Should health warnings become compulsory in books like the Bible and Koran?


The Holy Bible with warnings. Koran with warning.

Because of serious risk, cigarette packages have to bear warnings regarding the potential dangers of smoking, and liquor advertising is similarly regulated.

Surely it is becoming time that religious writings which appear to make it OK to go discriminating against or killing or maiming people, just because some misguided twits have written it into a so-called ‘holy’ book such the Bible or the Koran, should have similar warnings?

It is incomprehensible that any God or Allah would dictate such absurdities.  Nevertheless, one gets these seriously delusional individuals who are prepared to switch off their intellects completely in order to accept such twaddle.  Therefore, it is about time that passages in the books were annotated with warnings like, ‘This is a carry-over from an era of ignorance and must not be given any serious consideration’.  Although this should be a no-brainer, it is unfortunately necessary because of the alarming number of no-brains apparently in existence, university degrees etc notwithstanding.

Similarly, anyone who so much as mentions in conversation that they think that a true god-figure would support such barbarity should immediately be put into an institution for the criminally insane until they revise their thinking.  Their concepts of God or Allah can be regarded as blasphemous.  How can one possibly accept that a creator-of-all can have the mentality of a petty dictator with a completely justified inferiority complex, demanding constant reminders of how great he/she/it is, and requiring that anyone who doesn’t adhere to a particular brand of telling him/her/it how great he/she/it is should be bumped off forthwith?

Anyway, even if that were actually the case, he/she/it would have access to any number of ways of doing the bumping-off without any human help, thank you very much.  Again, it becomes blasphemy to think otherwise – the god-figure is too weak or ineffectual to deal with ‘transgressions’ without human aid when everything from accidents to natural disasters to viruses is available?  How can any sense be seen in that? It is utterly disrespectful to the chosen deity.

No religion can justify the slightest infringement on the rights of humans to live in any way they choose, as long as they do no harm to others.

© Colonialist July 2014 (WordPress)
Advertisements

About colonialist

Active septic geranium who plays with words writing fantasy novels and professionally editing, with notes writing classical music, and with riding a mountain bike, horses and dinghies.
This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Education, Really Awful Joke, Religious absurdity and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Should health warnings become compulsory in books like the Bible and Koran?

  1. cupitonians says:

    Haha. Yes please!

    Like

  2. disperser says:

    @colonialist
    . . . moved the response here as it was getting crowded in the original thread . . .

    In response to:
    “@ disperser: The trouble is that too many self-styled atheists then take it upon themselves to point out how idiotic all deistic beliefs are, and belligerently defend their non-belief. They become as evangelistic as any religious missionary.”

    I’m not sure what “too many” means. Atheists are not that numerous, and activists in the atheist ranks are not common. Just out of curiosity, what would be an appropriate number?

    I can’t speak for all atheists (and they do not speak for me), but to a person all the atheists I know prefer to not engage with religious folks, and would never do so unless . . .

    . . . what usually happens is religion intrudes into one’s life or other people’s lives in the form of (for example) believers asking for exclusions to existing laws. I’ve never heard of atheists demanding anything but upholding the law (in this country, the constitution), but I suppose it’s possible some are asking for special consideration.

    As for taking it upon themselves to point out idiotic beliefs, I presume you mean public figures such as Harris, Hitchens (I miss him), or others. That I know of, they write books and give lectures which many people can, and do, ignore.

    . . . no atheist has ever come to my house asking if I was saved from religion. I have never been moved to go to my neighbor’s house and tell him he’s wrong.

    Now, I do on occasion get my dander up, and not so much defend my non-belief, but to attack the logic used to, for example, ask for the government to discriminate against a given group of people. Typically this does involve attacking and calling into question the underlying doctrine because that is what believers use to establish the legitimacy of their demands.

    Other instances where I might say something is if people assume I am religious (i.e. you can’t be an atheist; you’re a nice person!) and I correct them.

    Oh, there is one other place . . . in my blog I do rail against religions, believers, and associated evils. There too, no one is forced to listen, read, or even pay attention to it.

    But really, all my discussions come about from others challenging my non-belief. I don’t have a need to defend it, but once people open that door, I’m going to try and save them from their delusions, misconceptions, and from outright ruining the only life they have . . . not that they listen.

    Finally, I love discussing religion. I want to understand the rationale behind belief. Apparently, at least by my experience, that’s not a high priority with believers. They get pretty nasty, pretty quick toward anyone just for asking questions.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      My comment quoted arose from a number of blogs where atheists – usually with devastating logic – attack religions and the historicity of religious figures/writings. Fair enough. Then they go onto religious blogs and initiate debate there – I’m not so certain about that being a good idea. With anyone who says, ‘It is written; therefore it is,’ one is simply wasting time.
      The category of atheist that really gets up my nose, though, is the type that tries to take the high intellectual ground against any agnostic, or anyone giving credence to deism, or ID or creationism.. Those who say that the Big Bang – or its more refined replacements including inflation – account for everything; that mathematics and science provide all the answers, and that everything ‘to do with the supernatural’ is sheer rubbish.
      The First Cause was simply an accident, and everything thereafter is governed by the natural laws of all that exists, with evolution and sucking gravity and the whole bit. Empirically, I find enormous holes in that concept. It denies the apparent purpose underlying progress and adaptation. The possibility of a controlling intelligence therefore seems to take understanding several steps further.
      Of course, much depends, too, on how one defines ‘atheism’ and ‘deism’. There is a wide disparity in the finer-tuned versions of both terms.

      Liked by 1 person

    • disperser says:

      Uh-oh . . . we better stop . . . While I have never gone into any religious blog/site/etc to initiate discussions (as you say, useless), apparently I’m one of those guys that gets up your nose.

      Not a big fan (or even a little fan) of agnosticism, deism, creationism (ID), or anything supernatural. I won’t go into it here.

      I will, however comment on the statement “. . . the apparent purpose . . . ” and “. . . controlling intelligence . . . ”

      I have never encountered an explanation, conjecture, or argument that trumps “we don’t know; how about we find out, and until then not make up stuff all willy-nilly like?”

      My position is that I am as comfortable living my life not knowing, and imagining something in place of not knowing is neither a comfort nor helpful in navigating said life. I might even go as far as saying that false beliefs claiming exemptions from being challenged do nothing, or worse even, delay the pursuit of knowledge and expanding our understanding of the universe. That’s not conjecture; that’s history.

      That said, everyone can (and do) make the choice (they have no proof) to believe whatever they want; I don’t really care. I do care when they start asserting as not only their belief being possible, but because of it expect others to agree and respect their position. There are simply too many positions to respect them all, and while you may see a difference between disrespecting the books you mention in this post and the supernatural beliefs you mention above, I don’t.

      I’m one of them there hard atheists, you see, but content to keep to myself.

      Like

  3. adeeyoyo says:

    I think as Miss Whiplash does. Things can be twisted to fit individuals’ purposes. I believe that God is Love and would never condone this. However I have reservations about taking everything in the Bible literally. I can’t comment on the Koran unfortunately.

    Like

  4. Kev says:

    Absolutely! They should be age restricted in the least due to language and graphic scenes. Not to mention how their are used to indoctrinate and for extremist purposes. They should be placed among the annals of the Neanderthal studies or something akin.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      And yet the books also contain some wonderful messages, stories, analogies, and poetic concepts. Maybe they needed far better editors.
      (Hmm … wonder if I could get the job …)

      Like

      • Kev says:

        This is so true. It just such a shame the radicalists have to ruin it all. Like I’ve said before, they should be put amongst other great mythologies and legends.

        Bit late for that, I think. 😉 (new translation, perhaps?)

        Like

        • colonialist says:

          Reselection, and removal of the utterly unsuitable bits, I would say!

          Like

          • Kev says:

            I would be apt to agree. 😉

            Like

            • haydendlinder says:

              I disagree guys. I think you’re addressing the symptom not the problem. The people need to be educated or no matter what you do they will keep doing destructive things.

              Like

              • colonialist says:

                They probably woud, but the virus is actually there to produce the symptoms, Those ‘justifications’ actually do appear in the books in question.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Kev says:

                Depends on what it is you want to educate. Personally, religious studies should be optional at the college level where people are less vulnerable to suggestions. Not in schools where kids believe pretty much everything they are told.

                Like

                • haydendlinder says:

                  I think training children up in your beliefs is your right as a parent. I would stand by any Atheist that wanted to raise their child as an Atheist. I just think the preachers should start preaching respect for others beliefs. That seems to be the big issues these days. Each belief system thinks they are right and has no respect for anyone else. They do not seem to understand that just because you do not agree does not mean you have to make an ass out of yourself.

                  Like

                  • Kev says:

                    Believe it or not, agreed. This is why it has no place in school. Left to the family, as long as they are not extremist and breaking laws. (Social Service issues etc.)

                    Like

                  • colonialist says:

                    I don’t actually agree that any parent has the right to raise children in any ‘belief’ or lack thereof. In such matters they should try to ensure that the child has all the information needed to make an informed decision when mature enough to do so, without trying to impose their own views.

                    Like

                  • disperser says:

                    Hayden, I you are equating atheism with a belief system. A common, although not excusable, mistake.

                    Atheism has no tenets, offers no guidance, and tells you nothing about how to live your life. All it means when I say I’m an atheist is that I do not have a belief in god or gods. Period.

                    It’s then up to you to decide how you want to live your life, what kind of person you want to be, etc. Many people look to humanism. Others work out their own moral path (ridiculously easy to do without any book or guy in a robe helping).

                    In contrast, a belief system comes with baggage . . . lots of baggage, rules, instruction on what to think, etc.

                    I read your “About”, and while I don’t agree with the reasoning that lead you to your current place in life, I really don’t care enough to challenge it as long as you do no harm to others. Rather, as long as god doesn’t tell you do harm others.

                    Like

                    • colonialist says:

                      @ disperser: The trouble is that too many self-styled athiests then take it upon themselves to point out how idiotic all deistic beliefs are, and belligerently defend their non-belief. They become as evangelistic as any religious missionary.

                      Like

                    • disperser says:

                      @colonialist
                      . . . moved the response here as it was getting crowded in the original thread . . .

                      In response to:
                      “@ disperser: The trouble is that too many self-styled atheists then take it upon themselves to point out how idiotic all deistic beliefs are, and belligerently defend their non-belief. They become as evangelistic as any religious missionary.”

                      I’m not sure what “too many” means. Atheists are not that numerous, and activists in the atheist ranks are not common. Just out of curiosity, what would be an appropriate number?

                      I can’t speak for all atheists (and they do not speak for me), but to a person all the atheists I know prefer to not engage with religious folks, and would never do so unless . . .

                      . . . what usually happens is religion intrudes into one’s life or other people’s lives in the form of (for example) believers asking for exclusions to existing laws. I’ve never heard of atheists demanding anything but upholding the law (in this country, the constitution), but I suppose it’s possible some are asking for special consideration.

                      As for taking it upon themselves to point out idiotic beliefs, I presume you mean public figures such as Harris, Hitchens (I miss him), or others. That I know of, they write books and give lectures which many people can, and do, ignore.

                      . . . no atheist has ever come to my house asking if I was saved from religion. I have never been moved to go to my neighbor’s house and tell him he’s wrong.

                      Now, I do on occasion get my dander up, and not so much defend my non-belief, but to attack the logic used to, for example, ask for the government to discriminate against a given group of people. Typically this does involve attacking and calling into question the underlying doctrine because that is what believers use to establish the legitimacy of their demands.

                      Other instances where I might say something is if people assume I am religious (i.e. you can’t be an atheist; you’re a nice person!) and I correct them.

                      Oh, there is one other place . . . in my blog I do rail against religions, believers, and associated evils. There too, no one is forced to listen, read, or even pay attention to it.

                      But really, all my discussions come about from others challenging my non-belief. I don’t have a need to defend it, but once people open that door, I’m going to try and save them from their delusions, misconceptions, and from outright ruining the only life they have . . . not that they listen.

                      Finally, I love discussing religion. I want to understand the rationale behind belief. Apparently, at least by my experience, that’s not a high priority with believers. They get pretty nasty, pretty quick toward anyone just for asking questions.

                      Like

      • disperser says:

        As for editing jobs . . . I’m afraid someone beat you to it:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

        Like

  5. JohnRH says:

    Either warning would be suitable on either book. Of course messing with the Koran might get you a fatwa.

    Like

  6. nrhatch says:

    I concur. Bible thumpers are not known for the strength of their intellect.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Grannymar says:

    I think we have much in common on this topic. 37 years living in a place where people think they are entitled to force feed everyone with a narrow biased version of the bible, is enough to make me cut and run. I refuse to be intimidated.

    Like

  8. I think it’s the radical fundamentalist interpretation of these holy books that fuel the fires of war and hatred. Moderates of all religions are not prone to violence in the name of any Divine being(s). Stay in the middle ground and you are generally staying in the safe, sound, and sane ground… 😉

    Like

  9. As Bertrand Russell once said about religion, “The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.”

    Like

  10. Colline says:

    I agree with you. Surely God would not want killed that which He created. In my view He would, instead, want people to help one another survive.

    Like

  11. misswhiplash says:

    so intent was I on my soap box that I forgot to say…that was a brilliant piece of writing, and I loved reading it

    Like

  12. misswhiplash says:

    when I first read the Headliner i thought, yes he is right . The Bible should have a health warning because of the way it can change your life, but I meant for the good.
    After reading the post I can see why you make this suggestion.
    People do take parts of the Bible and the Koran(I think) and twist it around to mean something entirely different, something evil, something vile, not at all what it was intended to be.
    But I also think that these people with their mangled brains could read anything and twist it around..
    As you should know by now I am a great believer.I suppose I could say that I was a Christian whatever that is, but I have Faith , Faith in my God. My God is the One that I talk to everynight, who hears all my woes and puts them right if He decided that is the thing to do.
    Strangely enough I do not really believe in the Bible. It has been re-written in so many languages and tongues that the original is no longer in existence. But Jesus is my Saviour.
    If only these people who maim and kill would learn to understand the basic concepts of the Bible (or Koran) maybe they would have learned something worth knowing

    Liked by 1 person

    • colonialist says:

      They tend to ignore the major parts worth having and to grab the bits written in for highly questionable motives. They ignore the basic precepts and focus on sidelines. They believe the unbelievable. They extract evil from what is supposed to be good.

      Like

  13. Arkenaten says:

    I am flabbergasted! It is not as if you need to be controversial for readers and I wonder how many regulars will comment?
    Something rattle your cage, Mister N?
    I couldn’t agree more by the way, but you knew that beforehand, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. melouisef says:

    Religion is not based in logic!

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      Much of it can be, actually. The trouble is that it then includes concepts far too challenging for these small minds. They prefer their god as a drunken father figure with moods and tantrums, and their heaven as having endless eating and drinking and sex.

      Like

  15. Pop up versions would be useful

    Like

  16. disperser says:

    It’s been my experience that not needing to think or reason is one of the main attraction for many.

    To this day people, adult people, turn away covering their ears should one even start to say something similar to what you wrote above.

    . . . still, that’s better than in earlier times, when they would burn you alive.

    Like

  17. haydendlinder says:

    I am reminded of a saying, “If you make it idiot proof they just make a better idiot.” That being said, I love the post.:)

    Liked by 1 person

  18. There should definitely be a warning of some sort on these books, they are more trouble than they are worth.

    Liked by 2 people

You have the right to remain silent - but please don't!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s