Slashdot Mirror
Lego Bible Too Racy For Sam's Club
localman writes with this excerpt from CNET: "Through his hit Web site and three popular books, [author Brendan] Smith has spread the gospel of 'The Brick Testament.' But now, because of what it says are concerns about 'mature content,' Sam's Club, one of the nation's largest retailers, has banned in-store sales of the fourth book in the series, The Brick Bible.
The point of TFA is that the book was pulled after one or two complaints based on an unedited preview version of the book and website, NOT the final version that was going to be sold in the stores! The author took out the "objectionable" material for the final version.
It's about as stupid as all the FCC complaints sent in en masse by religious groups who never watch the shows they're supposedly objecting to.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
How does belief make someone ignorant? I am constantly baffled by the notion, spread by Christians and Atheists alike, that there is no peaceful coexistence (even peaceful coexistence inside the mind of a single person) between science and Christianity.
I agree with the atheists when they make fun of religionists (and I use that term very intentionally, since a religionist is different than a believer... unfortunately 90% of all modern Christians... heck 90% of all religious people... are religionists). There is much mock-worthy in their stand point.
I also think that atheists go too far... they see all of the problems of religion, but do not see the clear path through those problems to a set of beliefs that are not bound by the religionist superstitions and dogma. True religion is free of dogma and superstition and embraces all truth.
Because true religion isn't about building a fancy church or enjoying an entertaining Sunday sermon or even about feeling good because you do so much gosh-darned service and aren't you such a good-boy? It is about personal, deep and real growth. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the Flood or Plagues or a 6-day creation or parting the Red Sea or any of the nifty stories (whether or not they are true is completely secondary). I happen to believe that it is only in and through Christ that one can have the most personal, the deepest, and the most significant growth. But I believe He commanded us to embrace all truth, not just the truths that make us feel good about ourselves and are easy and convenient for us.
But religion has ceased being about growth and has become an industry like any other industry -- corrupt and self-cannibalizing, based on and directed towards individual self-aggrandizement (for both preachers and parishioners) and the cares and filthy lucre of this world. Except one. The religion that teaches personal growth (not just giving lip-service to growth) and its truth can only be seen and found by those who are committed to personal growth. Anyone else who stumbles into such a church would only see the outer trappings. It is interesting... the religion of personal growth can only be found through personal growth. We are, quite literally, a self-selecting group.
No, just... no. Evolution does not work that way. Evolution does not generate new species within a span of 6000 years. Or even 200,000 years. Not like that, not for complex higher mammals.
If the Abrahamic flood story is real -- and it will have to compete with the Babylonian flood story -- then it's possible 'two of every animal' meant two of every domesticated animal on his farm/land. That would make more sense.
But there is no evidence whatsoever of *all* humans dating back to any flood. Mitochondrial Eve dates back to at least 200,000 years ago, when homo sapiens sapiens was just developing, and she was in sub-Saharan Africa. If you really want to contemplate that all of humanity arose from a single population, that is the current theory; and the holes in it suggest that the single population originator dates back even FURTHER.
Could Mitochondrial Eve's population of h. sapiens gotten on an ark to escape a flood? Doubtful. They were budding tool users but not to the extent that it would take to build even a coracle boat. Plus, they were not in a region in which there is geological evidence that there was any flooding.
The best contender for the flood myth is the recurring theme of floods in Egyptian mythology. Egyptian history -- history, not myth -- also has some intriguing events to look into, in particular the establishment of Atenism (the first true monotheism) and the civil war in the Late Bronze Age between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, which was under the control of the Hyskos and Sea Peoples (called in Egyptian the 'Habiru.') The Hyskos were driven out of Egypt, and one theory is that these people went to Canaan. After a period of integration and assimilation, Atenism reasserted itself and the priests of El' (sound familiar?) declared him to be the one true god, purging the priesthoods of other deities including Baal Hadad and Asherah.
There's some fascinating things in the actual history of the world, before, during, and after the Bronze Age Collapse. Between the Sea Peoples and the detonation of Thera/Santorini, the the disappearance of Minoan civilization, there's a gloriously complex world that we've only just begun to uncover. Sadly, if you take the Abrahamic Bible as anything other than metaphor, mythology, and religious scripture, you are going to be sorely, sadly disappointed.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
of all forms of evidence, eye-witness testimony is by far the least reliable.
Google "Umbrella Man Errol Morris" for a great discussion of this.
(hat tip to Jeremiah Cornelius)
You are welcome on my lawn.
If the store decided to not carry this book due to its contents, then yes, it is censorship (just not government censorship in this case). At least, as far as the English language definition of censorship is concerned. According to Merriam-Webster:
censorship - 1a. the institution, system, or practice of censoring
censoring - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (censor the news); also : to suppress or delete as objectionable (censor out indecent passages)
Mainly, it's the intent of Sam's Club in this case. If they decided not to carry this book because they didn't think it'd be profitable, then that's one thing. And, if they felt that the contents of the book would keep it from being profitable, then it still would not be censorship. However, if they chose not to carry the book because they did not want to help distribute what they deemed to be "objectionable content", that's censorship.