And from xxxchurch.com
"Long story short they have refunded all of our money and have refused to print the Bibles. They have told us that this goes against everything the Bible stands for and they dont want anyone to think that Jesus is okay with porn. We think they are wrong. We think this goes with the central message of the gospel and Jesus loves you regardless of your profession."
Westley said:
I guess I am confused by the editorial sentiment here. You people think it would be prudent for the American Bible Society to print up bibles with idiotic slogans targeting specific groups to aide anti-porn efforts?
I don't really follow this logic. I suspect that if the group had requested the bibles to say something along the lines of "Jesus loved everyone" it would be less of an issue to the American Bible Society, though it is possible that they have a blanket policy regarding the labeling of the Bible. Either way, opting to not be a part of some stupid PR dog and pony show staged by a fringe anti-porn campaign seems a lot less problematic to me than it does to you.
As an agnostic, the ABS decision seems like the definition of integrity to me.
[Edited on Apr 04, 2006 2:18PM]
I think it would be prudent of the people that printed the Bibles actually followed the teachings of Jesus and not pass judgement.
It is an extraordinary leap of logic to conclude that the ABS is passing judgment simply by not printing a Bible that says "Jesus loves porn stars".
It is an even stranger leap in logic to comclude that a company looking to maintain the integrity of the Bible is in the wrong or intolerant simply because they do not wish to print copies of the book so it may be held hostage in a public relations campaign for anti-porn crusaders. The anti-porn group who are seeking to present their own spurious interpolation of the Bible are the ones that are to be reviled in this story. I find it comical that those who seem to think they are standing for what is right think the ABS are the intolerant ones here for not allowing the Bible to be used as a pawn in this game. Your position is, essentially, an affirmation of the Falwell's throughout history who would use their own interpretation of the Bible as a tool to defeat opponents.
As far as I can tell, the ABS decision is based on an interest in editorial neutrality rather than folding to the personal agendas of activists, whether they be for or against porn. I minored in the Bible as Literature in college, I can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty that Jesus makes no comment in the Bible for or against porn stars specifically. If the intent of the group was to have Bibles printed that espouse a message of inclusion for all, they could easily have found several hundred such passages that affirm this message.
Most companies that print Bibles maintain a strict set of standards regarding the presentation. I find nothing wrong with one of those standards being against printing Bibles emblazoned with a message that is a complete red herring and has little or nothing to actually do with the Bible. If you are so testy that you think not printing Bibles that say "Jesus loves porn stars" is the ABS's way of saying "no Jesus does not love porn stars" then you are just looking to be outraged.
Paul9000 said:
And from xxxchurch.com
"Long story short they have refunded all of our money and have refused to print the Bibles. They have told us that this goes against everything the Bible stands for and they dont want anyone to think that Jesus is okay with porn. We think they are wrong. We think this goes with the central message of the gospel and Jesus loves you regardless of your profession."
ABS is just pushing their own morality.
Their own morality being a general consensus that pretty much all Christians arrive at. That being that Jesus loves everyone, but is not pleased with every single action that everyone performs. (i.e., the dreaded "love the sinner, hate the sin" repose). This view, as far as I can tell, is no different than that of the two unnamed pastors. The issue here is not the morality, but the editorializing of the Bible.
The two men looking to have the Bibles printed up have much more dubious motives. Essentially, their position is "Jesus loves you........ but you have to stop this whole porn thing, you evil deviant satan loving primates. Here, have a Bible.". I am still confused as to why the anti-porn group seeking to use the Bible as a means to ending pornography somehow escapes the outrage here, while the people who choose to leave the Bible as a neutral force open to anyone's interpretation are the bad guys.
Let me first say, after viewing the proposed Bible cover, it should never be reproduced due to its lack of aesthetic value.
The ABS produces custom covers for Bibles in the form of foil stamping gold leaf lettering on the covers. In addition, they also printed camouflage Bibles for the military. In fact, in every hotel/motel room in the USA you can find a copy of the Bible with "Compliments of the Gideons" printed on the cover. So let's not pretend ABS is neutral nor trying to keep the integrity of the Bible (the cover anyway).
Passing judgement is exactly what we all do every time we make a decision. The ABS just doesn't want anything to do with pornstars. If the message was to read, "Jesus loves School Teachers" do you think their response would've been that its, "misleading and inappropriate for a New Testament" or that "it has nothing to do with the Bible". No, they would've printed them.
By passing judgement they are treating pornstars just like Simon's contempt for the prostitute (Luke 7:37).
Love, acceptance and forgiveness are badges proudly worn by these groups only to be discarded when it is convenient. Hypocrisy.
31
dunx
San Antonio, TX
July 2003
APR 05, 2006 09:20 AM
"Misleading and inappropriate," eh? Apparently, that whole thing about Jesus loving everyone as long as they accept Him (you know, that crazy stuff that people have been getting out of the Bible for thousands of years) is incorrect, and new bibles will reflect the new conventional wisdom that Jesus only loves a few select groups of people, as defined by the American Bible Society.
Wow, that's pretty obnoxious. It's the fucking BIBLE. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting "porn stars" on the *cover*.
And to call further bullshit, they even said that they're supportive of the mission, they just didn't want the bibles defaced like that.
So let's have our News people be a bit more grown up. And if you want to print crap about your personal issues, do it somewhere else on the site?
Dunx said:
Wow, that's pretty obnoxious. It's the fucking BIBLE. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting "porn stars" on the *cover*.
And to call further bullshit, they even said that they're supportive of the mission, they just didn't want the bibles defaced like that.
What's wrong with a custom printing for a select audience? That customization or message might get a few people to keep and maybe even read the Bible rather than reject it as a piece of archaic church propaganda.
Support in words without action is no support at all.
Paul9000 said:
Let me first say, after viewing the proposed Bible cover, it should never be reproduced due to its lack of aesthetic value.
Yep.
The ABS produces custom covers for Bibles in the form of foil stamping gold leaf lettering on the covers. In addition, they also printed camouflage Bibles for the military. In fact, in every hotel/motel room in the USA you can find a copy of the Bible with "Compliments of the Gideons" printed on the cover. So let's not pretend ABS is neutral nor trying to keep the integrity of the Bible (the cover anyway).
I wasn't trying to pretend they were personally neutral. I said editorially neutral. Their decision is in no way an indicator of intolerance. Anyone who wants to actually pick up the book, read it, and is bright enough to arrive at the achingly obvious conclusion that Jesus loved/loves everyone is still welcomed to do so. Printing the message "Jesus loves porn stars", or "Jesus hates porn stars" would be non-neutral.
Passing judgement is exactly what we all do every time we make a decision. The ABS just doesn't want anything to do with pornstars. If the message was to read, "Jesus loves School Teachers" do you think their response would've been that its, "misleading and inappropriate for a New Testament" or that "it has nothing to do with the Bible". No, they would've printed them.
Like any book, the Bible is interpretive. However, I think it is more than reasonable to point out that your analogy here is absurd within the bounds of almost any accepted interpretation of canon. There is nothing inherently sinful about teaching school. There is nothing inherently sinful about being a Gideon. There is something inherently sinful about being a porn star. Just because the ABS feels that referring to porn stars is inappropriate on the cover of their sacred text does not mean they are issuing a statement saying "Chasey Lain is going straight to hell!!!!!"
As was stated by another person here, the ABS stated that "while it appreciates the pastors' mission, the words "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" are --quote-- misleading and inappropriate for a New Testament." Like I said before, they are not espousing a position any different at all from the two pastors with regards to their judgment on porn or porn stars. On the first count, I am not a Christian and do not think it is my place to tell them what is and is not appropriate on the cover of their sacred text. I suspect that 99.9% of all religious institutions on the planet would balk at having some comment regarding porn placed on the cover of their sacred text, no matter how benevolent the sentiment may be.
On the second count(misleading), I can see both sides. Technically, the statement is absolutely correct. However, it's placement on the cover is misleading in that it seems to suggest that it is Biblically acceptable to be a porn star.,while at the same it is part of a campaign to get porn stars to read the book and then actually see that their lifestyle is sinful. Misleading, deceitful, political, unnecessary. This is why I am confused by your assertion that the ABS printing no message is intolerant and passing judgment, yet the two pastors who believe that porn is ruinous and sinful and wish to fool people into reading the Bible to come to this conclusion are not. Whether the ABS decision is the result of personal beliefs and general intolerance toward sinful acts, the fact that they do not print any message at all, for or against, allows for a neutral reading of the text. Read the book. If you think Jesus loves porn stars after you do, the ABS has done nothing to negatively or positively effect that interpretation.
By passing judgement they are treating pornstars just like Simon's contempt for the prostitute (Luke 7:37).
I do not view a refusal to print "Jesus loves porn stars" on the cover of the Bible as passing judgment, I view it as tact and discretion. If the ABS were demanding that the pastors not even distribute their bibles among porn stars, that would be analogous with the story of Simon the Pharisee you reference.
Love, acceptance and forgiveness are badges proudly worn by these groups only to be discarded when it is convenient. Hypocrisy.
Absolutely. I just fail to recognize how this is an example. I guess I am alone in the clique who is outraged ("outraged" is a bad word, I don't really care one way or the other, maybe I should say "annoyed", nah, "bothered", not really, oh well, I think they are in the wrong) by the two unnamed pastors attempts to dupe people into reading the Bible by using a provocative phrase that implies acceptance that most people are not likely to find. Will they find out that Jesus loves them and does not condemn them no matter what they do? Yes. They will also find out that he wants them to "go and sin no more", (somewhere in John 8) which ain't exactly a friendly invitation to keep on doing the porn. Sorry, but the baby jesus is like a statue when someone teaches a class their multiplication tables. When Peter North hoses down Haley Paige on camera, the baby jesus is bawling his eyes out.
Maybe that's why I am not a Christian. Math is hard.
Paul9000
Monterey, CA
November 2004
APR 04, 2006 04:17 PM