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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Re:Facebook Post Suggests the Website is the Probl

[lina70]

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