Should the Bible be given an 18 rating.

Xluna

Recently,there was a lot of fuss over a scene in a popular video game,Modern Warfare 2,which earned it an over 18 rating. Parents,Politicians and the media appeared to be concerned that despite it's adult rating it could fall into the hands of children,who would not be able to discern fantasy from reality to the same extent a teen or an adult would. In essense people were concerned that they would emulate the violent scenes in real life.

Now by my logic the Bible should certainly be given an adult rating also,and we should be concerned that it would fall into the hands on a child. Unlike a video game,society in general encourages the Bible to be fact. Now I know there's plenty of decent morality in the New testament but a child could easily be confused as to which laws to follow and emulate.

The Old Testament encourages violent homophobia,genocide,racism and sexism.
So should the Bible be given an 18 rating so that it may not fall into innocent minds?

Antbert

Nice in theory, but I think flawed in that children want to play COD.

I like the idea that it's bad to teach primary school children an 18s book though. Perhaps suggest some other reading material like Lady Chatterly's Lover or Fight Club.

I did try to think of more pretentious books. If I think of better ones I'll shamelessly go back and edit.

Galvasean

Antbert wrote: »

Nice in theory, but I think flawed in that children want to play COD.

Well many children do want to read the Bible. More imortantly, a great many children do read it.

Was watching a documentary about the biblical character David yesterday. Man that would make a great movie; lust, betrayal, murder, adultery, rape, incest, regicide, baby-killing, slavery, warmongering, epic battle scenes, blood n' guts.... To make an accurate portrayal in film you'd need a hard 18s (or if you had a very savvy producer you could get away with 15s).
There's 'worse' sections of the Bible too, with even more brutality and ethically dubious bits.
I mean if Perfect Dark on the N64 can get an 18s rating, surely the Bible deserves one too...

Antbert wrote: »

I like the idea that it's bad to teach primary school children an 18s book though. Perhaps suggest some other reading material like Lady Chatterly's Lover or Fight Club.

I did try to think of more pretentious books. If I think of better ones I'll shamelessly go back and edit.

I don't think the kiddies are ready for American Psycho just yet..

PDN

Restricting access to the Bible by under-18s is practiced by the regime in the People's Republic of China. I'm sure those in the corridors of power in Beijing will appreciate that there are like-minded people in the West.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Restricting access to the Bible by under-18s is practiced by the regime in the People's Republic of China. I'm sure those in the corridors of power in Beijing will appreciate that there are like-minded people in the West.

What pathetically juvenile reasoning. :rolleyes:

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What pathetically juvenile reasoning. :rolleyes:

What a moronic substitute for debate. :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

What a moronic substitute for debate. :rolleyes:

Remember everyone, if you think the bible should have an 18's rating... you are a Maoist!! :eek:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Remember everyone, if you think the bible should have an 18's rating... you are a Maoist!! :eek:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Which isn't what I said, but I guess you think dishonesty is justified in maintaining the party line.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Which isn't what I said, but I guess you think dishonesty is justified in maintaining the party line.

That, coming from a Christian.

The cheek of ya...

mark renton

I dont think its the reading part that would worry me, more the preaching part - preaching the bible to under 18s should be restricted - by then at least there is a little room for that individual to make up their own mind

achtungbarry

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Remember everyone, if you think the bible should have an 18's rating... you are a Maoist!! :eek:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

pierrot

Reductio ad Maoum

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That, coming from a Christian.

The cheek of ya...

So, serious question, you think Christians are more dishonest than other people?

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

So, serious question, you think Christians are more dishonest than other people?

I think that people who are fervent believers of any ideology - whether it be a religion, political/economic ideology or even a fanatical football supporter - are not only capable of being dishonest in order to 'toe the party line', but also have been shown to be so time and time again. Perhaps they do so without realising in all cases, but they nevertheless do it.

When it comes to Christians - especially ones who follow the Bible strictly - they are more than willing to be dishonest when it comes to anything that contradicts the Bible. The best example being JC, of that thread.

The more fervent the belief, the more dishonest they are willing to be. Anything but betray the ideology.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I think that people who are fervent believers of any ideology - whether it be a religion, political/economic ideology or even a fanatical football supporter - are not only capable of being dishonest in order to 'toe the party line', but also have been shown to be so time and time again. Perhaps they do so without realising in all cases, but they nevertheless do it.

When it comes to Christians - especially ones who follow the Bible strictly - they are more than willing to be dishonest when it comes to anything that contradicts the Bible. The best example being JC, of that thread.

The more fervent the belief, the more dishonest they are willing to be. Anything but betray the ideology.

So, again serious question, I should only expect honesty from luke-warm atheists rather than fervent atheists?

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

Restricting access to the Bible by under-18s is practiced by the regime in the People's Republic of China. I'm sure those in the corridors of power in Beijing will appreciate that there are like-minded people in the West.

Christian America executes more people per year than Communist China-and yeah,flawed logic anyway.:cool:

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

So, serious question, you think Christians are more dishonest than other people?

I think religious people in general lie to themselves more than other people.

Rowley Birkin QC

Gah, another genuinely interesting topic derailed.

I'd like to hear a genuine response PDN.

Teferi

I respect PDN as a poster from reading his many posts but I can't help but think that a spurious comment like this:

PDN wrote: »

Restricting access to the Bible by under-18s is practiced by the regime in the People's Republic of China. I'm sure those in the corridors of power in Beijing will appreciate that there are like-minded people in the West.

would earn you a few days off in the xtianity forum (I don't think it is unfair to say this).

OT: If you are using the logic of the people who had a bit of a shout against mw2 then it should have an 18 rating. However, that wouldn't be smart. It shouldn't be rated.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

Christian America executes more people per year than Communist China-and yeah,flawed logic anyway.:cool:

I wouldn't agree that America is Christian. But, leaving that aside for now, according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment the US executed 37 people in 2008, whereas China executed over 5000.

I think religious people in general lie to themselves more than other people.

Except, apparently, when it comes to lying about rates of execution.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

So, again serious question, I should only expect honesty from luke-warm atheists rather than fervent atheists?

I'm not an atheist, but I will have a go answering since I delivered my model. I would consider people who are not emotionally tied to the response of the question I am asking, to give a more honest answer.

Ask a Liverpool fan who the best players in Europe are, and I guarantee a disproportionate amount will play for Liverpool. I remember one of my Liverpool supporting friends watched his team lose 4-0 to Coventry, some years back, and he still felt that they should have won. If you asked any non-Liverpool supporter who deserved to win, I think we all know what the consensus would have been. People will convince themselves of anything, if they are emotionally tied to it. Politics, economics, physical relationships, mothers standing by their rapist/murderer son, and religious believers. It's all the same, deep emotional bonds create bias and restricts peoples ability to think critically.

Now, to answer your question. Well, I don't think atheists are entirely unbiased. I was one for years, but I think many are not really being honest with themselves (99.99% certain there is no god, is not atheism, imo), but this is more of a philosophical dilemma, and would hardly lead one to attempt to deny their children education in certain biology subjects, or that scientific knowledge is wrong, whenever it crosses paths with a certain book. Or worse, spread lies about science to further their religious cause.

i.e. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and their dispicable behaviour with Origins of Species.

PDN

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

Gah, another genuinely interesting topic derailed.

I'd like to hear a genuine response PDN.

A response to the OP?

I oppose the censorship of books. I think that those who advocate the banning of books or the burning of books are the worst kinds of bigots and cowards. I think that those who would implement censorship because of their religious (or antireligious) views, and then pretend it's to protect children are the worst kind of hypocrites.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

A response to the OP?

I oppose the censorship of books. I think that those who advocate the banning of books or the burning of books are the worst kinds of bigots and cowards. I think that those who would implement censorship because of their religious (or antireligious) views, and then pretend it's to protect children are the worst kind of hypocrites.

I partially agree with you, however you seem to imply that pornography should be freely available to minors? Remember, pornography can come in book form.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I partially agree with you, however you seem to imply that pornography should be freely available to minors? Remember, pornography can come in book form.

I would much prefer that parents shield their children from pornography, rather than the State doing so. However, given the problems that our society has with sexual abuse and exploitation of children, I could see the wisdom in the State intervening where preteens were allowed access to more extreme forms of pornography.

However, I don't believe any rational person (other than the most bigoted demagogue) could possibly equate the Bible with extreme pornography.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

I would much prefer that parents shield their children from pornography, rather than the State doing so. However, given the problems that our society has with sexual abuse and exploitation of children, I could see the wisdom in the State intervening where preteens were allowed access to more extreme forms of pornography.

However, I don't believe any rational person (other than the most bigoted demagogue) could possibly equate the Bible with extreme pornography.

No, but does a child really need the image of a person being stoned to death in their mind? Have you ever seen such an image, PDN? I saw such a video, and I wish I never did.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, but does a child really need the image of a person being stoned to death in their mind? Have you ever seen such an image, PDN? I saw such a video, and I wish I never did.

Yes, I have seen photos and fiilm footage of stonings. But we're not talking about that, are we?

We're talking about a book. Are you really suggesting we restrict children's access to all books that mention similar acts of violence? A huge chunk of literature and history will thereby be excluded.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

However, I don't believe any rational person (other than the most bigoted demagogue) could possibly equate the Bible with extreme pornography.

Cue posts from the Old Testament.


@OP. If there was a video game based on the bible, it might get a 18+ cert (if only to generate a bit of interest).:)

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have seen photos and fiilm footage of stonings. But we're not talking about that, are we?

We're talking about a book. Are you really suggesting we restrict children's access to all books that mention similar acts of violence? A huge chunk of literature and history will thereby be excluded.

Not all, but if certain books contain extreme and prolonged sections of violence, then I suppose it would do no harm to have a rating label on them.

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that America is Christian. But, leaving that aside for now, according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment the US executed 37 people in 2008, whereas China executed over 5000.


Except, apparently, when it comes to lying about rates of execution.

Well I was mistaken there, I obviously misheard a quote. I was'nt lying though,if I was going to lie I'd have at least made the lie believable.
" Judge not lest ye be judged".:cool:

Xluna

dvpower wrote: »

Cue posts from the Old Testament.


@OP. If there was a video game based on the bible, it might get a 18+ cert (if only to generate a bit of interest).:)

Oh but there are-many of them and they all suck ass!:D



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNvQYiM6bw

ShooterSF

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have seen photos and fiilm footage of stonings. But we're not talking about that, are we?

We're talking about a book. Are you really suggesting we restrict children's access to all books that mention similar acts of violence? A huge chunk of literature and history will thereby be excluded.

So would you suggest that Call of Duty shouldn't carry an age restriction? What about violent movies?

philologos

john47832 wrote: »

I dont think its the reading part that would worry me, more the preaching part - preaching the bible to under 18s should be restricted - by then at least there is a little room for that individual to make up their own mind

Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech

Two fundamental rights.

How on earth are you going to stop under 18 year olds going to church not ignoring the fact that the house church movement can facilitate this.

The whole point is that the Bible as a collection of books (very important to note) has something to say from the very youngest of us to the very oldest of us. Pretty much what I would anticipate from a holy text that gives us a description of the human condition, and a way to deal with the human condition according to the will of it's Creator.

Ciaran500

Jakkass wrote: »

Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech

Two fundamental rights.

By that reasoning you could argue that giving MW2 an 18s cert is a breach of those fundamental rights.

Flamed Diving

Freedom of religion.

Errrrr, define religion. Anything can be a religion, just look at Scientology.

We only mean recognised religions.

Doesn't this violate... Freedom of Religion?

No, you are free to practice the religions we tell you to.

I see...

ShooterSF

Jakkass where do you find these "rights"? Freedom of speech?

Stercus Accidit

Ciaran500 wrote: »

By that reasoning you could argue that giving MW2 an 18s cert is a breach of those fundamental rights.

Its certainly more popular than christianity among the 14-24 yo demographic :pac:

5uspect

Isn't there at least one religion of video games?

Funny how nobody cares about kids reading about the "real", divine, violence in the Bible yet there's public outcry about the pretend violence in games.

Xluna

I'm setting up the Church of the Holy Call Of Duty. It's creators were divinely inspired by the one true God. I intend to sue nations who give it a 18s rating and fine anyone who gives it a bad review under the blasphemy act.

5uspect

Xluna wrote: »

I'm setting up the Church of the Holy Call Of Duty. It's creators were divinely inspired by the one true God. I intend to sue nations who give it a 18s rating and fine anyone who gives it a bad review under the blasphemy act.

I'll join if IW give us back dedicated servers.

GLaDOS

PDN wrote: »

I oppose the censorship of books.

Do you oppose the censorship of games and movies? (genuine question, not trying to be smart)

I feel the OP makes a perfectly valid point, but it more points to the over censorship of modern media than some sort of christain conspiracy. If judged by the same standards, the bible should be for at least over 15s, but I wouldn't want to see it happen - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (or something along those lines)

robindch

pierrot wrote: »

Reductio ad Maoum

Indeed.

Good heavens, folks, do try to avoid soundbite debating -- this forum isn't a peacock farm, you know.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

Jakkass where do you find these "rights"? Freedom of speech?

UN Declaration of Human Rights - Article 18 wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

UN Declaration of Human Rights - Article 19 wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Irish Constitution Article 40:6 wrote:

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

Irish Constitution Article 44:1 wrote:

Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

^^ Internationally and nationally these rights are regarded.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech

And what happens when one person's religion requires somebody else to restrain their right to free speech?

There is no right to religion. There certainly is an inherent right to believe what ever you want to, but that right extends only as far as the fringes of your own mind. Once your beliefs and your exercise of your beliefs affects other people, that's where negotiation begins.

PDN

ShooterSF wrote: »

So would you suggest that Call of Duty shouldn't carry an age restriction? What about violent movies?

Do you understand the difference between a movie and a book?

(Hint. The book is the one with leaves of paper with little black squiggles on them).

philologos

robindch: If you're flicking through the Constitution, you'll also find that parents are also given key responsibility in the religious and moral education of their child. That would also include the right to bring their children to church.

It's amazing how unorthodox and how draconian the suggestions on this forum get however. It just makes me wonder should we be more sceptical of people with ulterior motives arguing for secularism.

In a sense, it could be seen as a legitimate cover as a vehicle for illegitimate aims.

Teferi

PDN wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between a movie and a book?

(Hint. The book is the one with leaves of paper with little black squiggles on them).

A persons imagination can come up with far more violent images than a film would be allowed show. A book could facilitate these images.

bnt

I visited friends in the USA over the summer: I never saw their young kids with an actual Bible, but they did have a book of Bible Stories in their room. There are also "children's Bibles" with the nasty bits removed - or parents can tell kids stories from memory. So, where can this discussion lead, if not to "thought crime"?

toiletduck

Should the Bible be given an 18 rating

No I don't think so. However I would say that for any book. And the bible certainly is a thoroughly unpleasant one.

I suppose there is a question as to why we rate certain media suitable for certain ages but not others.

I will never understand why The Passion of the Christ was 15PG though.

eoin5

Can children buy adult novels, you know the ones with no pics but plenty of descriptive language?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch: If you're flicking through the Constitution, you'll also find that parents are also given key responsibility in the religious and moral education of their child. That would also include the right to bring their children to church. It's amazing how unorthodox and how draconian the suggestions on this forum get however. It just makes me wonder should we be more sceptical of people with ulterior motives arguing for secularism.

I think you missed my point quite badly.

Yes, there is an right to believe whatever one wants to believe. But there is no right to act upon this belief if the act of of so doing infringes the rights of other people to do the same.

In practice, that means that one can -- say -- believe that one is a god (and we know that plenty of people down through the years have done just that). But that does not give one the right to act out the belief and behave like a god.

Jakkass wrote: »

In a sense, it could be seen as a legitimate cover as a vehicle for illegitimate aims.

Yes. Many religious believe whatever they wish (fair enough), and then go on to believe that their beliefs should be respected to the point that they become upset and frequently rather angry when their beliefs are challenged, or even if the mere suggestion is made that their beliefs may not be as secure as they believe.

At this point a debate needs to happen within the society about whether free-speech is a more basic right than a religious person's assumed right not to be offended. That question is really quite easy to answer, but many religious people have made enormous political hay and gained considerable influence by claiming offense where none exists in anything but their own minds.

.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The whole point is that the Bible as a collection of books (very important to note) has something to say from the very youngest of us to the very oldest of us. Pretty much what I would anticipate from a holy text that gives us a description of the human condition, and a way to deal with the human condition according to the will of it's Creator.

While describing (and justifying) genocide, rape, and slavery.

So no that isn't really the point Jakkass, you aren't going to find much support on this forum for the idea that the Bible has "something to say" beyond justifying the war crimes of the Hebrew armies (God told us to go pillage your lands, sorry about that!), nor is freedom of religion a justification to expose children to something violent, any more than the Waco cult were justified in showing very violent movies to their children to prepare them for the war they were expecting.

An actual point is that there is little to no evidence that literature can harm children, even if it is describing or justifying horrific acts. I would not recommend any parent expose younger children to the Bible, but there is no evidence it is going to harm them if they do.

Likewise there isn't much evidence that violent movies or games do either