Atheist Conspiracy wins another Victory

[Enforcer Talen]

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEno ... 8320070516

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.

[Cao Cao]

Something I saw on another board would seem apt here:

[wolveraptor]

"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.

Violent and sexual movies don't always encourage the violence and sex they contain. That doesn't mean you wouldn't stop a 2 year old from seeing them. This dude's response is pretty much a red-herring. He doesn't address the fact that violence and rape exists in the Bible.

Not to mention the fact that much Biblical violence and incest is actually sympathetically portrayed by the authors.

[Cao Cao]

Not to mention the fact that much Biblical violence and incest is actually sympathetically portrayed by the authors.

Not to mention rape, like the guy who offers his daughters to a rape gang so they'll stop bothering a couple of angels.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I said this on another board, but who cares...

While I find this hilarious in its irony, I'm opposed to censorship of most things.

[Stark]

Remember all the outcry you get when a movie features, say, drug use, even if it portrays drug use in a crushingly negative light? Like, say, Trainspotting? That clearly encourages drug use - there's no anti-drug message in it at all. Ban it.

[Eulogy]

The best part of this is that it is impossible for fundies to disprove this. All the opposition has to do is dare said fundies to read the Bible completely.

The fundies, therefore, either chicken out, carry out the dare, or lie. Either way, we win.

[Darth Wong]

"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.

Moses once ordered his men to kill all the women and boys of a defeated tribe and then take their girls (obviously against their will) for themselves. And he is held up as the moral light of the Israelites.

[Darth Servo]

The best part of this is that it is impossible for fundies to disprove this.

You really think that matters to them? They've been using dishonest scaremonger tactics against their opponents (and to win converts) for centuries. What makes you think they'll stop now and not just say this is more of the "evil liberal conspiracy" trying to suppress them and "the truth"

[DPDarkPrimus]

Remember all the outcry you get when a movie features, say, drug use, even if it portrays drug use in a crushingly negative light? Like, say, Trainspotting? That clearly encourages drug use - there's no anti-drug message in it at all. Ban it.

Did you hear that the MPAA is seriously considering an automatic R rating if anyone underage is shown using a tobacco product?

That means the Sandlot would have gotten an R rating.

[Eulogy]

The best part of this is that it is impossible for fundies to disprove this.

You really think that matters to them? They've been using dishonest scaremonger tactics against their opponents (and to win converts) for centuries. What makes you think they'll stop now and not just say this is more of the "evil liberal conspiracy" trying to suppress them and "the truth"

The "truth"? The truth is that the "evil" liberals only have to read choice passages from the Bible to make others think twice about their position.

Seriously Servo, all the opposition has to do is get the audience to read the same passages that they do. When Joe Sixpack finds out that his Good Book really DOES contain the rape, beastiality etc. that the fundies' opponents say it has, it will at least give said opponents credence and make the fundies look bad.

It' s not like it's even that hard to do. They could simply challenge the people to read the Bible (or to have neutral third parties do it for them). Hell, they could even make this a bet.

The strongest piece of evidence supporting this "evil liberal conspiracy" is the hardcover tome found in every church; something the fundies cannot lie about without ultimately making themselves look stupid.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

You are all mistaken. Fundies care not for truth, but for Truth. Capitalization makes all the difference. Lower case truth has to do with correspondence to some verifiable reality through observation and inference, and as a human activity is fallible, and almost certainly wrong due to sin induced bias. Truth, on the other hand, is correspondence to the will of the Eternal, which they have received by reading in a book or listening to someone older claim to have read in a book (miraculously, without using either sensory perception or reasoning, since those are so prone to error), is more fundamental than reality, and is so important that it should be spread by lies and threats of violence, if necessary.

[Darth Servo]

Eulogy, you clearly don't have much experience dealing with fundies. They'll accuse the people who point out the horrors of the bible of all kinds of ridiculous things like "taking the verse out of context" or "not interpreting it properly" or "Its not evil for God to do it" etc, etc, etc.

[Hillary]

If there is rape mentioned in the Bible

What do you mean "if"? Don't you know? Have you actually read the book you base your life and career on?

[Setesh]

If there is rape mentioned in the Bible

What do you mean "if"? Don't you know? Have you actually read the book you base your life and career on?

Fundie: See the bible never directly says the word, rape, so it may not in fact contain actual rape.

You will hear this argument at least once.

Moses once ordered his men to kill all the women and boys of a defeated tribe and then take their girls (obviously against their will) for themselves. And he is held up as the moral light of the Israelites.

Fundie answer: But in those days it was expected for women to submit themselves to conquerors, they were taken as wives so it wasn't rape.

The worst part is I didn't make that up, I've had that exact argument on Fresh-hope. There is this cadre of fundies who have this really strange argument that the bible was written for the moral values of the period and/or has total applicability today despite changing values. They can literally defend biblical morality of slavery because it was okay then but turn around and argue that being gay is still wrong because the bible said so and is never wrong. They hold that 'special' (ie insane) type of cognitive dissonance that TSWONMNBS used that quoting their own arguments is lying.

[wolveraptor]

One guy I argued with said that the sentence, "take the girls who have not lain with a man for yourselves," does not necessarily mean that they were taken to have sex with. They were, according to him, only taken as servants It's entirely reasonable. After all, what would a bunch of burly soldiers who, while on campaign, haven't so much as smelled a woman in months want with a pale, tender young virgin?

[Darth Wong]

One guy I argued with said that the sentence, "take the girls who have not lain with a man for yourselves," does not necessarily mean that they were taken to have sex with. They were, according to him, only taken as servants It's entirely reasonable. After all, what would a bunch of burly soldiers who, while on campaign, haven't so much as smelled a woman in months want with a pale, tender young virgin?

Yeah, I guess the non-virgin girls would have been lousy servants, right? That's why they killed them and took only the virgins? Fundie apologist bullshit never ceases to amaze me.

[Darth Raptor]

And as if "We're not raping our slaves! Honest" makes the slavery all better.

[wolveraptor]

That means the Sandlot would have gotten an R rating.

That means fucking 101 Dalmations would've gotten an R rating. Cruella deVille smoked.

On topic: that guy I was arguing with eventually conceded that it was ridiculous to assume that they were taken for anything other than sex. Now, however, he's fallen back on the position that the Israelites were still sinful humans, and needed to quench their lust. God apparently recognized this, and allowed them to rape the virgins.

I interpret that as a complaint that we're holding the Israelites to unreasonably high moral standards, higher than those of fucking god.

[DPDarkPrimus]

That means the Sandlot would have gotten an R rating.

That means fucking 101 Dalmations would've gotten an R rating. Cruella deVille smoked.

I didn't know Cruella deVille was underage.

[Eulogy]

On topic: that guy I was arguing with eventually conceded that it was ridiculous to assume that they were taken for anything other than sex. Now, however, he's fallen back on the position that the Israelites were still sinful humans, and needed to quench their lust. God apparently recognized this, and allowed them to rape the virgins.

I interpret that as a complaint that we're holding the Israelites to unreasonably high moral standards, higher than those of fucking god.

What a monstrous little fucktard. God's condoning rape, and the fucktard is defending them.

Misinterpreting, my left asscheek.

[Darth Raptor]

I didn't know Cruella deVille was underage.

That's what smoking does to you.

[Darth Wong]

On topic: that guy I was arguing with eventually conceded that it was ridiculous to assume that they were taken for anything other than sex. Now, however, he's fallen back on the position that the Israelites were still sinful humans, and needed to quench their lust. God apparently recognized this, and allowed them to rape the virgins.

I interpret that as a complaint that we're holding the Israelites to unreasonably high moral standards, higher than those of fucking god.

And how does Mr. Fucktard explain the fact that Moses was angry at them for not killing all of the prisoners who weren't virgin girls? That's why he had to get angry at them; they made the error of not being vicious enough for Moses. This guy is supposed to be the voice of God; it is upon his personal word that the entire pentateuch is based (in fact, according to the mythology, he wrote it himself). Hence, all of Judeo-Christian creation mythology and Old Testament morality is based on his word: a guy who got angry at his men because they didn't butcher their prisoners.

[Darth Servo]

On topic: that guy I was arguing with eventually conceded that it was ridiculous to assume that they were taken for anything other than sex. Now, however, he's fallen back on the position that the Israelites were still sinful humans, and needed to quench their lust. God apparently recognized this, and allowed them to rape the virgins.

I interpret that as a complaint that we're holding the Israelites to unreasonably high moral standards, higher than those of fucking god.

Does he give any reason at all why the Israeli women they already had with them weren't good enough for that purpose?

[Hillary]

And how does Mr. Fucktard explain the fact that Moses was angry at them for not killing all of the prisoners who weren't virgin girls? That's why he had to get angry at them; they made the error of not being vicious enough for Moses. This guy is supposed to be the voice of God; it is upon his personal word that the entire pentateuch is based (in fact, according to the mythology, he wrote it himself). Hence, all of Judeo-Christian creation mythology and Old Testament morality is based on his word: a guy who got angry at his men because they didn't butcher their prisoners.

I'm seriously thinking of getting some leaflets printed demanding that Moses be postumusely charged with war crimes, detailing the atrocities he committed and ordered. I'll hand them out outside the church hall where this idiot stands telling people to come in and be saved.

Just for the sheer hell of it and to see the fool's reaction.