-a-days, so you don't offend anyone.
I think it's rather ironic that this started so close to Christmas.
I think it's rather ironic that this started so close to Christmas.
I didn't mean to be two faced. I was mad about the ID people trying to put stickers on science books and when a friend sent me this, I thought "what would the christians do if we slapped a sticker on their books?".
The more I thought of it, the funnier it sounded and I thought I would share it here. Thats what my intent was and still is...and yes, I would do it again.
Tricords comment didn't bother me in the least, because to me the bible is just a book....However, I would not have said that to anyone. If you remember, I once said that I took my bible off the top shelf and placed it in with my fiction books. I don't think there was a difference with that, and what tricords comment was, though his was a lot more crude.
Bettina
Edit:....Iceman....I know what you mean now. I do get it.
The more I thought of it, the funnier it sounded and I thought I would share it here. Thats what my intent was and still is...and yes, I would do it again.
Tricords comment didn't bother me in the least, because to me the bible is just a book....However, I would not have said that to anyone. If you remember, I once said that I took my bible off the top shelf and placed it in with my fiction books. I don't think there was a difference with that, and what tricords comment was, though his was a lot more crude.
Bettina
Edit:....Iceman....I know what you mean now. I do get it.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10121
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
The difference is, you saying you have personally re-classified the book according to the catagory you think it's best suited to is a way of saying you don't believe it is acurate without purposely aggravating others.Bet51987 wrote:....If you remember, I once said that I took my bible off the top shelf and placed it in with my fiction books. I don't think there was a difference with that, and what tricords comment was, though his was a lot more crude.
Bettina
It's not Tricords opinion of the book that we took issue with, it was his trolling, inflammatory and rude delivery of his opinion....
I'm glad that Bettina has come around to wanting to see the thread left open.
The only hypocrisy in this thread is the people who are offended by a mildly funny joke, but take no offense at efforts to set science back to the dark ages. thankfully, the arab world preserved science while the west burned scientists at the stake.
Bettina is one of the few people here who I think is able to understand why ID is not science and doesn't belong in the science classroom and at the same time understand why putting a disclaimer sticker on the bible is ironically funny. Any claim that she is somehow succumbing to "Fundie-like" thinking is ludicrous. One of the first things sacrificed when you take the bible literally is your sense of irony.
The only hypocrisy in this thread is the people who are offended by a mildly funny joke, but take no offense at efforts to set science back to the dark ages. thankfully, the arab world preserved science while the west burned scientists at the stake.
Bettina is one of the few people here who I think is able to understand why ID is not science and doesn't belong in the science classroom and at the same time understand why putting a disclaimer sticker on the bible is ironically funny. Any claim that she is somehow succumbing to "Fundie-like" thinking is ludicrous. One of the first things sacrificed when you take the bible literally is your sense of irony.
Read my previous post.snoopy wrote:People hold their beliefs close to them. Bet's post directly attacked the Bible, and thus those of us who hold it to be a holy book tend to take it as a personal attack. It isn't worth getting one's panties all in a wad over, but at the same time it's inherently a sensitive subject.Money! wrote:This whole ****ing thread is hilarious. Why the hell is everyone in here who's usually cool about stuff so uptight?
I think that sticker's offensive because it's clearly intended to offend. That's the way offense works. It's not the content of what you say, but whether you mean to hurt others. You can say the same thing, "You're so *tall*" and mean it with either awe or as a tease--and the person being complimented or teased feels better or angry in reaction to the intent. Your sticker's "content advisory" is clearly intended to provoke. (That doesn't mean I take offense at it, mind you--but like Tricord's comments, it is offensive.)
It's also a good example of the joke-a-flame: piggybacking a flame on a joke to make it more acceptable. The first line of the sticker is irony. "Warning: This is a work of fiction. Do NOT take it literally." is pretty much the equivalent of what's being put on the science textbooks. Well, actually it's a stronger statement--what's being put on the books is more like, "Warning: This is a theory. Keep an open mind." or "Warning: The following relevant information has been excluded, leaving you with a slanted picture." But whatever, close enough. By itself, that's irony, and if you feel slighted by the textbook stickers (or you can empathize with those who would), it's funny.
The rest of the sticker is a flame about the Bible.
The role of the flame in the larger argument is interesting. The obvious intent of the image is to equate the two--stickers on the Bible, stickers on science textbooks--and charge the observer with hypocrisy if he is offended at the one and not the other. The writer of the sticker should therefore try as hard as reasonably possible to be offensive to Bible-readers, as the argument only works if they are offended or object. I find this obnoxious--as if two objects are morally equivalent just because they're both stickers, despite the fact that one is clearly intended to offend. I have a dislike which approaches fanatacism for fuzzy-headed arguments from moral equivalence!
Anywah, the fact that the argument turns on the sticker being offensive explains both why it is made that way and why some are so quick to speculate that their opponents are offended. If Christians are offended by stickers on the Bible, that validates them for feeling offended by stickers on textbooks.
Is it a fair analogy? I obviously don't think so given what I wrote above, but perhaps it is best to let the reader decide. Here are the texts, side by side.
--------------
The second paragraph of the sticker interests me, in that it uses clever phraseology and inaccuracies to be even more offensive than is warranted. Let me pick this apart.
The addition of "or advocating" is like that here. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't advocate any of the listed activities. Adding that to the initial statement assists with the sensationalism by being misleading.
suicide: The Bible describes a couple suicides--Judas' comes to mind. There's also an attempted suicide by Elisha. I'm pretty sure it isn't advocated anywhere, though.
incest: The Bible describes some acts of incest. Lot's daughters is the best example, and Abraham and Sarah is another example (though a more distant one, and evidently culturally acceptable). I'm pretty sure it's not advocated anywhere, and Lev. 18 expressly forbids it in very strong terms.
bestiality: Not advocated. Not even described, as far as I can remember. Expressly forbidden in very strong terms Lev. 18:23.
sadomasochism: I'm pretty sure this isn't even mentioned anywhere.
sexual activity in a violent context: You mean rape? I can think of two rapes described in the Bible, both explicitly treated as wicked. Dinah's in Gen. 34 and Tamar's in 2 Sam 13. I can't say it's advocated, though: in both cases, the offender is killed in vengeance by the girl's brother(s).
murder: Described, yes. Not advocated in a general sense (in fact, expressly forbidden). God does command Israel to go to war early on, though, and that might be what they're thinking of.
morbid violence: Depends on your definition of morbid... Samson's being blinded or killing people for clothing might be what they're thinking of. I'm pretty sure this isn't advocated unless you count circumcision or animal sacrifice.
use of drugs or alcohol: There's the "or" again! As to the "use of drugs", I'll just comment that the newest texts in the Bible are 2000 years old and leave it at that. On the use of alcohol, the Bible offers a complex opinion (I once did like a 10 page systematic study on it...), but is clear that consistent drunkenness is a sin.
homosexuality: The Bible neither advocates nor describes this (except in a very general and euphamistic sense). It is repeatedly expressly forbidden. Amusing that this made it onto an "offensive things" sticker--is the writer anti-gay along with us Christians?
voyeurism: Described once that I can think of 1 Sam 11), and definitely not advocated. Actually, I don't think it's specifically treated, though there are lots of verses forbidding lust.
revenge: This is certainly described. It's advocated if you count laws advocating capital punishment, though I take these as intended to advocate justice, not vengeance. God is often depicted as taking vengeance, though. In fact, Deut. 32:35 gives the famous "'Vengeance is mine' sayeth the Lord" quote in a narrow context and Romans 12:19 applies it more widely, saying "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord."
undermining of authority figures: Demonstrated, definitely, by many including Jesus himself. Can't say it's really advocated in general, though. Romans 13 begins, "Be subject to the government..."
lawlessness: Described everywhere. I would go so far as to say the thesis of the old testament is that men are lawless and that this is a bad thing.
and human rights violations and atrocities: That's a subject worthy of debate, but I'll give it to you on a warning sticker. Slavery and mass killings, even genocides are described, definitely. In places, commanded or regulated by God.
Add that all up, and you get... The Bible describes cases of suicide, incest, rape, murder, morbid violence, use of alcohol, homosexuality (in a general way), voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness, and human rights violations and atrocities. The Bible advocates use of alcohol (in places), shows God taking vengeance and Jesus undermining authority figures, and God sometimes kills or commands his followers to kill people.
Woo, scary.
I'd love to know what the person who wrote that sticker was thinking of for some of those, but I suspect they simply weren't.
Linguistically, I think (someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this) the Old Testament is the only sample (or one of a very few samples) of ancient Hebrew writing.
Philosophically, the "ancient greek philosophers" you compare the Bible to--the contemporaries of the latest books' authors--have no modern day followers. Their ideas have been superceded by history and modern thought. Biblical mysteries such as predestination or the nature of God remain philosophically fresh arguments, even in this century. Biblical moral principles such as "Love thy neighbor" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" remain good ideas.
Culturally, the ideas, morals, and text of the Bible underlie all of western culture.
I am intrigued by the fact that you seem to think the Bible has no value in a secular context or is in no way an outstanding or remarkable book (beyond being the scripture for a large religion). Without meaning to be offensive, you're simply wrong here, but I haven't got the time or space to do the subject justice. I've been meaning to start a series of threads about the history and contents of the Bible and the evidence for Christianity, but I just haven't had the time....
It's also a good example of the joke-a-flame: piggybacking a flame on a joke to make it more acceptable. The first line of the sticker is irony. "Warning: This is a work of fiction. Do NOT take it literally." is pretty much the equivalent of what's being put on the science textbooks. Well, actually it's a stronger statement--what's being put on the books is more like, "Warning: This is a theory. Keep an open mind." or "Warning: The following relevant information has been excluded, leaving you with a slanted picture." But whatever, close enough. By itself, that's irony, and if you feel slighted by the textbook stickers (or you can empathize with those who would), it's funny.
The rest of the sticker is a flame about the Bible.
The role of the flame in the larger argument is interesting. The obvious intent of the image is to equate the two--stickers on the Bible, stickers on science textbooks--and charge the observer with hypocrisy if he is offended at the one and not the other. The writer of the sticker should therefore try as hard as reasonably possible to be offensive to Bible-readers, as the argument only works if they are offended or object. I find this obnoxious--as if two objects are morally equivalent just because they're both stickers, despite the fact that one is clearly intended to offend. I have a dislike which approaches fanatacism for fuzzy-headed arguments from moral equivalence!
Anywah, the fact that the argument turns on the sticker being offensive explains both why it is made that way and why some are so quick to speculate that their opponents are offended. If Christians are offended by stickers on the Bible, that validates them for feeling offended by stickers on textbooks.
Is it a fair analogy? I obviously don't think so given what I wrote above, but perhaps it is best to let the reader decide. Here are the texts, side by side.
Wells' suggested warning labels for textbooks (Icons of Evolution, p. 259)Bettina's Sticker wrote: WARNING: This is a work of fiction. Do NOT take it literally.
CONTENT ADVISORY: Contains verses descriptive or advocating suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, sexual activity in a violent context, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness, and human rights violations and atrocities.
EXPOSURE WARNING: Exposure to the contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and, in extreme cases, pathological disorders, hatred, bigotry, and violence including, but not limited to fanaticism, murder, and genocide.
WARNING: The Miller-Urey experiment probably did not simulate the Earth's early atmosphere; it does not demonstrate how life's building-blocks originated
WARNING:Darwin's tree of life does not fit the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion, and molecular evidence does not support a simple branching-tree pattern.
WARNING:If homology is defined as similarity due to common ancestry, it cannot be used as evidence for common ancestry; whatever its cause may be, it is not similar genes
WARNING:These pictures make vertibrate embryos look more similar than they really are; it is not true that the vertebrate embryos are most similar in their earliest stages.
WARNING:Archeopteryx is probably not the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors remain highly controversial; other missing links are now being sought.
WARNING:Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks in the wild, and the photos showing them on tree trunks have been staged; Kettlewell's experiments are now being questioned.
WARNING:The Galapagos finches did not inspire Darwin with the idea of evolution, and oscillating natural selection on their beaks produces no observable net change.
WARNING:Four-winged fruit flies must be artificially bred, and their extra wings lack muscles; these disabled mutants are not raw materials for evolution.
WARNING:Evidence from fossil horses does not justify the claim that evolution was undirected, which is based on materialistic philosophy rather than empirical science.
(I know there are other sticker-texts around, some which might have actually been used... but I don't follow the politics very closely, and don't have the text on hand.)WARNING:Theories about human origins are subjective and controversial, and they rest on little evidence; all drawings of "ancestors" are hypothetical.
--------------
The second paragraph of the sticker interests me, in that it uses clever phraseology and inaccuracies to be even more offensive than is warranted. Let me pick this apart.
There is a trick of speech regaurding the word "or" here. Logically speaking, you can attack "or ... " to any statement, and that statement will still be true. In everyday use, though, attaching "or ... " to a statement implies that you think the "..." is true a significant amount of the time. A good example is the statement, "My husbend went out grocery shopping or gambling." Logically speaking, it's entirely true, even if I know for a fact that my husband doesn't gamble. But it leaves the reader with the impression that I don't know where my husband is and think it's reasonably likely he might be out gambling.CONTENT ADVISORY: Contains verses descriptive or advocating ...
The addition of "or advocating" is like that here. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't advocate any of the listed activities. Adding that to the initial statement assists with the sensationalism by being misleading.
suicide: The Bible describes a couple suicides--Judas' comes to mind. There's also an attempted suicide by Elisha. I'm pretty sure it isn't advocated anywhere, though.
incest: The Bible describes some acts of incest. Lot's daughters is the best example, and Abraham and Sarah is another example (though a more distant one, and evidently culturally acceptable). I'm pretty sure it's not advocated anywhere, and Lev. 18 expressly forbids it in very strong terms.
bestiality: Not advocated. Not even described, as far as I can remember. Expressly forbidden in very strong terms Lev. 18:23.
sadomasochism: I'm pretty sure this isn't even mentioned anywhere.
sexual activity in a violent context: You mean rape? I can think of two rapes described in the Bible, both explicitly treated as wicked. Dinah's in Gen. 34 and Tamar's in 2 Sam 13. I can't say it's advocated, though: in both cases, the offender is killed in vengeance by the girl's brother(s).
murder: Described, yes. Not advocated in a general sense (in fact, expressly forbidden). God does command Israel to go to war early on, though, and that might be what they're thinking of.
morbid violence: Depends on your definition of morbid... Samson's being blinded or killing people for clothing might be what they're thinking of. I'm pretty sure this isn't advocated unless you count circumcision or animal sacrifice.
use of drugs or alcohol: There's the "or" again! As to the "use of drugs", I'll just comment that the newest texts in the Bible are 2000 years old and leave it at that. On the use of alcohol, the Bible offers a complex opinion (I once did like a 10 page systematic study on it...), but is clear that consistent drunkenness is a sin.
homosexuality: The Bible neither advocates nor describes this (except in a very general and euphamistic sense). It is repeatedly expressly forbidden. Amusing that this made it onto an "offensive things" sticker--is the writer anti-gay along with us Christians?
voyeurism: Described once that I can think of 1 Sam 11), and definitely not advocated. Actually, I don't think it's specifically treated, though there are lots of verses forbidding lust.
revenge: This is certainly described. It's advocated if you count laws advocating capital punishment, though I take these as intended to advocate justice, not vengeance. God is often depicted as taking vengeance, though. In fact, Deut. 32:35 gives the famous "'Vengeance is mine' sayeth the Lord" quote in a narrow context and Romans 12:19 applies it more widely, saying "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord."
undermining of authority figures: Demonstrated, definitely, by many including Jesus himself. Can't say it's really advocated in general, though. Romans 13 begins, "Be subject to the government..."
lawlessness: Described everywhere. I would go so far as to say the thesis of the old testament is that men are lawless and that this is a bad thing.
and human rights violations and atrocities: That's a subject worthy of debate, but I'll give it to you on a warning sticker. Slavery and mass killings, even genocides are described, definitely. In places, commanded or regulated by God.
Add that all up, and you get... The Bible describes cases of suicide, incest, rape, murder, morbid violence, use of alcohol, homosexuality (in a general way), voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness, and human rights violations and atrocities. The Bible advocates use of alcohol (in places), shows God taking vengeance and Jesus undermining authority figures, and God sometimes kills or commands his followers to kill people.
Woo, scary.
I'd love to know what the person who wrote that sticker was thinking of for some of those, but I suspect they simply weren't.
Histocially, it gives insights into ancient peoples--their geography, traditions, and way of life.Tricord wrote:What value does the bible hold over other works in a non-religious context?
Linguistically, I think (someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this) the Old Testament is the only sample (or one of a very few samples) of ancient Hebrew writing.
Philosophically, the "ancient greek philosophers" you compare the Bible to--the contemporaries of the latest books' authors--have no modern day followers. Their ideas have been superceded by history and modern thought. Biblical mysteries such as predestination or the nature of God remain philosophically fresh arguments, even in this century. Biblical moral principles such as "Love thy neighbor" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" remain good ideas.
Culturally, the ideas, morals, and text of the Bible underlie all of western culture.
I am intrigued by the fact that you seem to think the Bible has no value in a secular context or is in no way an outstanding or remarkable book (beyond being the scripture for a large religion). Without meaning to be offensive, you're simply wrong here, but I haven't got the time or space to do the subject justice. I've been meaning to start a series of threads about the history and contents of the Bible and the evidence for Christianity, but I just haven't had the time....
Drakona. Well done and as nearly always...
PWND!!!
I had to look up "voyeurism" as I realized that the true meaning of the word escaped me. and btw, the forgot "ogling" as used in it's current context. This would have been King David and again, not advocated. An intesting side note to that: Jesus is a descendant of that line; David's marrage of Bethsheba.
PWND!!!
I had to look up "voyeurism" as I realized that the true meaning of the word escaped me. and btw, the forgot "ogling" as used in it's current context. This would have been King David and again, not advocated. An intesting side note to that: Jesus is a descendant of that line; David's marrage of Bethsheba.
Outstanding Drakona, well spoken and put forth..
Also consider that american historical textbooks do not seem to include a "warning" sticker advocating the acts done by the people who founded the country but they in fact were also guilty of many treasonous crimes by the law they fled from.
My point being if the bible and reading it can advocate the reader to commit the acts therein, then isnt it JUST as possible for someone to say "Hey, my forefathers did this so why shouldnt i?" I however am not speculating that reading a history book is going to cause you to shoot someone for drinking you're wine or what have you.
But give it some thought, what you read is only as powerful as the thought you give to it, and if the bible and its contents offend you so much you have the happy freedom to not read it, However tact would most certainly restrain a person from taking offense to someone who enjoys reading the aforementioned literature.
Also consider that american historical textbooks do not seem to include a "warning" sticker advocating the acts done by the people who founded the country but they in fact were also guilty of many treasonous crimes by the law they fled from.
My point being if the bible and reading it can advocate the reader to commit the acts therein, then isnt it JUST as possible for someone to say "Hey, my forefathers did this so why shouldnt i?" I however am not speculating that reading a history book is going to cause you to shoot someone for drinking you're wine or what have you.
But give it some thought, what you read is only as powerful as the thought you give to it, and if the bible and its contents offend you so much you have the happy freedom to not read it, However tact would most certainly restrain a person from taking offense to someone who enjoys reading the aforementioned literature.
Drakona, I am going to review that sticker, and find every place in the bible that references those words and print what I find and what the person who made the sticker really implied...its only fair that another point of view is heard.
I'm no longer sorry I put up this joke and I already explained my intent in another post. Its just sad that some take offense, or need to "clarify" the meaning of the joke. I'm glad that some of the others laughed.
Unforunately after singing my heart out tonight for the church and then come home and read your post, I found it pushed me more toward Tricords point of view. I wish it didn't but it did. I'm sure more will come in and pat you on the back.
And...PWND??? I don't think so.
Bettina
I'm no longer sorry I put up this joke and I already explained my intent in another post. Its just sad that some take offense, or need to "clarify" the meaning of the joke. I'm glad that some of the others laughed.
Unforunately after singing my heart out tonight for the church and then come home and read your post, I found it pushed me more toward Tricords point of view. I wish it didn't but it did. I'm sure more will come in and pat you on the back.
And...PWND??? I don't think so.
Bettina
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10121
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
If the discourse is leaving you feeling like you need to use vulgarity to express yourself or identify your own position then you have indeed been owned...Bet51987 wrote:...Unforunately after singing my heart out tonight for the church and then come home and read your post, I found it pushed me more toward Tricords point of view. I wish it didn't but it did....
i think the "CONTENT ADVISORY: Contains verses descriptive or advocating ..." thing is part of the irony Dracona. This sticker is not only a stab at anti-evolution stickers - it's perhaps also a stab at ALL of the "THINK OF THE CHILDRUUUUN" control freak parents who don't want their children to read Harry Potter because "It's ADVOCATING witchcraft, omg our young kids will all be godless pagans! Think of the Childruuun", who cares if it actaully is advocating it or not, these people never actually read the books anywway lest their very souls be stolen by the devil lord himself (*clutches garlic tightly*)! Is it just me, or does anyone else notice these "Think of the Childruun" people are always christian fundies?
The Bible does advocate some of the things mentioned (depending on your brand of christianity) but probabaly few. Merely mentioning these things is not advocating, but the whole point was that if Harry Potter can make your little Johnny pass his younger brother through the fire to Molek - then the Bible can make little Johnny have sex with his own father.
The point may not be to offend, but to get people to think about how rediculous some of the accusations and requests the Christian fundies have. I think one of the major causes of taking offense is that people are too wrapped up in their taboos. Like a kindof "OMG we can't imply anything is WRONG with the Bible" anti-heracy mentality that rivals a red-hot opium filled syringe to the eye for it's ability to blind people to a problem with their sight which is obvious to everyone staring at them.
That kindof "can do no wrong" mentality is why i left my religion. Because the truth always stands upto critisism. Question every taboo and everything you're not allowed to laugh at.
The Bible does advocate some of the things mentioned (depending on your brand of christianity) but probabaly few. Merely mentioning these things is not advocating, but the whole point was that if Harry Potter can make your little Johnny pass his younger brother through the fire to Molek - then the Bible can make little Johnny have sex with his own father.
The point may not be to offend, but to get people to think about how rediculous some of the accusations and requests the Christian fundies have. I think one of the major causes of taking offense is that people are too wrapped up in their taboos. Like a kindof "OMG we can't imply anything is WRONG with the Bible" anti-heracy mentality that rivals a red-hot opium filled syringe to the eye for it's ability to blind people to a problem with their sight which is obvious to everyone staring at them.
That kindof "can do no wrong" mentality is why i left my religion. Because the truth always stands upto critisism. Question every taboo and everything you're not allowed to laugh at.
-
KoolBear
- DBB Co-Founder
- Posts: 10132
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Houston, TX USA
- Contact:
I'd be interested in this discussion.Drakona wrote: I've been meaning to start a series of threads about the history and contents of the Bible and the evidence for Christianity, but I just haven't had the time....
I've spent the last 5 years researching this subject. The founding of the church and early church fathers. After co-authoring Jesus - Gospels Integrated which was focused on the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels I was left with many questions that required more research in order that I could discern the truth as I found it to be.
But many people are't ready to accept the truth. It is easier to accept what others tell you then it is to find out for yourself.
I've often considered setting up a forum strictly for theological discussion.
Sorry for the off topic spew!
KB
You obviously have never heard the poetic well organised string of vulgarity's a marine corp drill instructer can direct towards a boot camp recruit when said recruit screws up really bad.Top Wop wrote:"Vulgarity is an indication of an unorganized mind."Bet51987 wrote:Unforunately after singing my heart out tonight for the church and then come home and read your post, I found it pushed me more toward Tricords point of view.
drakona's response analyzing the warnings sounds like a lawyer looking for a loophole.
stop. take a deep breath. realize this was someone's attempt at a joke. the joker did not go out of his way to be offensive. in fact, his joke is a parody of something offensive!
analyzing the joke is totally irrelvant and a waste of time. it's not supposed to be informative or debated for its truth content. this is more aimless missing the point.
the stupidest thing about the creationism warning on the science books is that EVERY good scientist knows that evolution is a "only" a theory, and an incomplete one at that.
anyone who fails to see that should go back to elementary school science class. saying that evolution is "only" a theory is like saying that descent is "only" a video game. Obviously, what's your point?
drakona's entitled to her opinion but her argument really doesn't make any sense. because the most fuzzyheaded thing of all would be replacing the ACTUAL scientific method with something unscientific. it doesn't matter whether you believe in the bible or astrology, tarot cards, or any other psuedo-scientific concept. From a methodological viewpoint, you don't go around changing the definition of science and then saying your theory is scientific now that the definition has changed. And anyone not prepared to address this last point should not bother posting a response to this.
Everyone should find it offensive that TEH CHILDREN would have their education besotted by such stupid thinking as the York County School Board where the trial took place. The fact is that the Discovery institute specifically set out to undermine legitimate science to suit a "religious" agenda using shady moves. They admitted this themselves in what later came to be known as the Wedge document. (Which no one here has bothered to address though this is like the 3rd time I've brought it up).
Further, the judge's decision says not only that ID Theory is NOT science, but that Dover school board members and their supporters are liars.
So you know what? I think a harmless silly joke like the parody sticker is totally appropriate. Discovery and Dover ppl were bottomfeeding hacks. They got their asses handed to them by a conservative Bush appointed judge!
The judicial slapdown may have no bearing on ID's validity as an academic pursuit outside the science class. But it does have bearing on the position being ridiculed
So punisher, duper, behe, drakona, top wop and anyone else i missed...yall need to lighten up.
Bettina certainaly doesn't deserve to be called vulgar by a degenerate like Top Wop. at least she's capable of considering the other side.
stop. take a deep breath. realize this was someone's attempt at a joke. the joker did not go out of his way to be offensive. in fact, his joke is a parody of something offensive!
analyzing the joke is totally irrelvant and a waste of time. it's not supposed to be informative or debated for its truth content. this is more aimless missing the point.
the stupidest thing about the creationism warning on the science books is that EVERY good scientist knows that evolution is a "only" a theory, and an incomplete one at that.
anyone who fails to see that should go back to elementary school science class. saying that evolution is "only" a theory is like saying that descent is "only" a video game. Obviously, what's your point?
drakona's entitled to her opinion but her argument really doesn't make any sense. because the most fuzzyheaded thing of all would be replacing the ACTUAL scientific method with something unscientific. it doesn't matter whether you believe in the bible or astrology, tarot cards, or any other psuedo-scientific concept. From a methodological viewpoint, you don't go around changing the definition of science and then saying your theory is scientific now that the definition has changed. And anyone not prepared to address this last point should not bother posting a response to this.
Everyone should find it offensive that TEH CHILDREN would have their education besotted by such stupid thinking as the York County School Board where the trial took place. The fact is that the Discovery institute specifically set out to undermine legitimate science to suit a "religious" agenda using shady moves. They admitted this themselves in what later came to be known as the Wedge document. (Which no one here has bothered to address though this is like the 3rd time I've brought it up).
Further, the judge's decision says not only that ID Theory is NOT science, but that Dover school board members and their supporters are liars.
So you know what? I think a harmless silly joke like the parody sticker is totally appropriate. Discovery and Dover ppl were bottomfeeding hacks. They got their asses handed to them by a conservative Bush appointed judge!
The judicial slapdown may have no bearing on ID's validity as an academic pursuit outside the science class. But it does have bearing on the position being ridiculed
So punisher, duper, behe, drakona, top wop and anyone else i missed...yall need to lighten up.
Bettina certainaly doesn't deserve to be called vulgar by a degenerate like Top Wop. at least she's capable of considering the other side.
Plaz.. naw.. I don't.
I fully understood Bet's first post inconjuntion with the title. No problems. My comments were directed with the direction thread. Drak was right on, even if you don't agree. It was a piece of sarcasim with a very nasty edge. I don't really think Bet found it that way and I can see where many would get a chuckle out of it considering all the music and game lableing that eveyone has taken issue with.
Don't be surprised if you see Christians taking a stand for what they consider holy or sacrid. "We" would be wrong not to. This pic is certainly not the worst, but given the crosssection of this board, expect diametericly apposed posts. (particularly in this forum.) We're all making our way through life and we all have something to say. This is certainly the place to do it. Bet, please keep posting. This is a "free" board and you can say what you want. irregardless.
Thus, I say .. a "joke"???? I'm not laughing. just like you (Plaz) weren't laughing the first time they labled an album or game. BUT! Bet, Keep posting.
I fully understood Bet's first post inconjuntion with the title. No problems. My comments were directed with the direction thread. Drak was right on, even if you don't agree. It was a piece of sarcasim with a very nasty edge. I don't really think Bet found it that way and I can see where many would get a chuckle out of it considering all the music and game lableing that eveyone has taken issue with.
Don't be surprised if you see Christians taking a stand for what they consider holy or sacrid. "We" would be wrong not to. This pic is certainly not the worst, but given the crosssection of this board, expect diametericly apposed posts. (particularly in this forum.) We're all making our way through life and we all have something to say. This is certainly the place to do it. Bet, please keep posting. This is a "free" board and you can say what you want.
irregardless.Thus, I say .. a "joke"???? I'm not laughing. just like you (Plaz) weren't laughing the first time they labled an album or game. BUT! Bet, Keep posting.
-
MD-2389
- Defender of the Night
- Posts: 13477
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Olathe, KS
- Contact:
Palz, its not the joke that really offended them. Its the fact that it was Bet that posted it, given her previous posts. It could be interpreted as yet another jab at religion. Thats pretty much the consensus that Lothar and I came to when I chatted with him about this thread a couple of days ago. If anyone else had posted it, then more than likely it wouldn't have caused this big a reaction.
At any rate, it won't do any good arguing over this. Its not doing anyone any good, so lets just drop it and move on.
At any rate, it won't do any good arguing over this. Its not doing anyone any good, so lets just drop it and move on.