Top-shelf magazines and all that

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun May 13, 2007 2:53 pm

I, Rob;611854 wrote: Oh my gods, where???

There are a few mild samples in the G-man Dating Game

I have to agree with weinbeck on the accessability of erotic materials, not for religious reasons but for reasons of civic standards. Erotica shouldn't be displayed where minors may view them, nor should they be available where adults may request and acquire them in the presence of minors.

Like many things that is fine in theory only. Kids that get their noses into "dirty magasines" do so from their parents' unsecured underwear drawers, they don't sneak them from the top shelf in the corner store. The magasines are glorified by the fact that they are hidden in an underwear drawer (god forbid they find the toybox too) so they are forbidden fruit. The more we hide sex away the more wonderful and mysterious it seems to the curious child.

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Sun May 13, 2007 3:10 pm

Jimbo...You old bald hotdogger you.... Thanks for your reply, however I am awaiting a reply from whiningbeck. It seems that he/she/it is "cocking a deaf 'un." So hows about it then "Whiningbeck?" :sneaky:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:01 pm

Hugh Janus;612146 wrote: Ok. I will agree with the above, in sentiment, however. If you actually look at how "the Bible" came to be published. I think you will find that it was not actually made into book form untill the 14th centuary...

Might I ask what the publishing of the first "English" edition has to do with anything?

The Bible existed way before then and translating it into English did nothing to affect any truth it might or might not carry.

weinbeck · Post by **weinbeck** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:12 pm

Hugh Janus;612146 wrote: Ok. I will agree with the above, in sentiment, however. If you actually look at how "the Bible" came to be published. I think you will find that it was not actually made into book form untill the 14th centuary... Quote..

Various parts of Scripture were first translated into English in the 7th to 10th century.
Aldhelm (640-709) translated the Psalter (Psalms) into Old English shortly after 700 AD.

Egbert of Northumbria (ca. 700), served as the Archbishop of York and was the first person to translate the synoptic Gospels into English in approximately 705 AD.

The Venerable Bede (674-735) was one of the greatest scholars in Europe and he translated the Gospel of John working on it until literally his last breath.

Alfred the Great (849-901) was the King of England and an excellent scholar. He translated the Ten Commandments, and various sections of Scripture such as Exodus 21-23 and Acts 15:23-29.It was only in the 14th century that the first English translation of the entire Bible came into being.

This is from Yahoo answers..... Quote..

Originally, there were only scriptures from the Old Testement. About the 3rd century a group of people put together the books of the Bible as they are today.

So now we have a book that has for 300 years, been told as tales round camp fires... (Brothers Grimm, anyone?) The tale is in the telling, not necesarily in the facts...

Did you ever play "Chinese Whispers" as a kid?... It seems so funny that a simple phrase as "I want to go see a Kiwi" can get translated as "Michael Jackson helps me wee wee." So how the hell can anyone follow something written down at least 300 years after the event? I am sorry but Naive is a word that springs to mind. Maybe a few other words too. How about "Brainwashed, Simple minded, Lacking in moral fortitude, (Go on, look it up.)

How about words like, "No self confidence, Lacking Self Esteem, Unable to face reallity." Now maybe we are starting to hit the nail on the head. If all you "Do gooders actually started to follow the teachings in this "Fictional Book." Then you would all suddenly give up your jobs, give all your hard earned money to the poor and needy, don sackcloth and ashes, "To repent for all your past misdeeds." And then go and follow the way of the lord...

So tell me then O great weinbeck. What have you given up to follow the way of the lord? BTW. If you have got a nice car, I will be willing to take it off your hands, to help you to atone for all your misdeeds...:sneaky:

Give everything I own to the poor and then follow the Lord, eh? The challenge isn't exactly original, is it? Jesus didn't say only the poor can enter the Kingdom of Heaven - if that were the case, where would that put the likes of Billy Graham or Cliff Richard? They're not short of a bob or two. Doh - of course! Silly me - I was forgetting. They're hypocrites too, aren't they. Jesus said it was easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Hard, but not impossible. Even his own disciples asked "Who then can be saved?" Jesus replied: "With man this is impossible, but with God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. Don't you understand? Jesus doesn't want your money - you can work six days a week and give every penny away, and it won't make a ha'peth of difference He doesn't want lip service! He wants you, every ounce of your mind, your heart and your soul. He said I am the way, I am the truth, and I am the Light. NOBODY COMES TO THE fATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME.

Thinks - if I gave everything to the poor, then they in turn would no longer be penniless.

What have I given up to follow the way of the Lord? You obviously haven't read my earlier posts - since I gave my life to Jesus, I have given up my intentionally sinful life, including pouring over top-shelf magazines to which I was a slave until I asked Him to cleanse my mind, which He did - instantly. I also give my time and money to His cause, and I am also writing a book purely of the testimonies of others whose lives have changed completely since giving themselves to Our Saviour. When it is published, NOT ONE PENNY WILL BE USES TO LINE MY POCKET. "Freely you have received, freely give."

What else? Ah, yes - the car. He's taken care of that, thank you very much. Last February I was involved in a serious road smash in which I had to be cut from the wreckage - I'm still on light duties at work. I could have been killed, but He has a purpose in me - possibly to finish my book. He will call me, as will he you. The difference between you and me is the fact that I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Guide and Saviour, and in Him I place my trust. I'm ready - are you?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:31 pm

weinbeck;612285 wrote: Give everything I own to the poor and then follow the Lord, eh? The challenge isn't exactly original, is it? Jesus didn't say only the poor can enter the Kingdom of Heaven - if that were the case, where would that put the likes of Billy Graham or Cliff Richard? They're not short of a bob or two. Doh - of course! Silly me - I was forgetting. They're hypocrites too, aren't they. Jesus said it was easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Hard, but not impossible. Even his own disciples asked "Who then can be saved?" Jesus replied: "With man this is impossible, but with God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

If that isn't rationalisation then I don't know what is. The statement is plain - those who spend their lives accumulating wealth are extremely unlikely to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - Billy Graham included.

Reversing it to suggest that you must give up everything is a debating trick but you missed off the next bit - "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

The quote is saying that, in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you are expected to give up something for "my name's sake".

Any comment of the other 90% of the post?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:37 pm

Personally I grew up Catholic but I wouldn't call myself religious by any means...

I do however see alot of good that comes from the Church...I do see people who devote all of their time and energy into helping others...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:41 pm

K.Snyder;612304 wrote: Personally I grew up Catholic but I wouldn't call myself religious by any means...

I do however see alot of good that comes from the Church...I do see people who devote all of their time and energy into helping others, and not one of them isn't affiliated with a church of some kind...

And I'm sure that a lot of the grass roots members do a lot of good in a lot of areas.

My problem is with the organisation as a self-perpetuating political entity. Over the centuries the various Churches have done a hell of a lot of harm the world over.

weinbeck · Post by **weinbeck** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;612299 wrote: If that isn't rationalisation then I don't know what is. The statement is plain - those who spend their lives accumulating wealth are extremely unlikely to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - Billy Graham included.

Reversing it to suggest that you must give up everything is a debating trick but you missed off the next bit - "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

The quote is saying that, in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you are expected to give up something for "my name's sake".

Any comment of the other 90% of the post?

I'll sleep on that :wah: I don't intentionally set out to use the Bible for my benefit. I'll continue this discussion tomorrow. As you know, it's heading for one.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 13, 2007 4:54 pm

weinbeck;612311 wrote: I'll sleep on that :wah: I don't intentionally set out to use the Bible for my benefit. I'll continue this discussion tomorrow. As you know, it's heading for one.

Goodnight :-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun May 13, 2007 5:03 pm

Bryn Mawr;612309 wrote: And I'm sure that a lot of the grass roots members do a lot of good in a lot of areas.

My problem is with the organisation as a self-perpetuating political entity. Over the centuries the various Churches have done a hell of a lot of harm the world over.

I didn't want to make it out to seem as if I were implying that people whom aren't affiliated with the Church never does or has done anything in the positive for people whom need it the most...

I just simply see alot more good coming from independent people whom consider themselves religious that's all...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 13, 2007 5:14 pm

K.Snyder;612324 wrote: I didn't want to make it out to seem as if I were implying that people whom aren't affiliated with the Church never does or has done anything in the positive for people whom need it the most...

I just simply see alot more good coming from independent people whom consider themselves religious that's all...

You weren't in the slightest.

I'd ask what you mean by religious?

If "Christian" then I totally disagree.

If "of any religion" then I mildly disagree.

If "of any faith" then I do disagree - I see people who would class themselves as non-religious but who hold their own faith, as secular humanists for example, who perform good works aplenty.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun May 13, 2007 8:29 pm

Bryn Mawr;612328 wrote: You weren't in the slightest.

I'd ask what you mean by religious?

If "Christian" then I totally disagree.

If "of any religion" then I mildly disagree.

If "of any faith" then I do disagree - I see people who would class themselves as non-religious but who hold their own faith, as secular humanists for example, who perform good works aplenty.

Well, my idea of "religious" is someone whom practices their religion quite frequently...I believe in a one true God which I believe is a presence of an always good divinity,..but I don't go to church regularly...But if someone were to ask me if I were religious I couldn't really say no, because I do believe in a God...

Also that's simply my own observation...Quite simply I don't know of very many people whom don't believe in a God and regularly contribute to the overall wellbeing of those whom could use a helping hand the most...("Anyone" as in organizations primarily...)

I'm not saying there isn't by any means...Just that I would be sincerely surprised if there were more charitable organizations without a religious beginning whether that's Christian, Catholic, Judaism, Mormon, Muslim,..etc..etc...

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Sun May 13, 2007 10:46 pm

Bryn Mawr;612278 wrote: Might I ask what the publishing of the first "English" edition has to do with anything?

The Bible existed way before then and translating it into English did nothing to affect any truth it might or might not carry.

You obviously missed this part of my earlier post then

This is from Yahoo answers..... Quote..

Originally, there were only scriptures from the Old Testement. About the 3rd century a group of people put together the books of the Bible as they are today.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 13, 2007 11:52 pm

Hugh Janus;612376 wrote: You obviously missed this part of my earlier post then

No, didn't miss it - just didn't agree with it that's all.

Firstly, the first century to the third century is an average of two hundred years not three (and the accepted period is usually given as one hundred to one hundred and thirty years) and secondly, an oral tradition is nothing like chinese whispers - it involves rote learning by trained "rememberers" and has been shown to be able to pass large amounts of information across many generations accurately.

However, it would be wrong to view second century Judaea as reliant on oral history and, whilst the Gosples were only writen down *in their current form* at the later date that does not preclude the individual stories from having been writtten down at an earlier date.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:37 pm

weinbeck:-6

Unfortunately none of the words, in John, attributed to Jesus can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words of the evangelist.

Jesus did not use the term "born again".

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:47 pm

To call the Bible a work of fiction is to fail to understand the role that metaphor plays in conveying truth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:50 pm

Bryn Mawr:-6

I agree here.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:04 am

Ted;614781 wrote: To call the Bible a work of fiction is to fail to understand the role that metaphor plays in conveying truth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

And. To fail to understand how and why people can follow the words of a fictional book is called ... REALISTIC...

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:21 am

Hugh Janus;614807 wrote: And. To fail to understand how and why people can follow the words of a fictional book is called ... REALISTIC...

i'm with you on this one buddy :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu May 17, 2007 11:36 am

Hugh:-6

Perhaps a little research into the use of metaphor would help you out.

We could start with Dickens though. "Oliver Twist" is a work of fiction, a novel, yet it speaks much truth about Dickens' time. There were and are still today thousands of Olivers around the world.

Research and study.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Fri May 18, 2007 12:05 am

Ted;615265 wrote: Hugh:-6

Perhaps a little research into the use of metaphor would help you out.

We could start with Dickens though. "Oliver Twist" is a work of fiction, a novel, yet it speaks much truth about Dickens' time. There were and are still today thousands of Olivers around the world.

Research and study.

Shalom

Ted:-6

So now you are going to try and tell me that "Dickens" is also a religeon! :-2

Get real... L. Ron. Hubbard. Managed to get a lot of people to believe in a science fiction story, I really cannot see any difference, apart from the number of people in each "cult." :sneaky:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri May 18, 2007 3:50 am

Hugh Janus;615726 wrote: So now you are going to try and tell me that "Dickens" is also a religeon! :-2

Get real... L. Ron. Hubbard. Managed to get a lot of people to believe in a science fiction story, I really cannot see any difference, apart from the number of people in each "cult." :sneaky:

Is that willful misunderstanding?

Ted's point was perfectly valid and in no way suggesting that Dickens is a religion - to try and twist meaning like that is not cricket.

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Fri May 18, 2007 11:28 am

Bryn Mawr;615795 wrote: Is that willful misunderstanding?

Ted's point was perfectly valid and in no way suggesting that Dickens is a religion - to try and twist meaning like that is not cricket.

Willful misunderstanding? Is that another term for wondering how people can have a belief in a work of fiction? To try and use Dickens to prove such a point is in itself a twist on what has been said before. To use metaphors to try to make an understanding of something, which in itself is a metaphor, belies belief...:sneaky:

Oh and BTW. I can't stand cricket...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 18, 2007 1:27 pm

Ted;615265 wrote: Hugh:-6

Perhaps a little research into the use of metaphor would help you out.

We could start with Dickens though. "Oliver Twist" is a work of fiction, a novel, yet it speaks much truth about Dickens' time. There were and are still today thousands of Olivers around the world.

Research and study.

Shalom

Ted:-6

It might help you as well. Try allegory instead

From the Oxford English dictionary

allegory

/aligri/

â€¢ noun (pl. allegories) a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.

â€” DERIVATIVES allegorist noun allegorization (also allegorisation) noun allegorize (also allegorise) verb.

â€” ORIGIN Greek allegoria, from allos â€˜otherâ€™ + -agoria â€˜speakingâ€™.

or even parable-from the same source.

parable

â€¢ noun a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.

â€” ORIGIN Latin parabola â€˜comparison, discourse, allegoryâ€™, from Greek parabole (see PARABOLA).

I know what you meant though.

The bible is not all fiction, some of it is clearly tribal history written down or descriptions of events for which those at the time had no explanation other than the actions of some god or other. The plagues of egypt and the parting of the red sea are events which can now be explained on a more rational way than it simply being an act of god.

Where I part company and agree with Hugh Janus is where people start taking it as being he word of god that should not be challenged and the literal belief in the likes of the genesis myth.

Religious fundamentalists are the only ones in society who use religion to back up their own particular prejudices and hatreds and claim the tolerance of secular society to do so because they are entitled to be free to practice their faith.

We are expected to pander to the absurd belief that because it says so in the bible bigotry and hatred should be tolerated. These are of the same mentality that used the bible to justify negro slavery in a time when it was no longer acceptable to have white slaves and filled themselves with the belief that it was god's will they do so.

A prurient obsession with sex is just a variation on common theme. Take away the religious mouthing and you have a disturbed individual clutching to the bits of the bible that make him feel better about himself.

The other absurdity of course is taking seriously a celibate priesthood's guidance on birth control and sex education or those of the other christian sects that just don't think you should do it at all or if you do you shouldn't enjoy it and by god no one else should get to either.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s3i15225

Does god (if he exists) have a sense of humour? Life is a joke we just don't know the punchline.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:35 pm

Bad Pinky, you shouldn't let them know.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:41 pm

Pinky;616295 wrote: :wah: :wah:

I know. I'm way too honest for my own good!:D

I for one, am so pleased you are :-4

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:47 pm

If your anything like me, you say it before you've thunk it.

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sat May 19, 2007 7:52 am

I'm not a religious person; to say that one is religious implies that one is observant of ritual. I like to say that I'm spiritual instead, which implies to religious people that I'm lazy, that I have vague values, and that I don't attend church regularly. Spot on.

This rather contentious chatter about the validity of one spiritual viewpoint against others, with the Christian Bible as fulcrum, might be missing an essential element of understanding: The parts that make up the whole were each a product of their respective times, and each bear the weight of political and social constructs unique to them. These pieces of the puzzle were written by mere mortals after all, and you cannot separate a human being from his or her time. Read Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus for a fascinating (and mind-crampingly scholarly -- be warned) study of this.

Suffice it to say that it's difficult to know the will of a god when that will is disseminated through the warped (and often cracked) pane of glass that is human interpretation.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat May 19, 2007 9:32 am

I, Rob;616797 wrote: I'm not a religious person; to say that one is religious implies that one is observant of ritual. I like to say that I'm spiritual instead, which implies to religious people that I'm lazy, that I have vague values, and that I don't attend church regularly. Spot on.

This rather contentious chatter about the validity of one spiritual viewpoint against others, with the Christian Bible as fulcrum, might be missing an essential element of understanding: The parts that make up the whole were each a product of their respective times, and each bear the weight of political and social constructs unique to them. These pieces of the puzzle were written by mere mortals after all, and you cannot separate a human being from his or her time. Read Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ, The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus for a fascinating (and mind-crampingly scholarly -- be warned) study of this.

Suffice it to say that it's difficult to know the will of a god when that will is disseminated through the warped (and often cracked) pane of glass that is human interpretation.

good post

:-3

cinamin · Post by **cinamin** » Sat May 19, 2007 10:04 am

He/she is no doubt one of those bible-pounding, self-riteous, brainwashed, phony "christians".

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:04 pm

Hugh Janus;616136 wrote: Willful misunderstanding? Is that another term for wondering how people can have a belief in a work of fiction? To try and use Dickens to prove such a point is in itself a twist on what has been said before. To use metaphors to try to make an understanding of something, which in itself is a metaphor, belies belief...:sneaky:

Oh and BTW. I can't stand cricket...

You have to prove that it's not fiction, and upon such an instance quite frankly everyone with an ounce of logic and rationality would agree with you...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:33 pm

Hugh Janus;616136 wrote: Willful misunderstanding? Is that another term for wondering how people can have a belief in a work of fiction? To try and use Dickens to prove such a point is in itself a twist on what has been said before. To use metaphors to try to make an understanding of something, which in itself is a metaphor, belies belief...:sneaky:

Oh and BTW. I can't stand cricket...

No, taking an example of how, in another context, a work of fiction can help in the understanding of real life, and trying to portray that as an attempt to suggest that the example was trying to propose said work of fiction as the foundation for another religion - that is willful misunderstanding.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:45 pm

I, Rob:-6

I agree with most of what you wrote above. The only thing that I can comment on is the point of human interpretation. As humans we have no other way except our subjective human interpretation.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:51 pm

Bryn Mawr:-6

I can agree with that post.

There is some history in the Bible. For instance historians are convinced of the existence of David and Solomon as well as the extent and power of the Roman empire. There is no question about the existence of Andrew or Paul etc. Most today are convinced of the historicity of Jesus though there are a few who claim otherwise. Just so Ernst Zundel tells us the holocaust never happened when the evidence is totally to the contrary.

There is much metaphor and midrash in the remainder of the Bible which is more than historical and more than fiction.

To claim that since it is metaphor means it is not true is to fail completely in understanding literature and the literary method.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Musiclover89 · Post by **Musiclover89** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:05 pm

Hugh Janus;611281 wrote: The Bible. One of the best pieces of fiction that I have ever read. Not too sure that I would want to read it again though... As for "idiots" living life according to this piece of fiction... I would rather live my life using rules gleaned from "The Lord of the Rings" trillogy... Yes I know. It sounds stupid. But it makes as much sence as using rules from any other work of fiction...:sneaky:

OMG such a true post i don't see the point myself living life by a book its so stupid

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:15 pm

But it is not living life by a book. It is living life by the wisdom that it proclaims and the truths that it attests to.

Shalom

Ted:-6

crazygal · Post by **crazygal** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:40 pm

Musiclover89;638950 wrote: OMG such a true post i don't see the point myself living life by a book its so stupid

Agreed, load of bull.

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:25 pm

Rather than dismiss wholesale an entire faith (as some here apparently seek to do ), I prefer to take wisdom as it may come regardless of it's source. "One light, many windows". :-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:22 am

I, Rob;639155 wrote: Rather than dismiss wholesale an entire faith (as some here apparently seek to do ), I prefer to take wisdom as it may come regardless of it's source. "One light, many windows". :-6

People are not dismissing out of hand it but rather saying it is not for them. Just as in the same way you might dismiss shamanism or Hinduism or Buddhism. It's a moot point whether the bible is wisdom or not but at least in a secular society you are free to follow as you choose and even non believers will defend your right to choose.

On the other hand in many deeply religious countries trying to shine the wrong kind of light in your window can result in a brick coming through it.