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.

Comments

I met him at a party

[Anonymous Coward]

He was, a bit sadly, exactly what you would expect from a guy who has devoted a significant portion of his adult life reproducing the stories of the bible out of legos. Still, it is pretty impressive work.

Re:I met him at a party

[revbps]

Stuart, is that you? I told you I wasn't interested.

Re:I met him at a party

[the_humeister]

Well, that's not a very good description. What exactly was he like???

Re:I met him at a party

[hairyfeet]

I do think it says something about the religions when the worst the guy gets for a Lego bible is banning from Sam's Club for being racy. if he would have tried it with the Koran he'd be hiding in some bunker in Omaha with a 9mm under his pillow just to keep the crazies from killing him. hell look at how completely batshit they went over some Danish cartoons, whereas Ghastly had the "Drunk and bitter Jesus" comic for years and nobody said shit.

To be fair

[thue]

If the Bible was judged purely on its contents, in the same way as other books, then it would require quite a warning label.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

That warning label neglects to warn of the Bible's descriptions of acts of pedophilia and underage sex, which could make it illegal child pornography in say Australia.

Re:To be fair

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"It had been arranged by the prison charlie, as part of my further education to read him the Bible. I didn't so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives' handmaidens. That kept me going."

"I read all about the scourging and the crowning with thorns and all that, and I could viddy myself helping in and even taking charge of the tolchocking and the nailing in, being dressed in the height of Roman fashion."

Re:To be fair

[vadim_t]

News flash: Christianity is only 33% of the world belief, so just by that measure, most of the world doesn't believe in the contents, making it a work of fiction in their view.

Then there's that the bible references plenty events that clearly didn't happen, such as a global flood or the plagues of Egypt, which definitely is fiction.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds is by far the most popular restaurant in the world but that doesn't mean the food is any good.

Re:To be fair

[rainmouse]

I am failing to follow your argument there. What does the % of population believing something have to do with it being fact or fiction?

Re: events that didn't happen... how do you know that? Can you name one?

Actually that's not how belief works. Unless someone is brainwashed as a kid, you have to provide evidence that something is real for them to believe any of it and not expect them to try and disprove it.

Re:To be fair

[Kaenneth]

Nitrogen is the most popular gas to breath, but that dosn't mean it's any good.

Re:To be fair

[SuricouRaven]

Forceibly inpregnanting a child is one of the lesser of God's crimes according to the bible. How about several murders, numerous genocides - both direct and ordered - the creation of a realm of eternal torture... God is a nasty piece of work.

Even those ten plagues are more evil than they seem. God manipulated Pharoh into refusing his instructions purely in order to give himself an excuse to let loose the plagues upon the rest of Pharohs country - and even goes so far as to admit to Moses that he didn't *need* to kill a substantial portion of the population of Egypt, but did so simply to ensure the people of Israel would never forget their debt to him.

Re:To be fair

[Captain Splendid]

I wish more Christians/Jews/Muslims understood this. Even after the conceptual hurdle that is belief in a higher authority, their God is a colossal dick. Who the fuck wants to hop on that bandwagon?

Re:To be fair

[hazah]

What is this evidence. Each time I am faced with this evidence, its only to discover that it's just circular, baseless, logic. I'd sincerely love to have some provided.

Re:To be fair

[PopeRatzo]

I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true

I don't think "evidence" means what you think it means.

Re:To be fair

[Your.Master]

Three parts where you lose me, in order of importance:

1. The assertion that the atheistic worldview utterly fails. I haven't seen an argument to this effect that wasn't either absurd, or attacking an atheistic worldview that is not representative of all or most atheistic worldviews (the straw atheistic worldview).
2. If the atheistic worldview fails, that doesn't leave you ruling out religions. Even if I granted that the atheistic worldview cannot work, I can't see how you'd conclude that what remains is even remotely similar to any world religion. There's pretty much an infinite variety of things that nobody has ever thought of before, which could be said to be consistent with what we know of reality.
3. While I'm sure Christianity does beat out some alternative religions, I'm far from convinced that it's "up there" in terms of plausibility compared to other world religions. I'll grant that I'm more familiar with Christianity (many variations thereof) than any other religion and as such I might be missing some completely wacky things in other religions.

I had a quick look at your site but didn't immediately find anything addressing point 1 (clicking "atheist" led me to a couple antagonistic / preaching to the choir articles, but I'll take that in good humour), and it's a holiday so I won't be researching all day :).

Re:To be fair

[EsbenMoseHansen]

It took me three lines to spot your first grave mistake in an argument. "Under atheism, one cannot really have true evil". Certainly you can, it is just a matter of definition. Say, trying to scare small kiddies with hell if they don't believe is "true evil" in my book. So is torturing alleged heretics, burning witches and a number of other acts. All those acts are more than plentiful evil enough to support the "you cannot have such events in the world, .together with an good, omnipotent and omniscient god".

Besides which, "evil" in this argument doesn't really need to be evil, just obviously bad for humans. Earthquakes, tsunamis and even ice storms comes under that heading.

Destroying the arguments of religious types is easy as stealing candy from children, but more fun and less objectionable :)

Re:To be fair

[decoy256]

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.

Re:To be fair

[SteveW928]

So....
premise 1: "66% of the planet doesn't think it's the truth." (anyone notice the fallacy here?)
premise 2: "If a book doesn't contain truth then it contains something somebody made up, and we call that "fiction"." (quite true)
conclusion: "So according to most of the planet, the bible is fiction." (So?)

So, the first premise if fallacious, the second is good, but the conclusion doesn't follow nor is it relevant to the claims.
(Note: I'm not a logician, so I might have not set that out properly... but this was just too obviously wacked out.)

"It doesn't matter if they reported something or not"
Sure it does, that's how we know history. What I'm saying is that WE KNOW Egypt WOULD NOT have reported such a thing if their behavior is consistent at all. So, we wouldn't EXPECT this to have been reported... so that it isn't is no surprise (and lends no weight to your claim).

"anything like what's depicted in the bible would have been absolutely devastating to Egypt and left ample evidence."
- First, from my understanding, this was one city/region in Egypt, not all of Egypt. Second, I'm not sure how it would have left ample evidence. That was a long time ago.

"Speaking of Exodus, there's no evidence of 600000 people packing up and leaving Egypt either. That would also have left traces."
- Not true. First, you should know that even among Biblical scholars, the numbers (population size) are disputed, BASED on the text (not just liberal skepticism). Second, you might want to do a bit more research before making such a sweeping claim:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBWWO8dCeY0
I could give you lots more... but that's a start.

Re:To be fair

[joocemann]

That may be one reason to call it fiction, but the real reason is the absence of facts. No facts = fiction. People of faith don't like the stigma of these works being called fiction, but faith = belief in that which is absent of fact... the point being that if the bible was factual, the people who believed it would be caled scientists. They canot have faith and facts at the same time; the purposes of those words are mutually exclusive. Thus you can conclude this, faithful people believe ficton and by definition, rightly so; and stupid people think they should have faith but call it fact because they don't have an inteligent grasp of ther language.

Re:To be fair

[Alsee]

Re: events that didn't happen... how do you know that? Can you name one?
- flood... many Christians don't see the flood as global.

Right. And many Christians don't believe there was a walking talking snake and magical fruit in a garden of eden either. In fact the majority of Christians accept evolution, effectively acknowledging the entirety of Genesis is fiction.

However I find it odd that you are complaining about him calling the bible fiction, and somehow your argument against him is to point out that many Christians accept that it's fictional.

You're just fussing over how much of it is fictional. No one I know of disputes that many of the people, places, and events events in the bible are historical, just like no one disputes that many of the people, places, and events events of greek mythology are historical. There probably was a real battle-hero person named Hercules, just like Jesus was almost certainly a real person. However when you know that Medusa and Harpies are fiction, I'm baffled why would anyone believe it wasn't fictional for Hercules to be the son of a God with the strength of a hundred men? And when you know a global flood and walking talking snakes are fictional, I'm baffled why anyone would anyone believe it wasn't fictional for Jesus to be the son of a God and rose from the dead?

-

Re:To be fair

[Caraig]

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.

Re:To be fair

[Samantha Wright]

Well! Maybe on your planet.

Re:To be fair

[ShieldW0lf]

What does the % of population believing something have to do with it being fact or fiction?

Sometimes it's just the way things are. Here's a perfect example:

Your money has value.

Re:To be fair

[artor3]

So, is GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire series also considered illegal child pornography? A quick Google search says no. And yet the descriptions of sex involving people who'd be considered children by modern standards are numerous and far more graphic than anything in the Bible.

Oh, but I'm sorry, your point was to take a shot at religion, not to actually say anything true or interesting.

Re:To be fair

[Grygus]

Science and religion cannot co-exist because they are both searches for truth, but have different notions of the nature of truth. Religion treats basic truths as already known (my god exists and is responsible for everything) and then seeks to justify and glorify this base knowledge. Science assumes that truth is unknown and seeks to get closer to this unknown goal, regardless of where the search takes us. For religion to co-exist with science, the first step would have to be for you to admit that you might be worshiping the incorrect god and to be open to switching gods should evidence cast doubt on your current position; since that's incompatible with the very concept of "faith", the two approaches are irreconcilable.

Re:To be fair

[mcvos]

Actually that's not how belief works. Unless someone is brainwashed as a kid, you have to provide evidence that something is real for them to believe any of it and not expect them to try and disprove it.

That's not how belief works. Every single person on earth believes tons of unproven things. Some of those are true, some aren't.

Re:To be fair

[PopeRatzo]

Eye witness testimony is a form of evidence:

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)

Re:To be fair

[SteveW928]

"True religion is free of dogma and superstition and embraces all truth."
I'm not sure if you are aware of this... but when you take a bunch of beliefs and filter out the false ones, keeping the truth: a) you are going to have to eliminate some of them, and b) what you are left with is dogma.

"whether or not they are true is completely secondary"
Hmm... so Christ didn't care about truth? It doesn't matter if things are true or not? Didn't you just say Christ wants us to embrace all truth?

Nice post of post-modern mumbo-jumbo though. Unfortunately, what is true for you doesn't happen to be true for the rest of us. ;)

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely aural sex puts you at risk of catching hearing AIDS.

Re:To be fair

[khipu]

Christian churches vastly overreport their membership. A very large number of Christians neither knows, nor agrees with, official Christian dogma and beliefs. Many are nothing but "cultural Christians".

Re:To be fair

[SteveW928]

"the first step would have to be for you to admit that you might be worshiping the incorrect god and to be open to switching gods should evidence cast doubt on your current position; since that's incompatible with the very concept of "faith""

Maybe you don't realize this, but many religious folks have done, and do exactly that! You also don't have a very good definition of faith.
Here are a couple articles I've written on the topic:
http://www.tilledsoil.org/category/topics/faith-topics/

Re:To be fair

[khipu]

Well, look at it this way: if that God exists exactly as you perceive him to be portrayed, what happens to you if you're one of the people who down-plays his might/existence?

In that case, Gnosticism has a better explanation, identifying God with the demiurge.

Even Christianity tells you that man knows right from wrong, so no matter what religious figures or holy texts say you, ultimately you should follow your own moral compass. If that conflicts with doctrine, it's likely doctrine that's wrong, even according to Christianity itself.

Re:To be fair

[SteveW928]

Yea, it certainly is a matter of definition... nearly everything is.
Well, you could have an something, an event... that maybe you really don't like (others might), but it wouldn't be evil. It might be beneficial or detrimental, but not evil. (Earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. aren't evil, btw.)
You need objective morality to have either good or evil.
For example, explain, on the atheistic worldview, what is 'evil' with burning a witch.

Re:To be fair

[SteveW928]

"How are these things evidence that christianity is true?"
They aren't... they are evidence atheism is false, or at minimum for some of them, left wanting.
For evidence that Christianity is true, I'd point you to the resurrection of Christ and the testimony of the witnesses.

"How so?"
Explain consciousness from the atheistic worldview... or how reason, logic, and information come from matter. (and those are just a start)

Re:To be fair

[Raenex]

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.

That's called philosophy, not religion.

True religion is free of dogma and superstition and embraces all truth.

What is this "true religion" you speak of? All you did was redefine religion to what you wanted it to be. Let's try a dictionary instead:

"1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

Of course, the average person doesn't have any direct experience with such powers, so they rely on religious authority in the form of dogma, prophets, religious texts, and the like.

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.

Ah, so this is your "true" religion. You have accepted religious authority from a prophet that was written about 2,000 years ago. You could also go with secular humanism and ditch the mysticism.

Re:To be fair

[Raenex]

I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true.... and conversely, plenty of evidence to believe other worldviews are false.

Oh, good, then you're a good person to ask this question to. Why is there only one Christ? Surely an all-powerful god would give the same message to everybody in the world throughout all times? Yet we don't see Christian teachings in isolated places like China, the Americas, Africa, etc. in ancient history. And where was the Christian message before Christ?

It's like different people, isolated around the world and left to their own devices, came up with different answers. Yet 2,000 years later we're supposed to believe the Christian Bible is the one true religion, and all those other ones are not.

Re:To be fair

[vadim_t]

To put it simply, faith is trust based on evidence.

No, you prove the distinction below. You start from the assumption of that the bible must contain truth, or at least be valuable, and try to interpret until it seems to fit. I go in the opposite direction: I look at each part, evaluate it on its own merits, and then assign a worth to the whole based on how the parts hold up.

Another thing to remember is context. When the Bible says 'in all the land of Egypt', that doesn't necessarily mean what the literal reading might indicate. For example, the Bible said the flood covered the whole earth, or that all Israel was at temple celebrations, or that all the Canaanites were wiped out, etc.

Then it's useless to even try to guess what it might mean, if you can create any tortured interpretation you want. I have no need to try to reconcile the bible with reality, as I'm not invested in it. If the bible's account doesn't add up, I don't try to twist the language into sort of fitting: I simply conclude it's wrong and move on.

This last one might give us an interpretive key, as obviously, if we encounter Canaanites later on, they weren't all wiped out. When the Bible speaks in this way (common to other writings of the time), it generally means 'effectively all' rather than 'absolutely all'. For example, the flood did wipe out the whole earth of humanity (the purpose), or the Canaanites were conquered by Israel.

Simpler explanations: whoever wrote the "all wiped out" part initially was wrong, or whoever wrote the later encounter of Caanites was wrong about them being Caanites, or the order of events is mistaken.

A bit over the top. For example, "every firstborn son in all of Egypt died (11:5), wiping out an entire generation of people". If you kill the firstborn of most ancient families, it certainly won't wipe out an entire generation.

Point. But it's still quite a few dead people, and the rest of the plague should kill quite a few more.

Most of the rest is problematic due to an overly-wooden reading of the account.

But that's precisely it. In science we do intentionally do everything in an overly wooden way. Correctness is paramount, and imprecision is heavily frowned upon. One thing that makes me so sure that the bible is bunk is the amount of fudging needed. If it was 100% solid that'd be impressive indeed, but it isn't, and needs "intrepretative keys" like you say above, and each of those I see as a failure.

Re:To be fair

[9jack9]

re: #1 - OK, for example, explain consciousness within the atheistic worldview.

Strange loop. Self-referential pattern.

re: #2 - Note that I did qualify what I said in that way. You might find that none match and be theistic, but have to invent or modify an existing religion.

Perhaps if God is omnipotent, He exists in contradiction to any attempt to prove or disprove his existence. So maybe you can't get to religion through logic.

re: #3 - what don't you find plausible about Christianity?

Off the top of my head: TV preachers. Hucksters. Crusades. Slavery. Papal infallibility. Biblical inerrancy. Intelligent design. Teach the controversy. Creationism. Theocracy. Holy war. Female genital mutilation. Stoning adulterers. Pedophile priests.

Re:To be fair

[williamhb]

Forceibly inpregnanting a child is one of the lesser of God's crimes according to the bible. How about several murders, numerous genocides - both direct and ordered - the creation of a realm of eternal torture... God is a nasty piece of work.

Even those ten plagues are more evil than they seem. God manipulated Pharoh into refusing his instructions purely in order to give himself an excuse to let loose the plagues upon the rest of Pharohs country - and even goes so far as to admit to Moses that he didn't *need* to kill a substantial portion of the population of Egypt, but did so simply to ensure the people of Israel would never forget their debt to him.

Your argument is that God plays God, and someone modded that as insightful?

Re:To be fair

[Missing.Matter]

re: #1 - OK, for example, explain consciousness within the atheistic worldview

So if you were alive before 1700, I suppose you would be asking us to explain lightening within the atheistic worldview? Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean it is therefore God.

Re:To be fair

[Missing.Matter]

You put their claims to the test. Is the universe eternal? Nope... there goes most Eastern religions.

Is the Earth 7000 years old? Nope... there goes Christianity. Oh but it was metaphorical, or perhaps God days are longer than human days, or perhaps we can pick and choose facts from the Bible to believe while other religions we have to take as a whole. I find it amusing how easily you dismiss other religions while glossing over the absurdities of your own.

Re:To be fair

[Missing.Matter]

Personally, I do not understand how someone who is an atheist lives believing that nothing has any meaning and will inevitably end in the heat death of the universe.

Maybe because atheists find meaning in their own. lives and live fully knowing this is all there is and it's best to make use of what we're given.I don't need the promise of an after life to make this life worth living.

Re:To be fair

[Attila Dimedici]

Maybe because atheists find meaning in their own. lives and live fully knowing this is all there is and it's best to make use of what we're given.

What meaning is that? and who gave it to you?

Re:To be fair

[pipedwho]

Inconceivable.

Re:To be fair

[LordLimecat]

Overreporting their membership is different than skewed statistics. Membership has nothing to do with what a person believes in their heart, it has to do with who went through the membership process and is in regular attendence. That is rather easy to measure.

You are right however that polls can show wildly varying statistics on the number of Christians in an area. For instance, start your poll with "do you believe in Jesus", and you might get 80% yes. Continue on to "do you believe that Jesus saves" and you might get 70%. Finally ask "do you believe in a personal God who judges people for their sins", and watch that number plummet to about 40%.

Christianity has become very much a part of US culture to the extent where people will declare themselves christians simply because they try to live by some moral code and be nice to others. Im sure everyone who understands this-- athiest and christian alike-- would agree that it is not an ideal state of affairs, when 40-50% of your population doesnt know what they believe.

Re:To be fair

[LordLimecat]

Best is subjective. If there is no transcendence to the human existence and no purpose behind all that is, then everything is, in the end, of no meaning, of no relative worth; it simply is what it is.

You can try to build morality and meaning into that, but it is artificial.

Re:To be fair

[LordLimecat]

Ill answer your third point because I have heard it so often.

The Bible and basically every conservative denomination will affirm that men are basically bad-- even those who claim to follow christ. Further, they understand that not all who call upon the name of Christ are actually his followers (in fact its in the New Testament-- "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.')

Why then would it be hard to understand how people claiming the name of Christ can commit terrible deeds? For goodness sake, the Jews' greatest hero from the Old Testament-- David-- was not only an adulturer, but a murderer: he had Bathsheeba's husband murdered by sending him to the worst part of a battle and then withdrawing all support.

As for female genital mutilation and pedophile priests, you may want to look elsewhere than protestantism.

As for Intelligent design, are you saying that you dont find Christianity credible because people push to have it taught? What strange kind of logic is this?

Re:To be fair

[SuricouRaven]

You forgot egotistical. The first four of the ten commandments are all variations upon the theme of 'Worship me!' - as is much of the old and new testaments. For an omnipotent being, God is really desperate for attention. As for the descriptions of the throne room... God saw fit to include a choir of angels that does nothing but eternally sing in praise of how great God is.

Re:To be fair

[Mindcontrolled]

I am scared like hell by guys like you, by people who can't envision anything good or meaningful without having it handed to them by their priest. Exactly how depraved are you?

Re:To be fair

[tbannist]

Most atheists have to actually decide what meaning they will put into their lives, and they craft the meaning for themselves.

It's actually more difficult than being a Christian but also more rewarding.

Re:To be fair

[tbannist]

You remember them finding a wooden house on a mountain and the claiming the fact that wood was found on a mountain meant it was the ark. As one historian put it "I don't recall any expedition that set out to find Noah's ark, that didn't ultimately [claim to] find it". Of course the really strange part is they never find it in the same place twice. It's truly amazing how they manage to find a new one every few years.

Re:To be fair

[LordLimecat]

Thats only a barely accurate summary of my post. Im saying that its not murder for a judge to execute the guilty upon conviction, and that God would qualify as the perfect judge due to his knowledge of the facts, his power to enforce, and his innate justice.

I do not think that any arbitrary evil deed would become a good deed if God were to perform it, there are things which God would not do because they would in fact remain evil deeds. I do not think God has done any, and most of the accusations leveled against God are examples of penal justice (and are in fact labeled as such in the bible-- see Habakkuk, for example).

Re:To be fair

[tehcyder]

Personally, I do not understand how someone who is an atheist lives believing that nothing has any meaning and will inevitably end in the heat death of the universe.

Atheists believe plenty of things have meaning, just not baseless fairy tales which should stop being used as crutches once you get past about ten.

My seven year old believes in Father Christmas, my twelve year old doesn't.

Re:To be fair

[Alsee]

even if we were to accept every last claim of the evolutionary theory, it would impact perhaps the first 3 chapters of a 40 chapter book. Im not seeing what it does for the history regarding Moses, and the egyptian captivity, for example.

You're right. I was careless. My intention was "The entire Genesis Account", meaning the creation story. I was sloppy saying it in a way that apparently referred to "The entire Book of Genesis".

Im not seeing what it does for the history regarding Moses, and the egyptian captivity, for example

Evolution and the Genisis account was merely an example. My point was that most Christians know, and if pressed will awkwardly admit, that stuff all across the Bible is fictional. You want to know what it does for the history regarding Moses? Sure. Moses goes to Pharaoh, Pharaoh summons his sorcerers, and the sorcerers' cast enchantments turning their rods into snakes. That's not a miracle preformed by God - that is humans preforming magic turning sticks into snakes. And not only human magic, but humans preforming magic in direct defiance against God. Do you believe humans can actually be sorcerers and do real magic turning sticks into snakes? Do you believe that story is true? And even if you do believe it, do you deny that most Christians would say that was 'probably' or 'certainly' untrue?

Like many works of fiction, it was based on reality. There was a Pharaoh and there were slaves, but the specific dialog and the specific events and the magic is fictional.

then they are manifestly not christian-- not by current definitions, not by historical ones.

Shias can claim Sunis are manifestly not Muslim, Sunis can claim Shias are manifestly not Muslim.

There's only two valid ways to respond to such claims. Either they are both Muslims, or it's the mainstream majority who get to define what it means to be a Muslim and it's the minority sect who gets excluded as non-Muslim.

Protestants can claim Mormons are not Christian, and Mormons can claim Protestants are not Christian. But again, either they are both Christian or it's the mainstream majority who get to define who is a Christian and who is a non-Christian sect with non-conforming beliefs.

In this case the majority of Christians, the mainstream majority Christians, accept evolution as true and that the Genesis Account is not a true/accurate story. If you believe differently then it is you who is the minority sect with divergent beliefs. Either you and they are both Christians, or it is you who isn't a Christian. If you disagree with mainstream majority Christians, and you don't want to share a name with them, then it's you who needs to come up with a different name for your minority religious sect.

If some Westboro Baptist nutjob tried to tell me you're not a Cristian I'd laugh and reject his assertion out of hand. And if you try to tell me the mainstream majority Christians are not Christian I'll laugh and reject your assertion out of hand. A minority sect cannot "expel" the mainstream majority of a religion for not conforming to their minority belief.

I do like that apparently, on slashdot, if you spout factually incorrect (and trivially provable, too) anti-religion rhetoric, you can get modded to +5 for it.

You're right I was careless with the "entirety of Genesis" comment, however that did not undermine the point I was making. It is normal and proper for a post on any subject, with an insignificant mistake, to get modded up when when the main point still stands as interesting or insightful.

-

Re:To be fair

[Alsee]

I honestly don't understand. Can you help me, pointing out where my assumptions are incorrect or where you think I'm being unreasonable? To explain my confusion I need start with a silly illustration... please bear with me through it, and just point out where my assumptions are wrong in the first part or where I'm being unreasonable in the second part.

Lets say I hand you a book about civil war era America. The book includes many real people, real places, real battles, and other real events. Turning to one arbitrary chapter of the book, we have a scene where Harriet Tubbman goes to Abraham Lincoln demanding that the slaves be freed. Lincoln calls several sorcerers into the room. The sorcerers toss several sticks on the ground and magically turn them into snakes.

I assume we can agree that sorcerers aren't real, and that people can't actually cast magical enchantments to turn turn sticks into snakes. Harriet Tubbman and Abraham Linclon were real people, but I assume we can agree that the book's dialog between them is fictional. I assume we can agree that the book is a work of fiction, regardless of the accurate description of civil war battles included in the story. I assume we can agree that it is reasonable to make a sweeping dismissal of all of the magical scenes in the book as being fictional, regardless of any true civil war events included in the story.

And then you hand me a book. I turn to a random chapter and I find a story about a guy named Moses going to a guy named Pharaoh, demanding the slaves bee freed. And the book then says Pharaoh calls upon his sorcerers, and they toss their rods onto the ground and enchant them into snakes.

Note that that is not some miracle being preformed by God. According the the book you handed me, the sorcerers are magically enchanting the sticks into snakes. They are not doing a miracle with the aid of god, they are preforming magic in defiance against God.

Ok. There were indeed real Pharaohs, and there were slaves in Egypt, and there probably was some real person names Moses.

Now...
Honest question: Do you believe Pharaoh had actual sorcerers? Do you believe they did real magic, in defiance against God, actually turning sticks into snakes?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think there is no such thing as sorcerers?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think that people can't do magic turning sticks into snakes?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's dialog between Moses and Pharaoh is at least partially fictional?

Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's description of sticks turning into snakes is fictional?

Is it unreasonable for me to call the civil war book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers? Is it unreasonable for me to call the Bible book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers?

Is it unreasonable for me to dismiss all of the magical scenes from the book as fictional components?

In your last post, the closest thing I could find to addressing the issue was "And the misconception that the Bible is a single book that must adopt the same mode of communication throughout." Well, what if someone said the exact same thing in defense of the civil war book? The civil war book "adopts different modes of communication" in different parts, so somehow other magical parts of the civil war story should be taken as non-fiction?

I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at a book with walking talking snakes (Genesis) and sorcerers turning sticks into snakes (Exodus), and take any of the magical scenes any more seriously than the Wizard of Oz. Sure The Wizard of Oz can teach many lessons about courage, morality, kindness, good&evil, and whatnot. But the moment flying monkeys and witches show up (or talking snakes and sorcerers) it is, in my opinion, pretty obvious that a book is overall a magic-filled fairytale.

I honestly don't understand. Do you think Pharaoh had real sorcerers who did real magic? Or do you accept that particular magic-scene is fiction and somehow ignore/deny that as a an indication that other magic-scenes in the book are also fiction? Or... or... I honestly have no idea what.

-

Okay, ALMOST gave a damn

[SmallFurryCreature]

BUT then I read the article and found out that Brendan Smith SELF-CENSORED his book at the request of Sam's Club in order to make more money.

So... I am supposed to care that a guy who willingly took a dick up his ass got more then he bargained for?

Hell no. Smith approves of censor ship in name of the almighty dollar well, then he has to go all the way. If you want me to care about your lack of freedom you shouldn't have given it away first. This guy has no principles clearly, he only cares about selling less books.

Let this be a warning, you can NOT negotiate with religious extremist. Give them a finger and they rip of your arm then beat you with it. Why do you think Larry Flint the smut peddler was defended by civil rights groups? Not for the sake of porn itself.

Re:Okay, ALMOST gave a damn

[mgiuca]

And what in the world is wrong with self-censorship?

If you tell me that I cannot say a particular thing, then I despise you, for you are limiting my basic human right to freedom of speech -- that is censorship.
If I decide that it would be inappropriate for me to say a particular thing, then I am exercising my right to freedom of speech (which includes freedom to not say something) -- that is self-censorship.

There is nothing wrong with self-censorship. If I think that I can make more money by not saying a particular thing, then I am absolutely within my rights to not say it. Censorship is only bad when someone else is forcing it upon you. Who are you to tell Smith what he should and should not have included in his own book?

Hello!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct quotes from the Old Testament .... Illustrated by Lego characters ... People thought it was a childrens book.

It's the Old Testament! THAT, isn't a childrens story!

Sam's Club is bending to the will of a few ignorant souls. Poor form, Sam's Club. Poor form.

Re:Hello!!!

[LeperPuppet]

Why not get the Christo-fascists involved and let them know that Sam's Club is refusing to sell the bible? Should be entertaining.

Re:Hello!!!

[Mostly a lurker]

It's the Old Testament! THAT, isn't a childrens story!

It also is of dubious artistic merit, contains explicit sex scenes and glorifies violence. If one is going to justify censorship at all, I can see no reason why the sale and possession of this filth should not be banned.

Not censorship...

[SteveW928]

Umm, no matter what happened (I'm not familiar with the book), a store deciding they don't want to sell a product isn't censorship.

Re:Not censorship...

[SteveW928]

It may or may not be a good business decision, but isn't censorship.

Re:Not censorship...

[migla]

So any product WalMart/Sam's Club doesn't sell is now the victim of censorship? No wonder Slashdotters have such a warped vision of the world.

So, logically, if/when WalMart/Sam's Club and maybe a handful other megacorporations own all production and distribution of everything, there will be no censorship, since it isn't called that when you use the power of money and connections instead of the power of law and police?

Yay, future!

Re:Not censorship...

[Jedi Alec]

Correct. That is not censorship.

Once they send in the uniformed goons to stop you from setting up a printing press in your backyard and distributing it yourself...that's where it crosses the line.

Freedom of speech does not bring any obligation for others to provide you with a platform for that speech, nor does it force others to pay attention to said speech.

Re:Not censorship...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hypocritical

[Thesis]

There is rape, incest, homosexuality, torture, as well as murder in the King James Bible. Perhaps they should ban it as well.

Re:Hypocritical

[jesseck]

There is rape, incest, homosexuality, torture, as well as murder in the King James Bible. Perhaps they should ban it as well.

but the gays were slaughtered by fire and brimstone, the raped mothers didn't get an abortion, of course adam and eves kids had sex with each other (how else would mankind go on?), and the terrorists had to be interrogated. How is this bad?

Re:Hypocritical

[ceoyoyo]

And those are the tame parts!

Re:Hypocritical

[LordLimecat]

FYI the folks in sodom and gomorrah werent killed because they were gay, they were killed because of their attempt to sodomize visitors to a town by violence.

Totally innocent, right?

And FYI the Bible explicitly endorses sex, theres an entire book of the bible devoted to it (Song of Songs).

Yay +5 ignorant.

Re:Hypocritical

[Culture20]

of course adam and eves kids had sex with each other (how else would mankind go on?)

There are two points of creation of humans in the Bible. Adam and Eve in the second chapter of Genesis (as a flashback, note the mention of what day it is...), which talks only about Eden, sort of a proving ground for everything that would be created after solid ground. Then, on the sixth day (first chapter), God creates humanity all over the Earth. Thus, Cain went to Nod and got a wife from these other humans. Seth and the rest of Adam's brood didn't have to be incestuous, and there's no direct mention that they were. Of course, Lot's daughters on the other hand... at least they can be slightly excused for having grown up in Sodom and they thought everyone else in the world was probably dead. Although admittedly they didn't do a lot of searching in the area before they got their dad drunk.

Bad Excerpt!

[Pope]

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.

Re:Bad Excerpt!

[SteveW928]

Haven't seen the book, but given that it was authored by an atheist, is it possibly taking a jab at the Bible, rather than being a 'bible told through Legos'? If so, maybe after some complaints, someone looked at it more closely and decided they didn't want to sell that kind of product.

Re:Bad Excerpt!

[lina70]

This is exactly the problem I have with what Sam's Club did. The only complaints I actually could find posted about the book were actually complaints about the author's OTHER work and the fact that he is an atheist. Pulling the book because of complaints about his other work seems wrong to me. Pulling the book because the author is an Atheist is incredibly wrong to me, and I doubt Sam's Club did that (let's hope, anyway!). More likely they believed the concerns at face value and thought "oh my, this book contains sex and might be given to kids" without actually verifying the complaints they got. I just don't understand or agree with the logic of pulling one work because the author's other work offends some.

Summary

[Megane]

So he makes this book doing the Old Testament, and makes scenes of minifigs "begatting" (there's a lot of that going on in the OT), and the Sams Club buyer has a problem with it. So the author removes those scenes.

Meanwhile, the parental shitstorm stirring crew goes about spreading info about how there are all these sex scenes, and they astroturf a bunch of complaints without actually looking at the version that is being sold. Then someone else at Sams Club decides that it needs to be pulled because of all the complaints from the idiot busybodies.

(I wonder if how much brick house was in those minifig sex scenes.)

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot?

[Surt]

What's wrong with his claim? Just because 70+% of the population isn't modern doesn't mean the rest of us aren't holding them in contempt.

Facebook Post Suggests the Website is the Problem

[Paul Slocum]

The woman who posted on Facebook seems to be saying that the content that is inappropriate for children is not in the book, but on the website. The book was edited for kids, but she's saying that kids these days know to look for a website for more content if they like something, and the website contains adult-oriented violent and sexually charged themes that were edited from the book, which is marketed towards kids. I don't know that I totally agree, but I can kinda see her point that if a franchise like this is marketed towards kids, then you kinda expect the entire franchise to be that way. Just because you think the bible is the word of God doesn't necessarily mean you want to teach all of the most violent and sexual parts to your 6-year-old.

Completely logical actions...

[drb226]

Parents pick up what appears to be a children's book, later discover it uses legos to illustrate sex in a few of the images. Sam's gets numerous complaints, pulls the book off the shelves, and tells the author the book sells well, but they won't stock more unless he removes the few sexual images. He does, and his books continue to sell rather well. Honestly, the whole "Bible" detail of this story is simply a confounding factor to make slashdotters say OMG religion so dumb! Censorship! etc. Does the KJV speak in plain terms about sex? Sure, if you speak English euphemisms from the 1600s. This is why parents are a lot more comfortable reading the KJV to their kids, rather than showing them lego people having sex. Let's all go back to our caves now; nothing to see here.

Re:Completely logical actions...

[vadim_t]

Ah, so it's okay to read to children so long they don't actually understand what it means? And the problem of representing it graphically is that it makes it understandable?

I think there should be consistency: Either both the book and the bible should be removed, or both the book and the bible should be fine to sell.

Re:What is this doing on Slashdot?

[SteveW928]

Your awesome commen.... priceless! :)

Actually, Slashdot has lots of great stuff... which is why I read it. It just seems to collect a super high concentration of overly ignorant atheists.

Re:Facebook Post Suggests the Website is the Probl

[lina70]

Don't parents know how to manage kids' use of computers & the internet?

Re:good

[lina70]

It's not unheard of for people to become Atheist after reading the Bible. That's what did it for Penn Jillette!

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20808

warning

[kwikrick]

It's not for nothing that the brick bible website has this warning:

"The Bible contains material some may consider morally objectionable and/or inappropriate for children. These labels identify stories containing: nudity, sexual content, violence, cursing"

what else is new?

[khipu]

"I have just been informed that Sam's Club is pulling 'The Brick Bible' from the shelves of all of their retail locations nationwide due to the complaints of a handful of people that it is vulgar and violent,"

That probably has something to do with the fact that the Bible itself is vulgar and violent: it contains human sacrifice, genocide, infidelity, and incest, much of it actually approved by God!

WMT caves to religious hypocrites...

[Jawnn]

...film at eleven. Come on, folks. WMT is based deep in the Bible Belt. Their market demographic includes a large chunk of poorly educated, religious fundamentalists who believe that nudity, let alone sex, is "sinful". So a few dozen hypocrites called in and complained of "dirty pictures" in yet another edition of "The Good Book", and WMT nearly falls over itself to "correct" this horrifying assault on Christian children. And this surprises anyone, why?