Sunday, May 20, 2007

Demands to ban the Bible

It was really only a matter of time before there were serious efforts to ban the Bible because of its sex, violence, and rock and roll timbrel and harp. You really don’t have to look very far to find something that might offend someone - there is rape, incest, masturbation, bestiality, adultery, fornication, buggery, incitement, murder, genocide, assault, etc, etc. And so it is perhaps unsurprising that in Hong Kong there have been more than 2000 serious requests for it to be censored.

But the demands for an over-18 classification were dismissed by Hong Kong's media regulator, who said: ‘The Bible is a religious text which is part of civilisation. It has been passed from generation to generation… (It) has not violated standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable members of the community.’ And a Hong Kong pastor agreed, saying: ‘If there is rape mentioned in the Bible, it doesn’t mean it encourages those activities.’

While the pastor’s reasoning may be true, it is puerile to expect that films about paedophilia or rape may not be similarly condoned. As long as it’s not a ‘happy ending’ for the proponents of such vice, the film may be considered to have some moral dimension to it. A stronger argument would have been to talk of what is gratuitous, but even then there is great difficulty in codifying degrees of subjectivity.

One might expect to hear very soon of such cases being brought in the courts of the United Kingdom. Cranmer suspects that they may come first from the militant gay lobby, demanding that any passages that may be adduced to make homosexuals ‘feel uncomfortable’ ought to be excised from (at least) Bibles used in schools. The Qur’an will, of course, be exempt (probably because it is not ‘widely used’).

If Prime Minister Brown were to revive attempts to outlaw the incitement to religious hatred, there are vast tranches of Scripture which may be deemed to fall foul of such a law. And one does not need to focus on those crimes and vices. The Roman Catholic Tridentine Mass is deemed to be offensive to Jews because it talks if their need for their conversion. They are ‘blind’, and need leading from the ‘darkness’ that is Judaism. Yet the Apostle Paul makes a savage comment on the Jews, declaring: ‘The wrath of God has come on them at last’ (1Thess. 2:16 NIV, or ‘uttermost’ KJV).

It is naïve to suggest that such a sentence may not be used to justify anti-semitic sentiment, and therefore to incite hatred. As the UK is increasingly subject to anti-discrimination legislation, it really is only a matter of time before Christianity and the Holy Bible are perceived as the root of all social divisions, if they are not so portrayed already...


Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

So since most Christians on this blog have (I assume) been 'enlightened', can one of you now 'enlighten' me by explaining why the Bible allows incest in the book of genesis (19:33-35) "Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father", yet prohibits it in the following verse of the bible "None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her." (Leviticus 18:6)

Whilst it can be argued that man's understanding developes overtime as intellect and knowledge develop with age, his basic human nature shall remain the same. Therefore, would I not be correct to assert that man's basic moral principles must be non-fluctuating and constant throughout the ages. You may argue that the knowledge of self-evident principles begins with experience, but it is not based on experience, since if a man cannot be in two places at the same time, then we must make a statement true for all times (though what we observe, is limited to the present time). If incest is immoral, it should have been understood as such for all times. If man was unaware of the good and bad qualities of human nature and wasn't therefore prohibited from acts such as incest at a time prior to ours, then this puts him at a disadvantage to those who came after him, since the basic laws of God apply to all of mankind.

Practical reason which comes hand in hand with theoretical reason and is influenced by theoretical reason, (which works for construction), is oppossed by a satanic element in the self (human) which works for destruction. This is basic human nature which is unchangeable no matter what time you live in. So how can incest be moral at one point in time, and immoral at another?

20 May 2007 at 12:14  
Anonymous Oiznop said...

Jellybean, Muslims revere the books of Moses as well, and that includes Genesis and Leviticus, so you're stuck with the same problem of explaining the same contradiction.

20 May 2007 at 12:28  
Anonymous najistani said...

The sex and violence in the Bible are DESCRIPTIVE of things done in the distant past, whereas the sex and violence in the Koran are PRESCRIPTIVE of things to be done in the not-too-distant future, and thus constitute incitement to rape, murder and genocide ("Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" etc)

20 May 2007 at 12:48  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Miss Jelly Bean do you find approval for the actions of Lt's Daughters in The Bible ?

Could you tell me where his daughters behaviour is blessed and sanctioned by God ?

20 May 2007 at 12:59  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Good point Voyager, but whilst it isn't blessed and sanctioned by God, it isn't condemned by God either until Jesus came. Now why would god allow his prophet to commit such an immoral act in the first place?

Oiznop, you are right in asserting that Muslims follow the teachings of Moses, but you are wrong in assuming that those teachings are Genesis and Leviticus. Your Torah and Bible have been modified by man, so to know which parts of the Torah and Bible we're allowed to follow, Muslims must use the Quran and teachings of the prophet as a touch stone to identify with. The prophet or Quran does not give permission to commit incest.

20 May 2007 at 14:00  
Anonymous Oiznop said...

Jellybean, you're wrong again. You seem to think 'incest' is having sex with your mother, father, or your brother or sister. It's not.

"Incest is sexual activity between close family members who are forbidden by law or custom from marrying."

You'll find Leviticus doesn't allow some relationships which the Koran does. First cousins, for example, are forbidden to marry in many countries. That's incest for Jews and some Christians, but allowed (presumably) for Muslims. It seems to me that Muslims pick and choose what they like or don't like from the Torah. If it's against the Koran, it's somehow corrupted, if it's upheld by the Koran, it's accepted. Considering it pre-dates the Koran by thousands of years, and its heritage and accuracy are affirmed historically and archaeologically by the Dead Sea Scrolls, why is it that Koran might not be the corrupted document?

20 May 2007 at 14:17  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Voyager said... "Miss Jelly Bean do you find approval for the actions of Lot's Daughters in The Bible?"

I don't approve or disapprove because I'm not a Christian and I don't believe that to have happened in any case.

Oiznop, since our basic definitions of incest differ, what you refer to as incest between first cousins is not regaded as incest in Islam however, both Islam and Christianity believe sexual relationships with ones mother, father, brother or sister as incest. So on this basis you are arguing that Islam allows incest from a Christian perspective. I on the other hand am arguing that Christianity allows incest from a Christian perspective and by looking at the Christian teachings. I'm not applying Islamic laws to Christianity, so how can you argue with me on the same respect, and apply Christian or Jewish beliefs to Islamic teachings? So like I said before, Islam does not allow incest.

20 May 2007 at 14:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I don't approve or disapprove because I'm not a Christian and I don't believe that to have happened in any case.

I fear you did not read adequately which bodes ill for your examinations.

Voyager said...

Miss Jelly Bean do you find approval for the actions of Lt's Daughters in The Bible ?

Could you tell me where his daughters behaviour is blessed and sanctioned by God ?

12:59 PM

I suggest you work at verbal reasoning, or else are a narcissist who thinks your opinion was asked for.

20 May 2007 at 14:38  
Anonymous Miss Jelly BEAN said...

my apologies voyager, next time I'll take extra care when reading through your comments. Don't worry though, I'll begin my work on verbal reasoning at once!

20 May 2007 at 14:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Good point Voyager, but whilst it isn't blessed and sanctioned by God, it isn't condemned by God either until Jesus came

I think you should read Leviticus Miss Jelly Bean....and the Ten should also recall that the Old Testament is history, what men did rather than what men should do.

You should read up on Noah and his son Ham

Perhaps you should read Cain and Abel

Maybe familiarity with Jacob and Esau would help you

Lot is NOT a Prophet. You might note it was his daughters who tempted fate, just as Eve did with the Tree of Knowledge...women do not have a great track record in the Old Testament....apart from Deborah and Esther of course and a few others like Ruth

20 May 2007 at 14:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I'll begin my work on verbal reasoning at once!

It will stand you in good stead and put you in the lead with immediate effect !

20 May 2007 at 14:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have read your comments and i have not found one that realises the truth. It is laid out for us by the hand of God to guide us and is open to those who seek it.

In Genesis 19:30-38, Lot's daughters were wrong to do what they did. Afraid that their Fathers seed would fail, they slept with their Father after having got him drunk. This tale is included by God in the Bible as a demonstration of their lack of faith. However this should not surprise us. Lot's daughters were born in Sodom and would have grown up like the peoples of Sodom. Their ways were not the ways of their Father which is why they made him drink first.

Concerning ourselves now, we have been warned not to commit incest. Paul writes in 1 Cor 5 that incest is forbidden in all its forms. Believers were stooping lower than the unbelievers by taking their mothers. Paul rebukes them and educates them and I will now educate you all. Let everyone that reads this know that the worship of Yahweh is complete submission to his commands and that those who twist the inspired word of God for their own benefit will have no place in his kingdom.
True believers may suffer for this but we must not give way to the ungodly. Their will be many who will criticize me for this and ask who am I to teach you. I have told you the truth. What you do with this knowledge is up to you.

20 May 2007 at 14:57  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Woh! All that reading, and the extra work on verbal reasoning! Jelly Bean's gonna be busy for a while. Thankyou for 'enlightening' me though!

20 May 2007 at 15:00  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Let everyone that reads this know that the worship of Yahweh is complete submission to his commands and that those who twist the inspired word of God for their own benefit will have no place in his kingdom.

There is a slight irritation with anonymice, whose comments cannot always be ignored (as His Grace exhorts), but it appears that we have a prophet in our midst who takes a rather Islamic view of Christianity. It is not simply a matter of 'submission' or 'obedience' to 'commands', as is the Mohammedan creed, but of grace and love and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ.

20 May 2007 at 16:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You speak of grace, love and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ but in your ignorance you have forgotten the true meaning of worship. Yes what you say of grace, love and peace is very true. The teachings of Christ would have us behave in such a way. But like the Pharisees you have allowed these basic requirements to rule your lives as far as you may be seen to do so in the eyes of your followers. In the days of the temple the priests were required to worship God in an exact way and not stray from it.

This same God has given us commandments through his son the Lord Jesus Christ and we are given the choice to either follow them entirely or to ignore them. There is no in-between way by which a person can excuse their actions.

This is submission to Gods commands. The apostle Paul often refers to himself as a slave to the Lord. His devotion was to the Lord and to no other and like a slave he followed without question and that is true faith like the faith which God requires. When Abraham was told to sacrifice his son he obeyed with out question. What would you have us do other than follow God's laws completely? Instead of acknowledging the truth of my words you have mocked me but you cannot deny what I have said.

20 May 2007 at 17:32  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Your 'simple' interpretation, Cranmer, of a rather complex religion restricting it to submission obedience and command without placing any thought on why Muslims submit obediently to the commands of Allah is very misleading.

In the very opening chapter of the Quran, "oh my lord, guide me along the right path", Allah makes indication of a journey to be made, for which a destination must be presuppossed. This also involves a sense of direction which is sought through the love of God. The love of God directs us and guides us. The term 'guide' implies the way by he who has awareness of the passage, and the means of achievement are as important as the achievement of the end. The process cannot be divorced from the final goal, and this involves submission to prevent you from following the path of "those who are astray". Through the course of his journey, man will experience both pain and ecstasy in order to locate the right path. The phrase "guide me along the right path" is the voice of human conscious when man has removed his arrogance and false pride. Submission cannot occur if man is full of pride and submission is necessary because as I mentioned before, the self has a satanic element which is destructive. If we do not submit to the path of the righteous, then we can be misled "I will assuredly lie in wait on your straight path to misguide the people" (surah araf 7:16). Therefore submission is important and Muslims submit to Allah for the love of Allah, not through force or compulsion.

20 May 2007 at 17:58  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

anonymous said..."This tale is included by God in the Bible as a demonstration of their lack of faith...Their ways were not the ways of their Father which is why they made him drink first".

Hmmm, does this then also not demonstrate the ill effects of alcohol, and precisely the reason as to why it should be prohibited?

20 May 2007 at 18:05  
Anonymous Romney said...

It was a misuse of alcohol, just as their sexual congress with their father was a misuse of the sexual act.

Refraining from alcohol on the basis that the Koran forbids it makes sense if you follow the teaching of the Kora - so it can be offensive for a Muslim to drink, or be expected to make or sell, an alchoholic drink. But would you expect a Muslim healthworker to refuse to use Surgical Spirit as a cleaner or antispectic, or for a Muslim chemical engineer refuse to use alcohol as a solvent?

20 May 2007 at 18:23  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

No, of course not. I understand there are different forms of alcohol. I was referring to alcohol which is utilised as a beveridge, not alcohol such as methanol placed in other chemicals such as household solvents.

20 May 2007 at 18:27  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

sorry, I meant beverage! was doing politics revision about lord beveridge and the welfare state. woh that stuff is getting to my head!

20 May 2007 at 18:29  
Anonymous Romney said...

It's not the form, but the use, The Ethanol in Surgical Spirit, on the lab bench, or used as a bio-fuel is exactly the same chemical as found in beer, wine and spirits. It's proably made in the same way as well, by the fermentation of sugar by yeast.

People who misuse alcohol, who are addicted to it, will drink meths and anything else with a high ethanol content if they are "forbidden" achoholic beverages, and cause themselves serious heath problems.

The biblical injunction that comes to mind is "Be not drunk with wine", which does not condemn wine in the same way you can't condem the ethanol it contains. Ephesians highlights the problems in over-indulgence in something you know can "lead to excess".


20 May 2007 at 19:37  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Hmmm, does this then also not demonstrate the ill effects of alcohol, and precisely the reason as to why it should be prohibited?

You are devoid of knowledge of The it not what The Last Supper required - bread and wine ?

Is it not the basis of The Eucharist ?

20 May 2007 at 19:48  
Blogger Cranmer said...

His Grace has just read this on the blog of Mr Dan Hannan MEP.

For thise who think His Grace's post somewhat alarmist, it would appear, in fact, to be understated.

20 May 2007 at 20:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it so difficult to understand. Has what I have said not inspired your own study of this matter.

Genesis 19:30-38, where we see lots daughters laying with their father was included for two reasons. It demonstrates the lack of faith that the two women had. It also tells us the names of the two children. The first was Moab who begat the Moabites and the second Ben-Ammi who begat the people of Ammon. Both of these peoples were un-godly and were enemies of the Jews, Gods chosen people.

The Bible is much more than a book filled with interesting stories that we assume are giving instructions. It is also a detailed record of people and peoples. This tale of two new nations being born is a record of the enemies of Israel and we see that the descendants of such nations still doing so.

It is written I Ezekiel 38-39 that in the last days all nations shall be against Israel and shall come against her to destroy her. And the nation of Gog shall take the land and occupy Jerusalem. But Christ will return and destroy them and those nations that are with them, Persia, Ethiopia and Libya. Gog is the nation of the far north that is Russia. Persia is the nation of Iran and already we see that the word of God is coming true with both these nations having no love of Israel. The word of God should be well studied so that its purpose, the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Israel, might be recognised.

20 May 2007 at 21:18  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

I'm well aware Voyager, that bread and wine were used in the last supper. That's precisely what shocks me. Why would Jesus use a drink which can cause man to commit such immoral acts as shown in the book of genesis?

anonymous, your comment intrigues me for it has also been prophesised in a hadith of the prophet, that the 'dajjal' shall come from an area named 'Isfahan' in Iran, and shall be followed by 70,000 Jews of Isfahan. According to a BBC news report, "Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel".

Maybe by that time America will have attacked iran and taken over like they're doing with Iraq now. Who knows!

20 May 2007 at 21:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Bible is a book that details the promises made to Abraham continued through his son Isaac and the people he begat, the Jews. These promises are now open to gentiles as well because the Jews rejected Christ. So the gospel was preached to all.
However the Jews are still Gods chosen People. They are a witness of his plan and purpose with the earth. In Ezekiel 37 God makes it clear that they are such. This prophecy details the scattered state of the Jews and the re-gathering of them to their land.
This prophecy was fulfilled in 1948 and should have been to many Christians a time of great joy and excitement. However the state of Israel was condemned by many, even the so called mother church expressed their hostility towards it. These people cannot understand Gods plan because it revolves around Israel and the Jews. Failure to acknowledge this makes you an enemy of Israel and of God.

In my previous post I made it quite clear that the decedents of the oppressors of Israel will be against her in the last days. These are the Arab nations. Russia will ally herself to three and sweep down to destroy the Jews. But we are told that as she enters Egypt tidings from the north (Jerusalem) shall cause her to turn back. This is the return of Christ to Jerusalem to set up Gods kingdom on Earth. In Ezekiel 39:12 we read that 7 months shall Israel be burying the bodies of the dead. The hosts of Gog and her allies will be completely destroyed.

Let me make myself quite clear. I am a Christian not a Muslim. I follow the word of God placed down for us in the Bible. I do not believe that the Qur'an to be an inspired book. I respect you far more than any other on here for your interest and questions. But i cannot match your view of the Jews and the things concerning Israel. I would love to explain more to you but I fear that my beliefs will not be made welcome by Cranmer. If you would like to know more perhaps you could leave some contact details that could be removed later.

20 May 2007 at 22:40  
Blogger Cranmer said...

I would love to explain more to you but I fear that my beliefs will not be made welcome by Cranmer.

What are you taking about? If you bothered to read anything of His Grace's 'bottom line', you would realise that the only thing that irritates His Grace is people who do not possess the creativity of mind to give themselves a name. It is impossible to dialogue with anonymice, so please call yourself something, and not 'Colin', for His Grace already has one of those.

When you have a name, you may speak your mind, and please do not seek to misrepresent His Grace's views or speak on his behalf upon his own blog.

20 May 2007 at 23:04  
Anonymous Terry said...

"Incest" if you call it that was originally permitted right back to when Adam and Eve's offspring produced further offspring and the bible doesn't suggest that was wrong. We are all descended from Adam and Noah and therefore we all marry our relations. I suspect that originally sin had not got such of a hold on the human race so it was only in Moses' time that we see a prohibition on what we now recognise as incest appearing, because by then the practice would have worsened genetic defects, whereas originally it would not have resulted in the same problems.

20 May 2007 at 23:13  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Anonymous, I think it's more than obvious that you're not a Muslim. My reason for stating what I did was because I find it remarkable how both our religions teach similar things, but against one another.
By the way, are you like a Jehovah's witness or something?
Well, I don't usually go around giving out personal contacts or details, but it was nice talking to you!

I see you've upset Cranmer. Fear not, there's lots of names you can choose from, but all the ones ending in 'bean' are reserved for the bean family only e.g. 'baked bean', 'green bean' or 'beany the don'. You can have 'chick pea' though.

20 May 2007 at 23:18  
Anonymous Colin said...

Assalamu Alaikum

21 May 2007 at 14:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older