What would the Bible be rated if on tv?

[Agit8r]

In the wake of the Duggar sex scandal, it's worth pointing out that the Bible has a lot to say about sex and violence among other things like rape, violence, and obediance to God and parents. So I'm wondering if Christianity isn't largely responsible for sexual abuse in churches and by clergy since the Bible mentions that rather a lot. Also in the Bible is incest as seems to have happened in the Duggar home though in limited fashion.

Yet the Bible is always thought of as something that's G-rated for how we encourage young children to read it and incorporate its teachings into their daily lives. But what happens if they absorb something about Lot's daughters both getting pregnant by him (Gen 19:36) then their father suggests they have to submit to him sexually?

Religion has been misused to commit heinous crimes for millenia. And Christianity is often the basis for sexual abuse here in the US. From 60s "Jesus freak" cults like Children of God (now called Family International,) to the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal still coming to light, to the most recent evangelical homeschooling sex abuse accounts.

So shouldn't the Bible be 'R' rated or even 'X' (for pro-incest, pro-murder-in-the-name-of-God, pro-slavery, pro-infanticide, etc.?) And if it condones many things that would get a non-religious movie an R or even X-rating, why do we continue to indoctrinate children with it?

My opinion is the Bible is what you'd use of your intent was to abuse children and people. It contains things that if they appeared in a government pamphlet would cause a media frenzy covering it, death threat, and firebombings at whereever it was published. Yet because the Bible's been unbiquitos and institutionalized, like the ancient Greek pederasty practice we tolerate, condone, and encourage it's proliferation.

Obviously it is 100% responsible for the sex abuse in churches. All the piece of shit priest has to say is, "if you tell anyone, you'll burn in Hell forever!"

It is an inevitable result. Just look at other religions; Islam, Hare Krishnas, etc.

 

[aris2chat]

In the wake of the Duggar sex scandal, it's worth pointing out that the Bible has a lot to say about sex and violence among other things like rape, violence, and obediance to God and parents. So I'm wondering if Christianity isn't largely responsible for sexual abuse in churches and by clergy since the Bible mentions that rather a lot. Also in the Bible is incest as seems to have happened in the Duggar home though in limited fashion.

Yet the Bible is always thought of as something that's G-rated for how we encourage young children to read it and incorporate its teachings into their daily lives. But what happens if they absorb something about Lot's daughters both getting pregnant by him (Gen 19:36) then their father suggests they have to submit to him sexually?

Religion has been misused to commit heinous crimes for millenia. And Christianity is often the basis for sexual abuse here in the US. From 60s "Jesus freak" cults like Children of God (now called Family International,) to the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal still coming to light, to the most recent evangelical homeschooling sex abuse accounts.

So shouldn't the Bible be 'R' rated or even 'X' (for pro-incest, pro-murder-in-the-name-of-God, pro-slavery, pro-infanticide, etc.?) And if it condones many things that would get a non-religious movie an R or even X-rating, why do we continue to indoctrinate children with it?

My opinion is the Bible is what you'd use of your intent was to abuse children and people. It contains things that if they appeared in a government pamphlet would cause a media frenzy covering it, death threat, and firebombings at whereever it was published. Yet because the Bible's been unbiquitos and institutionalized, like the ancient Greek pederasty practice we tolerate, condone, and encourage it's proliferation.

MA sexual content, violence, fantasy?

 

[there4eyeM]

Let's look to The Christian, Jesus. He abused no one. There ya go.
Pattern your life after Him, and not humans. Humans sin. Don't they Delta...

Jesus wasn't human?

 

[RandomVariable]

Definitely not as high as porn.

 

[Snouter]

More history has been proven with a Bible in hand than any other archeological tool. It has never been proven to be inaccurate. What factual historical documents do you use Joe?

Wow, your level of RETARDATION is impressive. Yahweh is satisfied.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Let's look to The Christian, Jesus. He abused no one. There ya go.
Pattern your life after Him, and not humans. Humans sin. Don't they Delta...

Jesus wasn't human?

Jesus is the Son of God. And as son of man is only one to walk this earth that has never sinned. There is the difference between Jesus, the Christ, and earth dwellers.

 

[The Irish Ram]

More history has been proven with a Bible in hand than any other archeological tool. It has never been proven to be inaccurate. What factual historical documents do you use Joe?

Wow, your level of RETARDATION is impressive. Yahweh is satisfied.

Wow, your personal attacks are worthless. I'm not satisfied. If you disagree prove it. Any moron can insult. Shall we start with King David? Proof of the destruction of Sodom and the others? Show me your brilliance.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet the Bible is always thought of as something that's G-rated for how we encourage young children to read it and incorporate its teachings into their daily lives. But what happens if they absorb something about Lot's daughters both getting pregnant by him (Gen 19:36) then their father suggests they have to submit to him sexually?

Funny I read the bible and I don't remember the part about "then their father suggests they have to submit to him sexually." Where's that part?

 

[BluePhantom]

Let's look to The Christian, Jesus. He abused no one. There ya go.
Pattern your life after Him, and not humans. Humans sin. Don't they Delta...

Jesus wasn't human?

Well that depends on who you ask. There were those who believed that Jesus was not human but only appeared to us in human form. The Gospel of Philip talks about this. It is written there, "Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? ...And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father"."

A woman being conceived by a woman refers to the ancient manner of understanding the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word was "ruach" which was feminine. Thus, for the Gnostics at least, God was the masculine and the Holy Spirit was the feminine. Whether the ancient Hebrews believed this is a subject for debate. There are arguments on both sides. The end of that quote is saying the Jesus had two fathers, his spiritual father (God) and his earthly father (Joseph). But, one must also understand that the Gnostics differentiated between the material and the immaterial. They used allegory referring to being naked and being clothed a lot.

Clothing was the material aspect of the world and was largely illusory and irrelevant. The point was to strip off the clothing and be naked. In other words, ignore the material aspects of life and focus upon what is underneath...the spiritual. Jesus, for many Gnostics and according to the Gospel of Philip, was similar. His body was the clothing but that was not really Jesus. It was simply the material and illusory form He took in order for the world to interact with Him. In some Gnostic texts Jesus actually laughs as He is being crucified because they are crucifying an illusion.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Illusions don't bleed.
I don't put much stock in the nonBiblical "Gospel" of Philip. That a man nearly beaten to death and nailed to a cross was chuckling all the while is preposterous, isn't substantiated by any witnesses, and men kissed men and woman on the lips. It was a common act when greeting a friend. No where in the Bible will you find mention of a marriage, which would have been mention worthy.

 

[BluePhantom]

Illusions don't bleed.
I don't put much stock in the nonBiblical "Gospel" of Philip. That a man nearly beaten to death and nailed to a cross was chuckling all the while is preposterous, isn't substantiated by any witnesses, and men kissed men and woman on the lips. It was a common act when greeting a friend. No where in the Bible will you find mention of a marriage, which would have been mention worthy.

I am not supporting the validity of the Gospel of Philip or the idea of an illusory Jesus. I was simply responding to there4eyem who seemed to be implying that everyone knows/thinks Jesus was human. That's not the case. I was simply pointing out that there are those who don't think that. I am not one of them

 

[there4eyeM]

Some centuries ago, it would have gotten one burned to espouse such a heresy.
Jesus must be/have been human for any of it all to have any importance. Believe in Jesus as 'Son of God', etc., or not, he did exist, he was crucified and it was out of self-sacrifice. That part of 'Christianity' does deserve the title of religion of love (unlike another that claims the title). Unfortunately, what passes for churches and the 'Christian' religion today has very little to do with this fantastic person.

 

[BluePhantom]

Some centuries ago, it would have gotten one burned to espouse such a heresy.

Well that's true, but I don't think that says much about Christianity that is positive. At the time the Gnostic gospels and Gnostic texts were written, not so much (although being a Christian in general was, at some times, enough to get you burned alive)

Jesus must be/have been human for any of it all to have any importance. Believe in Jesus as 'Son of God', etc., or not, he did exist, he was crucified and it was out of self-sacrifice. That part of 'Christianity' does deserve the title of religion of love (unlike another that claims the title). Unfortunately, what passes for churches and the 'Christian' religion today has very little to do with this fantastic person.

Well that is how the majority of people today see it, yes. I share that view. I am simply pointing out that there were, and still are, those who saw Jesus and the question of His humanity far differently

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course, that has almost always been a subject of conjecture, and Islam claims it was all just special effects.
Fact is, without his being human, Jesus is just a show-off, immortal jerk.

 

[Hollie]

More history has been proven with a Bible in hand than any other archeological tool. It has never been proven to be inaccurate. What factual historical documents do you use Joe?

Wow, your level of RETARDATION is impressive. Yahweh is satisfied.

Wow, your personal attacks are worthless. I'm not satisfied. If you disagree prove it. Any moron can insult. Shall we start with King David? Proof of the destruction of Sodom and the others? Show me your brilliance.

What "pwoof" would you have regarding the alleged destruction of Sodom when there is no reliable evidence the city ever existed?

 

[BluePhantom]

Illusions don't bleed.
I don't put much stock in the nonBiblical "Gospel" of Philip. That a man nearly beaten to death and nailed to a cross was chuckling all the while is preposterous, isn't substantiated by any witnesses, and men kissed men and woman on the lips. It was a common act when greeting a friend. No where in the Bible will you find mention of a marriage, which would have been mention worthy.

However, I would point out that while apocryphal texts, such as the Gospel of Philip, are not recognized as "official" by most churches and Christians, they are hardly useless. They give us an enhanced understanding of the differences in how early Christians viewed Jesus and some of the struggles the early Church faced. One should keep in mind that we have the opinions about Jesus that we do now because it was the catholic sect that was adopted by Constantine and Theodosius. Had they sided with the Gnostics, the idea of a human Jesus or a virgin conception would seem as off the wall to us today as the idea of an illusory Jesus does.

So it provides some interesting historical context. Not historical from the perspective that what is written in the apocrypha is historically accurate events, but historical from the perspective of 'at this point in history, this is what some people believed'. Many of the apocryphal sources have maintained a strong influence in modern Christian tradition as well. Joseph being an old man when he married Mary, for example. That's from the Infancy Gospel of James, not the Bible. Mary preserving her virginity even after giving birth to Jesus which led to the concept of the 'virgin birth'...again...Infancy Gospel of James.

So while I may not suggest one should read them as accurate historical depictions or base doctrine and theology upon them, they have their place and continue to have influence. They should not be dismissed out of hand