Bible Is Spared Getting An "Indecent" Classification In Hong Kong

Gohomelaker wrote:

"I understand that there are many passages that could be construed as being offensive, but I believe that most if not all of our world's religious texts would have to be classified in the same way."

That would depend on one's definition of a religious text. I do not believe in censorship. However, I do believe in objectivity. And the truth is that most religions ask, no, demand, that followers abandon reason.

Movies with violent and/or sexual and/or otherwise potentially offensive content come with a strong warning, at least in North America. I do believe that the same warning for Biblical, Koranic and other religious content of similar nature would not be misplaced. It should also be made clear that such content must be taken as fictional, or mythological, not as fact and that it should not be acted upon.

While I think that reasonable people will not act upon the content of this literature, I also realize that some do. Many of the sufferings I had to endure as a child, at the hands of my parents and other educators, were justified Bible in hand. This is not acceptable. I would like to believe that this was a long time ago, and that such things no longer happen, but we know that this is simply not the case.

When we watch Captain Kirk being "beamed up" in Star Trek, it is seen as fiction. When Mary, still virgin after giving birth, is "beamed up" in the New Testament, it is seen as fact by millions.

In view of the realities of life, the Bible and other similar content is not just indecent or offensive, it is downright dangerous. It should be labelled as such.

If parts of the Bible were made into movies they would get X ratings without question. So why the double standard? Faith is the act of believing the unbelievable, if it wasn’t unbelievable it wouldn’t require faith to believe it.

“Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool” Voltaire

"While I think that reasonable people will not act upon the content of this literature, I also realize that some do"

One is either reasonable or he is not and if "they act upon the content of this literature," it would imply that they are not reasonable. Period

.

The Bible is a historical text. Many peices of historical art are sexually explicit and full of violence, yet we view them. I do not understand people who attack historical art, or religious texts.

@ 666divine:
"While I think that reasonable people will not act upon the content of this literature, I also realize that some do"

One is either reasonable or he is not and if "they act upon the content of this literature," it would imply that they are not reasonable. Period

.

You are right. That's what I meant. I should have written "I also realize that some people do" in order to make clear that I was not talking about the same people.

@ Samantha A. Torrence:
The Bible is a historical text. Many peices of historical art are sexually explicit and full of violence, yet we view them. I do not understand people who attack historical art, or religious texts.

I do understand them. It has to do with consistency. *If* a woman whipping out a teat is condemnable when the scene has just been painted last week, it should also be condemnable if it was painted 500 years ago, or 2000 years ago. One is either narrow-minded, or not.