Comments on: Banning the Bible http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:03:18 +0000 By: John P http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24105 John P Wed, 23 May 2007 01:58:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24105 Thanks. I'm surprised no one has done it yet. It sounds like a good project for Larry Flynt. Thanks. I'm surprised no one has done it yet. It sounds like a good project for Larry Flynt.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24101 Ebonmuse Tue, 22 May 2007 23:33:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24101 John P: That, good sir, is brilliant. :) Truth, we ought to start a project to rewrite the whole Bible in modern language, or at least the nasty parts. The kind of religious conservatives who usually agitate to ban books for sex or violent content would go into spasms of cognitive dissonance when they read it, and I for one would love to see that. John P: That, good sir, is brilliant. :) Truth, we ought to start a project to rewrite the whole Bible in modern language, or at least the nasty parts. The kind of religious conservatives who usually agitate to ban books for sex or violent content would go into spasms of cognitive dissonance when they read it, and I for one would love to see that.

]]> By: Pi Guy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24084 Pi Guy Tue, 22 May 2007 11:22:30 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24084 John P, I think that maybe you've struck on an untapped market: Translating common or oft-referenced verses in the Bible into modern language and analagous, if not ironically humorous, situations. Aside from the book/website forum, I n caenvision people using the material to present during local school board meetings where a Book Banning Party is on the agenda. Then, read a few of the modern, offensive, <i>entirely accurate</i> translated version with the names changed slightly and get the support of the audience. *Burn it! Burn it!* <b>Then</b> re-read the passages as they appear in the Bible and continue to recommend that it be banned as well, or none at all. John P,

I think that maybe you've struck on an untapped market: Translating common or oft-referenced verses in the Bible into modern language and analagous, if not ironically humorous, situations.

Aside from the book/website forum, I n caenvision people using the material to present during local school board meetings where a Book Banning Party is on the agenda. Then, read a few of the modern, offensive, entirely accurate translated version with the names changed slightly and get the support of the audience. *Burn it! Burn it!* Then re-read the passages as they appear in the Bible and continue to recommend that it be banned as well, or none at all.

]]> By: Samuel Langhorne Clemens http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24078 Samuel Langhorne Clemens Tue, 22 May 2007 00:36:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24078 It ain't the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me -- it's the parts that I do. It ain't the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me -- it's the parts that I do.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24072 Alex Weaver Mon, 21 May 2007 20:13:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24072 <blockquote>However, I think it's certainly reasonable to limit children's access to material that is age-appropriate.</blockquote> Interesting. What do we mean by "children" and how do we define "age-appropriate?" (My own experience suggests that the best approach would be to poll adults as to the age at which they feel children are able to handle the topic in question, take the average, and subtract five years. x.x )

However, I think it's certainly reasonable to limit children's access to material that is age-appropriate.

Interesting. What do we mean by "children" and how do we define "age-appropriate?" (My own experience suggests that the best approach would be to poll adults as to the age at which they feel children are able to handle the topic in question, take the average, and subtract five years. x.x )

]]> By: Intergalactic Hussy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24067 Intergalactic Hussy Mon, 21 May 2007 17:15:39 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24067 Perhaps just a warning label (not to take it seriously) would suffice? Perhaps just a warning label (not to take it seriously) would suffice?

]]> By: norman ravitch http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24065 norman ravitch Mon, 21 May 2007 15:39:33 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24065 John P: You are right about the Bible and the way it is written. The old archaic language gives a certain beauty and sanctity to some of the most ridiculous notions and beliefs. That is why a modern Bible translation turns people off: it reveals the whole thing for what it is/was: ancient superstition and barbarism. John P: You are right about the Bible and the way it is written. The old archaic language gives a certain beauty and sanctity to some of the most ridiculous notions and beliefs. That is why a modern Bible translation turns people off: it reveals the whole thing for what it is/was: ancient superstition and barbarism.

]]> By: John P http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24064 John P Mon, 21 May 2007 14:54:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24064 I find it interesting the the archaic language of the Bible tends to mask the obscenity. We don't speak or write the way the OT and NT writers wrote, so obliquely and euphemistically. Rewrite the paragraphs you quote from Genesis in todays English, without pulling punches, and the book would be banned in Boston. <blockquote> And Lot moved from Zoar into a little cabin in the mountains, and took his two, young, nubile daughters with him. His first born, having reached puberty and showing an interest in sex, said to her younger sister, who was also showing signs of horniness, "Dad's getting up there in years, but he's still got a little spunk to him, and I don't see many men visiting this god-forsaken cabin in the woods in the near future, and I've got an itch only a man can scratch. So let's get him drunk and have some fun. What do you say, Sis?" So they went out to the still where they made their hootch down by the Piney Creek, brought back a couple of jugs of that sweetwater syrup, and gave it to their father to drink. Once he was drunk as a skunk, the oldest went to his bedroom, stripped naked and f**ked his brains out. When she was done, she sent her sister in to do the same, and she proceeded to f**k his brains out too, (not that he had many left after her sister got through with him) but, with the alcohol fogging his brain, he did not remember the next morning having such carnal relations with his own two daughters. Of course, nine months later his children/grandchildren were born.</blockquote> Hope I don't get you in trouble with the censors with that re-write, Adam.:) I find it interesting the the archaic language of the Bible tends to mask the obscenity. We don't speak or write the way the OT and NT writers wrote, so obliquely and euphemistically. Rewrite the paragraphs you quote from Genesis in todays English, without pulling punches, and the book would be banned in Boston.

And Lot moved from Zoar into a little cabin in the mountains, and took his two, young, nubile daughters with him. His first born, having reached puberty and showing an interest in sex, said to her younger sister, who was also showing signs of horniness, "Dad's getting up there in years, but he's still got a little spunk to him, and I don't see many men visiting this god-forsaken cabin in the woods in the near future, and I've got an itch only a man can scratch. So let's get him drunk and have some fun. What do you say, Sis?"

So they went out to the still where they made their hootch down by the Piney Creek, brought back a couple of jugs of that sweetwater syrup, and gave it to their father to drink. Once he was drunk as a skunk, the oldest went to his bedroom, stripped naked and f**ked his brains out. When she was done, she sent her sister in to do the same, and she proceeded to f**k his brains out too, (not that he had many left after her sister got through with him) but, with the alcohol fogging his brain, he did not remember the next morning having such carnal relations with his own two daughters. Of course, nine months later his children/grandchildren were born.

Hope I don't get you in trouble with the censors with that re-write, Adam.:)

]]> By: norman ravitch http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24062 norman ravitch Mon, 21 May 2007 14:21:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24062 I remember a delightful advertisement for The Bible Uncovered by Robert Ingersoll, a famous American atheist, which asked the question: would you want your children reading such stuff? Banning the Bible won't unfortunately work but it is a very dangerous book; it has destroyed or weakened many a mind. I remember a delightful advertisement for The Bible Uncovered by Robert Ingersoll, a famous American atheist, which asked the question: would you want your children reading such stuff?

Banning the Bible won't unfortunately work but it is a very dangerous book; it has destroyed or weakened many a mind.

]]> By: mcv http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24061 mcv Mon, 21 May 2007 13:23:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/banning-the-bible.html#comment-24061 I agree with you in principle but not in the case of Leviticus. As I understand it that chapter is about describing acts that need to be punished, meaning that if you want to ban that you would also have to ban the current laws on such offenses which also describe acts of obscene nature. I agree with you in principle but not in the case of Leviticus. As I understand it that chapter is about describing acts that need to be punished, meaning that if you want to ban that you would also have to ban the current laws on such offenses which also describe acts of obscene nature.

]]>