• commentary
  • SUNDAY MAY 20 2007 5:00 PM

The Bible as Porn? Maybe in Hong Kong

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Bible, Hong Kong, indecent



Hearing the word "bible" typically does not conjure images in one's mind of scantily clad individuals romping around or engaging in exciting Jerry Bruckheimer-worthy acts of violence. In fact, for many people the bible tends to evoke images of old men in cheap suits rambling about moral decay, thoughts of shame and guilt, ponderous lists of names and notions of the meek somehow inheriting the earth. However, a group in Hong Kong seems to be in the former camp, and is fighting to get the bible labeled as indecent and obscene. If they are successful no one under the age of 18 will be allowed to purchase a bible, and it will have to be individually wrapped to ensure that it is not accidentally opened.

More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon Wednesday.

The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- www.truthbible.net -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.

The Web site said the Bible's sexual content "far exceeds" that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University's "Student Press" magazine, which had asked readers whether they'd ever fantasized about incest or bestiality.


But surely this is all the work of godless atheists seeking to subvert the word of God, right? Well, let's have a look and see just what it is that's got them so upset.

Book of Genesis, chapter 19:

he two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, "Please, gentlemen, come aside into your servant's house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey." But they replied, "No, we shall pass the night in the town square." He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking cakes without leaven, and they dined. Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old--all the people to the last man--closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them." Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, "I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don't do anything to these men, for you know they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Pretty hot and heavy stuff. I think I remember the same premise from a softcore porn movie on Cinemax.

Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 22:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Sex with virgins, rape, forced marriage. Scandalous!

Book of Samuel II, Chapter 16:

Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, that he has left to keep the house. Then all Israel will hear that you are abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be strong.” So they spread Absalom a tent on the top of the house; and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Cavorting with his father's concubines in plain sight of everyone else? Who wouldn't be turned on?

Book of Isaiah, Chapter 36:

But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Eating shit and drinking piss, well that's got to turn on someone... probably.

OK, but that's all old testament stuff, fire and brimstone. Not like the New testament, which is all happiness and pleasantries, right? See for yourself.

Gospel according to Luke, chapter 12:

Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Doesn't exactly sound... peaceful, does it?

Gospel according to Luke, chapter 19:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.


That's not very friendly either.

Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 10:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


Sounds rather violent to me.

The truth is that censorship of any reading material is abhorrent and not justifiable. But should religious books receive a pass just because they're religious? In an update from the Hong Kong media regulator, the answer is a resounding "Yes."

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
Phoebus

Phoebus

Italy
OLD SKOOL

MAY 21, 2007 06:57 PM

chainlink said:
Fact is the bible is chuck full of gratuitous violence, and sex.


Gratuitous (being without apparent reason, cause, or justification)? No.

I highly doubt anything about the ancient Hebrews' holy texts was put in for cheap thrills or such.

Bilharzia

Bilharzia

I'm lost
April 2004

MAY 21, 2007 07:19 PM

varukasalt said:

Bilharzia said:

BGage said:

Bilharzia said:


The truth is that censorship of any reading material is abhorrent and not justifiable.



Debatable.



Care to debate it then? Or were you just trolling?



Legionnaire, I'm sure, is very intellilgent, and, as a writer, well-versed in controversies surrounding censorship issues. However, his blanket assertion that censorship the written word is never justified, sounds a bit knee-jerk to me.

In my opinion, such a bold statement would have to be accompanied by a full appendix of qualifications and exceptions. You don't have to go delve too deeply into the debate to discover a whole panopoly of situations in which censorship of certain reading material either protects people from harm, or serves the public good.

We could debate it if you like, but my argument is pretty strong.



Please, please, please give me one concrete example how censorship helped anyone except those who are censoring? Or again, are you just trolling? As far as your "argument" (dogma) being pretty strong... you know, denial is not just a river in Egypt.



Banning hate literature benefits minorities. Banning libelous materials protects the victims. Banning from publication the names of sex crime victims saves them from public shame. Banning from evidence in court the sexual histories of alleged sex crime victims protects them from being humiliated in court. Banning from publication the names of undercover police officers protects them from harm. Banning from publication the names of witnesses in criminal trials protects them from harm.

There are probably dozens more perfectly reasonable examples of the ways censorship benefits people other than the censors.

By the way, what the fuck is all this "trolling" bullshit?

Bilharzia

Bilharzia

I'm lost
April 2004

MAY 21, 2007 07:22 PM

SirPsychoSexy said:

Bilharzia said:


The truth is that censorship of any reading material is abhorrent and not justifiable.



Debatable.(censored)



Very funny, but I'm not crazy about how you edited my post.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

MAY 21, 2007 07:47 PM

Bilharzia said:

varukasalt said:

Bilharzia said:

BGage said:

Bilharzia said:


The truth is that censorship of any reading material is abhorrent and not justifiable.



Debatable.



Care to debate it then? Or were you just trolling?



Legionnaire, I'm sure, is very intellilgent, and, as a writer, well-versed in controversies surrounding censorship issues. However, his blanket assertion that censorship the written word is never justified, sounds a bit knee-jerk to me.

In my opinion, such a bold statement would have to be accompanied by a full appendix of qualifications and exceptions. You don't have to go delve too deeply into the debate to discover a whole panopoly of situations in which censorship of certain reading material either protects people from harm, or serves the public good.

We could debate it if you like, but my argument is pretty strong.



Please, please, please give me one concrete example how censorship helped anyone except those who are censoring? Or again, are you just trolling? As far as your "argument" (dogma) being pretty strong... you know, denial is not just a river in Egypt.



Banning hate literature benefits minorities. Banning libelous materials protects the victims. Banning from publication the names of sex crime victims saves them from public shame. Banning from evidence in court the sexual histories of alleged sex crime victims protects them from being humiliated in court. Banning from publication the names of undercover police officers protects them from harm. Banning from publication the names of witnesses in criminal trials protects them from harm.

There are probably dozens more perfectly reasonable examples of the ways censorship benefits people other than the censors.

By the way, what the fuck is all this "trolling" bullshit?



Ok, I'll buy some of that.
Trolling is going on a thread and making provocative statements just to get a reactioin or stir up trouble. Very extreme example. Going on a vegan thread and saying "I just heard tofu causes mental retardation. " That's a pretty piss poor example, but hopefully, you get the drift.
I would have to say at this point, you definitely were NOT trolling. Sorry for the babbling, it's late and I was jackhammering for 10 hrs in 89 degree weather, I'm kinda loopy. I go beddies now....

Bilharzia

Bilharzia

I'm lost
April 2004

MAY 21, 2007 08:16 PM

varukasalt said:

Bilharzia said:

varukasalt said:

Bilharzia said:

BGage said:

Bilharzia said:


The truth is that censorship of any reading material is abhorrent and not justifiable.



Debatable.



Care to debate it then? Or were you just trolling?



Legionnaire, I'm sure, is very intellilgent, and, as a writer, well-versed in controversies surrounding censorship issues. However, his blanket assertion that censorship the written word is never justified, sounds a bit knee-jerk to me.

In my opinion, such a bold statement would have to be accompanied by a full appendix of qualifications and exceptions. You don't have to go delve too deeply into the debate to discover a whole panopoly of situations in which censorship of certain reading material either protects people from harm, or serves the public good.

We could debate it if you like, but my argument is pretty strong.



Please, please, please give me one concrete example how censorship helped anyone except those who are censoring? Or again, are you just trolling? As far as your "argument" (dogma) being pretty strong... you know, denial is not just a river in Egypt.



Banning hate literature benefits minorities. Banning libelous materials protects the victims. Banning from publication the names of sex crime victims saves them from public shame. Banning from evidence in court the sexual histories of alleged sex crime victims protects them from being humiliated in court. Banning from publication the names of undercover police officers protects them from harm. Banning from publication the names of witnesses in criminal trials protects them from harm.

There are probably dozens more perfectly reasonable examples of the ways censorship benefits people other than the censors.

By the way, what the fuck is all this "trolling" bullshit?



Ok, I'll buy some of that.
Trolling is going on a thread and making provocative statements just to get a reactioin or stir up trouble. Very extreme example. Going on a vegan thread and saying "I just heard tofu causes mental retardation. " That's a pretty piss poor example, but hopefully, you get the drift.
I would have to say at this point, you definitely were NOT trolling. Sorry for the babbling, it's late and I was jackhammering for 10 hrs in 89 degree weather, I'm kinda loopy. I go beddies now....


Have a good one, then.
Cheers!

Bilharzia

Bilharzia

I'm lost
April 2004

MAY 21, 2007 08:19 PM

Somehow I goofed the above reply.
Apologies.

Sexdwarf

Sexdwarf

Hermosa Beach, CA
February 2003

MAY 21, 2007 08:33 PM

Just cause they're religious?
No.
But should they for perhaps other reasons, Yes.
Because as pointed out, they (just about every religious text, from any religion I can think of) don't fall under any country's (any country that matters) obscenity/ obscenity-type laws.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAY 21, 2007 11:25 PM

shocked WTF!?! I'm guessing you've never been to Saudi Arabia or China (to name but a few). Oh, right... I just realized you said "any country that matters". That was a narrow escape, but it still makes you sound narrow-minded. I'd like to see a published list of countries that do matter so I can wright off all the other ones that don't. whatever

Nokturn

Nokturn

United Kingdom
April 2006

MAY 22, 2007 09:13 AM

FellOnEarth said:
I'd like to see a published list of countries that do matter so I can wright off all the other ones that don't. whatever


1. America (and thus by definition, the UK)
2. 'Europe'
3. Anybody who America and the UK currently support for financial/political reasons.
3. Anybody America and the UK happen to be at war with.
4. Countries nobody has ever heard of.
5. 'Africa'.
6. Mexico

I think that's the order of importance. wink

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAY 22, 2007 02:42 PM

shocked Oh... Right I see you're following the line of thought that most Americans (U.S.) follow with considering 'Europe' and 'Africa' countries. I'm sure this list of "countries that matter" would be much more condensed with Joe America. I think it might go something like this.

1.'America' (Many people in the U.S. don't realize that 'America' isn't really a country, it's 2 continents, North and South, but there you go...)
2.'England' (Actually the UK, but here again ignorance rules the roost).
3.Australia (Hey, got one right, though most would probably forget about those funny Aussies 'down under' until they see Paul Hogan or hear the word "crikey". I've even heard people getting in fist fights over being told that AC/DC is from Australia).
4.Canada (We need someone to blame).
5.'Hawaii' (People forget that it's not a country just because it's an island. People are dumb...)
6.'Estonia' (Because we need some international support from some other country (it doesn't matter which) to justify invading other country (that doesn't matter)... I could be wrong, but I think Estonia may be somewhere near Texas or Massachusetts). wink

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews