CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
39
YES NO
Debate Score:57
Arguments:25
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (6)
 
 NO (19)

Debate Creator

Argento(512) pic



Should all Bibles carry this label?

I've seen this image many times and I'd like to know what you think.

Should all Bibles carry this advisory label?

 

 

YES

Side Score: 18
VS.

NO

Side Score: 39
2 points

I don't advocate forcing people to put these labels on Bibles, but I do think it would be beneficial if they did. Or perhaps something like it. A general "Not to be taken literally, contains inappropriate content for children" label would be nice.

As long as "holy books" are being taught to people (especially children) as though they contain facts, when there is no evidence- there should be a warning of some sort. When a large portion of the population believes something without proof, it can be extremely damaging if it's never presented as a belief. Many people would probably hesitate letting their children read or learn about a book with this label on it. It could provoke parents to think through their decision on what's appropriate to expose their children to.

Does anyone think this label doesn't accurately describe what can be found in the Bible?

Side: yes
Zarepheth(10) Disputed
1 point

A few points:

1) Most "morality" derives from religion. The fact that the label attempts to use "morality" to oppose the Bible or its content seems hypocritical.

2) The label implies that the Bible supports many of the activities listed on the label. Approximately half of the listed activities are prohibited by the Bible and the only descriptions are those necessary to place the prohibition in writing.

Of the rest, except for war related violence, the remaining activities are prohibited or discouraged and the descriptive stories about those activities include the negative consequences directly attributable to those activities.

3) The exposure warning is useless. All the listed consequences of exposure to the Bible are more likely to occur as a result of exposure to TV, Movies, and Video Games.

However, if someone is already mentally unstable, the Bible contains lots of verses that can be pulled out of context and used to justify all sorts of evil. Examining the whole context around those versus would correct such misuse. Unfortunately, when people have decided to focus on and misuse a few words here and there, it's pretty hard to argue with them.

Side: No
Argento(512) Disputed
3 points

Just a couple of points.

Morality is not a derivative of religion exclusively. In the same way that logic is not an exclusive derivative of schooling. You can develop a moral framework from other sources. So, it's not hypocritical to judge the Bible by using morality because the person may have gotten that morality from a myriad other sources.

The Bible does not need to support the activities listed for there to be a warning as per the content. If you buy a DVD or go watch a movie at the cinema, there is usually a rating system that warns you of the content. The studio that created the movie does not need to support the violence for there to be a warning. The existence of that content is enough to warrant a higher rating.

We already recognize the consequences of exposure to TV, Movies and Video Games, which is why we have a rating system and constant warnings about spending to much time on them. Why should a religious book or any other religious material be previous to the restrictions we place upon other mediums and material?

Why is it that The Passion Of The Christ was rated R and yet children were allowed to enter the cinemas and see it?

Religion seems to have the advantage of a cloak that rids it of so many restrictions we place on almost everything else.

Side: yes

I'll be the first to say no. It's a bit absurd. It's religion and it is a human's choice to believe what they believe. The bible is the most read book in the world. As with many books on religion, it cannot be proven true. I say let it be and live YOUR life the way you choose.

I for one have skimmed the bible and didn't find it too interesting, nor have I taken the time to make it a life's dedication. I also find myself, from time to time, influenced unintentionally by it's strong prose. eg. do on to others as you want done to you. (Mathew 7:12) This I will do in certain situations to make sure that I'm doing something that, I believe, will be fair. I also believe in the saying treat people as though you would treat your mother. This applies almost the same. I'm sure there are a few out there that don't have good relationships with their mothers or parents, if so, that quote wouldn't apply to you.

Find something that you love and then treat the world as though it were that something you loved. That's my quote and I'm sure someone has said it somewhere in human existence.

Side: No

They already did B...you quoted it yourself from Matthew 7:12. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them: for this is the laws and the prophets. (KJV). It's flawless and thereby considered the 'Golden Rule.' If everyone could live that way we'd have much less, if any, conflict in the world.

Side: No
5 points

I am a steadfast atheist, and yet I find this label pretty absurd. Obviously, it was crafted for the sake of being humorous/satire, and I do find it compelling in a way. However, to place these on Bibles is offensive and unnecessary. Also, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment (I really hate first amendment arguments, but come on). To institutionalize a critique of a religion would be just as harmful as institutionalizing the practice of a religion.

Side: No
3 points

Other books have things like that and there is no label. It does fall under freedom of speech and religion. The bible is the holy book for about a third of the world so it could be met with outrage.

Side: No

No, absolutely not and who says so anyway? The bible has never been considered a work of fiction by millions of people who read the book so why should it now? Certainly you may wish to take things with a grain of salt but not everything...not by a long shot. The bible stands on its own as the source of all Christian Religions and others as well. Shall we throw out all the books on religion and not replace them? And if not what would we replace them with? Works that can be proved? To claim the Bible as a work of fiction really takes audacity.

Side: No
3 points

I'm a practicing Catholic, and even I think some parts of the Bible are fiction, like the creation stories, since evolution is much more likely and makes more sense. However, this label belittles my religion and , in a sense, mocks it. I really did take offense to it, although I do see the "humor" in it, which I didn't enjoy.

Side: No
2 points

haha I love what you said about the so called "humor". It's like "I see it, I just don't think it's funny."

Side: No

That is ridiculous. I'm not a religious person. I don't support any religion or the concept of organized religion. But that is absolutely absurd and offensive.

We then must label all fictional novels and all spiritual and religious texts. That's just unbelievable that anybody could support this.

Side: No
1 point

It shouldn't be necessary to tell a person that they are reading a work of fiction.

Like, Harry Potter should not have to have that label, neither should the Bible.

Unfortunately, many people will never be able to separate reality from fantasy... in either case.

But a label would not change that either way.

Side: No
Argento(512) Disputed
3 points

For argument's sake, I would like to point out that J.K. Rowling (writer of Harry Potter) has never claimed that Harry Potter is anything other than a work of fiction. Also, fiction books are usually found and sold under the "fiction" category in book stores. So, although they carry no label, the marketing implies it almost directly.

On top of that, if you flick through the first or last pages of a fictional story book, there is usually a disclaimer: "This is a work of fiction and any resemblance between the characters and persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

The Bible, however, is not "marketed" as a work of fiction. The writer (ultimately God) is believed to be writing truths, and the book makes direct recommendations and judgments upon the readers and their lives. With no warning whatsoever about it "possibly" being a work of fiction.

As for the effect a label would have... as long it makes a child go "what is that daddy?" then you have succeeded, because at some point the parent will have to explain the potential of the book being fictitious. Even if the parent claims it to be an advocation of the sinners and non-believers, the seed has already been planted on the child because you already have discussion and debate about the truth behind the book.

Side: yes
2 points

the key word in your third paragraph, second sentence, is "believed". Belief is what makes a book carry weight or value. It can be a metaphor or an account of an event, even if it is fictitious, but belief is power. And for many people they find spiritual power in this book. The fascists and fanatics are few of many.

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Hm, you could be right.

But I find people believe what they believe in spite of logic and labels, not because of them.

Maybe it would put a dent in indoctrination, but the cost I'm pretty sure would be a Christian Ji-haad (sp, infront of computer for 12hrs straight, not looking it up) right here in America. I say let them eat cake, even if it's invisible.

Side: No
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

Hey you found a way to belittle the bible without going against the grain of what everyone els is saying. Good job.

Side: No
1 point

I'm often amazed at my own cleverness. But seriously, I am for freedom of religion, so my opinion should not be a surprise on this.

Side: yes
1 point

WOW. Really?

This is completely outrageous.

Although I am partially biased by being a Christian, I don't see how anyone could honestly take that seriously.

If the bible needs that tag so does every holy book as well as movies and video games.

To think those people have guts to call the most sacred book fiction and tear it down like that. (Shudder)

It is against the law to apply that tag anyways, 1st Amendment states religious freedom without persecution.

Side: No
1 point

I don't want my children exposed to that kind of crude behavior. It's a poison you know.

Ahahahaha, but seriously, if we as a people weren't somewhat two-faced I'm sure we'd all be killing each other right now...

Well more so than usual.

Side: No
1 point

If they put this label on the Bible, they would have to put it on all books, as well: including the Koran, the Torah, and the Bhagavad Gita. It's not about whether the Bible is suitable for children, or even factual, but allowing it the same standards we hold other books to.

Side: No
1 point

allowing it the same standards we hold other books to

You nailed it right there.

I think, from the beginning I wasn't really thinking only in terms of the Bible. This label, or a label similar to this would probably apply to every religious book out there.

I agree with you that if we did it to the Bible we would have to do it to every religious book.

The thing that I wanted to bring to light was this fear we have. The fear to impose the same sanctions we impose on everything else to religious material as well. I understand why a politician would never push for it because it would kill their career. But that doesn't mean that the religious are not getting away with special treatment.

What I found interesting was that people didn't debate whether the label was deserved by the Bible or not. The contents of the label were not really questioned. What people had a problem with, was the imposing of ANY regulation upon their beloved book on the basis that it's part of their faith.

If anything, this proves the label, because what it shows is that these people are indeed undermining authority and the law.

Side: yes
1 point

It should instead say "Warning: Total Snooze Fest... except for Revelations, which is bad ass as fuck".

Side: No