Should the Bible be outlawed

[Kilgore Trout]

So the children who accidently get shot playing with daddy's gun decided to kill themselves did they?

That would be daddy's fault, not the gun's.

 

[Willamena]

So the children who accidently get shot playing with daddy's gun decided to kill themselves did they?

Non sequitur of the day!

 

[Humanistheart]

That would be daddy's fault, not the gun's.

True, But if daddy weren't allowed to have a gun, his stupidity wouldn't have cost his child their life now would it? People forget that merely having the ability to reproduce does not qualify one to be a parent. Thus the need for government intervention in certian cases. Cases such as the bible, another potential danger, being read to children.

 

[monta]

So the children who accidently get shot playing with daddy's gun decided to kill themselves did they?

Guns tend towards their purpose like everything else, it is not the objects fault that daddy left it in reach of the child.

However what I meant was the bible unlike a gun was not created with the specific intent to inflict pain, I was suggesting when it is used as a weapon it is more like a hammer than a gun, in that it is being used in a manner contrary to it's intended purpose.

 

[Humanistheart]

Guns tend towards their purpose like everything else, it is not the objects fault that daddy left it in reach of the child.

However what I meant was the bible unlike a gun was not created with the specific intent to inflict pain, I was suggesting when it is used as a weapon it is more like a hammer than a gun, in that it is being used in a manner contrary to it's intended purpose.

Alchohal and crack were not created with the purpose of harming people, as you say the bible wasn't. If you think it's okay to read the bible, a potential problem for developing young children, then by your logic it must be okay to give them hard drugs, because they're not created with the intent to harm. Intent is irrelevant here, it's what is actually does that matters.

 

[J Bryson]

Alchohal and crack were not created with the purpose of harming people, as you say the bible wasn't. If you think it's okay to read the bible, a potential problem for developing young children, then by your logic it must be okay to give them hard drugs, because they're not created with the intent to harm. Intent is irrelevant here, it's what is actually does that matters.

You are absolutely right.

I suggest that following this logic, we should ban the following: Knives, cars, manholes, aspirin, all nuts, tranquilizers, anesthetics, stimulants, acids, a good chunk of all plantlife, wooden blocks, and sliding glass doors.

 

[monta]

Alchohal and crack were not created with the purpose of harming people, as you say the bible wasn't. If you think it's okay to read the bible, a potential problem for developing young children, then by your logic it must be okay to give them hard drugs, because they're not created with the intent to harm. Intent is irrelevant here, it's what is actually does that matters.

I guess you are right, if I don't think banning a book is right I must want to give crack to babies and then let them play with guns.

And of course conversely by your logic we should ban all hammers.

 

[Magic Man]

:slap:

:slap:

 

[Storm]

I must say, as a survivor of ACTUAL child abuse, I find the whole "religion is abusive to children" argument unspeakably offensive.

ETA:

I guess you are right, if I don't think banning a book is right I must want to give crack to babies and then let them play with guns.

And of course conversely by your logic we should ban all hammers.

And don't forget stoves.

 

[Humanistheart]

I must say, as a survivor of ACTUAL child abuse, I find the whole "religion is abusive to children" argument unspeakably offensive.

ETA:
And don't forget stoves.

I'm sorry for your experience, but I doubt very much you have the specific education to justify your use of actual here.

 

[Storm]

I'm sorry for your experience, but I doubt very much you have the specific education to justify your use of actual here.

I don't need a diploma, I have the scars. But if you want the grisly details, ask away, *edit*.

 

[Humanistheart]

I guess you are right, if I don't think banning a book is right I must want to give crack to babies and then let them play with guns.

And of course conversely by your logic we should ban all hammers.

You seem to have a thing for hammers, and you seemed to have completly missed the point.

Alright put it this way. A small amount of alcohal during pregnancy does not garante developmental problems in the baby. But every body is different and it's impossible to say with certianty before hand how much that quantity will be per individual. If you were pregnant woman would you drink figuring, hey, it might not hurt the baby? It's the potential health problems that keep pregnant women from drinking. It's the potential mental health problems that should keep parents from reading the bible to children.

 

[Humanistheart]

I don't need a diploma, I have the scars. But if you want the grisly details, ask away, ***hole.

My apologies if I wasn't clear, I'm not saying you weren't abused, I'm saying the range of abuse is wider than you imagine. To one who suffered physical abuse perhaps the idea of mental abuse seems silly to you, but it is an issue.

 

[Storm]

My apologies if I wasn't clear, I'm not saying you weren't abused, I'm saying the range of abuse is wider than you imagine. To one who suffered physical abuse perhaps the idea of mental abuse seems silly to you, but it is an issue.

No, it mental abuse isn't silly, that was the worst part. Religion ain't abuse.

 

[monta]

You seem to have a thing for hammers, and you seemed to have completly missed the point.

Alright put it this way. A small amount of alcohal during pregnancy does not garante developmental problems in the baby. But every body is different and it's impossible to say with certianty before hand how much that quantity will be per individual. If you were pregnant woman would you drink figuring, hey, it might not hurt the baby? It's the potential health problems that keep pregnant women from drinking. It's the potential mental health problems that should keep parents from reading the bible to children.

I disagree with your analogy, it assumes the bible is inevitiably harmful, when it isn't, it is a book, but am not going to waste any more space tit for tatting on this, so we will just have to disagree.

 

[Humanistheart]

I disagree with your analogy, it assumes the bible is inevitiably harmful, when it isn't, it is a book, but am not going to waste any more space tit for tatting on this, so we will just have to disagree.

No, the argument does not assume it's inevitably harmful, just potentially. Just as comsuming some alcohal may or may not adversly affect the fetus, so it is with the bible. It may or may not. But what kind of person is willing to take a chance like?

 

[blackout]

Religion CAN be the "package" abuse comes in.

Which is different than saying "religion itself" is the abuse.
Abusers use a variety of "tools".
But always there is an ACTUAL abuser.

Which is most likely what everyone's been saying in this thread anyway.
(with the allusions to hammers and stoves and all)

I've come in here late, and have not read all the posts.

 

[Humanistheart]

No, it mental abuse isn't silly, that was the worst part. Religion ain't abuse.

We're talking about the bible, not religion in general.

 

[Storm]

We're talking about the bible, not religion in general.

The Bible isn't abuse, either.

 

[blackout]

No, the argument does not assume it's inevitably harmful, just potentially. Just as comsuming some alcohal may or may not adversly affect the fetus, so it is with the bible. It may or may not. But what kind of person is willing to take a chance like?

Oh come on. EVERYTHING is potentially harmful.

So BAN IT ALL! right?