offensive and outdated or just a belief

[PupsAndKittens]

The bible... believe in it or not, everyone knows it.

My question to all you lovely people, should it be censored ( particularly the homophobic section).

Personally I am really torn on this as I am both Bi and Christian.

For
Society has moved on and has realised that people are born LGBTQ plus and no one has control over it
It is also extremely sexist which also makes me uncomfortable

Against
I will always be an activist for freedom of speech and I believe that every human being should be able to believe what they want, no matter how un PC ( providing that they never physically hurt anyone)
Aren’t we then discriminating against Christians? For saying that their beliefs are wrong and should be made illegal?

So what do you think. is it time that this book is changed to meet current moral standards or are we all snowflakes and should just except beliefs of Christianity, that people have a right to believe if they want to.

I aggre, I definitely don’t agree in airbrushing history, I just don’t feel that sexism, homophobia or Racism has any place now we are entering the 20s.

While that sounds like an inoffensive sentiment, the devil is in the details though.

To one person stopping the expression of an idea, or the questioning of a current belief, is just the righteous suppression of a [some pejorative term such as homophobic / transphobic goes here} idea. It is just protecting people against these phobias.

To the next person it is a genuine idea or query about the current way of thinking.

So for example suppressing people from even being able to question whether trans men are men and trans women are women, is just the righteous suppression of transphobia. Suppressing people from even being able to question whether the current beliefs re human sexuality being demarcated by chromosome (rather than by look or other factors), is just the righteous suppression of homophobia / heterophobia.

To the next person these might come under the other category.

Personally I prefer free speech and the ability to question.

We should only re-write it and other holy books when the BBC and any other organisation are told to re-write their leaflet stating that there are 100 genders

No, not censored, edited or banned.

But I do think it's extremely important, that Christian groups insist that their Bibles - the ones in common use rather than historical editions - are annotated if they want to continue to use the contents to inform their conduct towards others in modern times.

There is too much incendiary material inside that could easily be used to shore up discriminatory views and practices and the only responsible way forward is to always provide a commentary that states unambiguously which parts are still endorsed from the moral perspective of the group and which not.

Without this, there is a danger of people using various passages to justify their own homophobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism or antipathy towards non-Christians in general.

And this possibility needs to be comprehensively shut down!

I think it needs to stop having all this reverence attached to it. It is a collection of writings some speculative some clearly the products of ill minds. The sooner humans stop justifying their bias and actions as a result of some misunderstood lousy translations from Roman times, or earlier and started taking personal responsibility the better.

There’s a lot of snippy comments here about Christians. Why is that ok? It’s not ok to be derogatory about any other group of people. Why are the dogs at Christians allowed?

I’m a Christian. I believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe a lot of it is steeped in the culture of the time. I’m accepting of all people. I choose to focus on not judging, loving my neighbour, seeking the goodness of God and trying to imitate the behaviour of Jesus...who was neither homophobic or sexist.

Freedom of though, conscience and belief is a fundamental right. It means other people are free to hold beliefs you do not share. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. It means people are free to express beliefs you do not share.

Tolerance does not mean preventing people holding and expressing beliefs you do not share. Even beliefs you personally find abhorrent. That is censorship not tolerance and has been the tool of totalitarian regimes throughout history.

Anti discrimination legislation does not exist to prevent people holding and expressing beliefs such as 'homosexuality is sinful'. It exists to prevent people being discriminated against in housing, jobs, education, healthcare etc because they happen to be homosexual (or black, or women). It is not there to force people who do think homosexuality is sinful from thinking or stating their beliefs. Only to prevent them discriminating against others because of their beliefs.

Any attempt to prevent people expressing views you personally find distasteful, or censoring books that express those views opens the door to wider censorship. Tomorrow it could be your views that are censored. It is a very dangerous road to take.

No, the Bible should absolutely not be censored.

Leave it be. It won’t be improved by an update and Christians who believe it to be the direct Word of God won’t accept that anyway. Anyone who uses it to justify bigotry and hatred will find their way to do that no matter what you put in it. Religion makes no sense however it’s dressed up.

I know a lesbian vicar. Things have moved on.

God is a work of fiction though so who honestly cares what the bible says?

I don't think any books should be censored. I think we should all be taught to challenge parts of the bible and other religious stories whether it's because it's old fashioned, outdated, goes against moral values or is scientifically proven to be wrong.

That's something that should be taught by the religion itself (through religious groups/leaders) such as pp mentioned old vs new bible testament, by parents and in schools.

I feel that society ( particularly in the western world) had more hate for Christianity then Islam

Riiight. So you missed all the incidents of mosques being burned (up to 60% have been vandalised or set on fire in the UK), women's hijab's pulled off in the street, Muslims spat at/assaulted/acid attacks/rammed by vehicles?

And no you shouldn't censor religious texts. They should be exposed for their outdated homophobic, sexist views then perhaps we can leave them behind as we slowly, slowly grow more tolerant, inclusive and intelligent as a society.

Oh god (who I don’t believe in) these nonsensical polls drive me whacky!

What exactly is your AIBU to be voted on? You give two opposing pov.

Anyway.

If course the bible shouldn’t be censored, or the Koran, or the works if Shakespeare or Joe Orton Plays or anything.

The law is for governing behaviour, not thoughts, beliefs or opinions.

We're so right on these days. So understanding and accepting - really - the online world has allowed people to speak anonymously and the world seems racist, sexist and homophobic.
And posters being so flippant about God, some fairytale nonsense but we live in a democratic country and if enough people believe the Koran/Bible/whatever then that is what the Gov will have to follow. Changes in the law to suit these voters demands if there is a majority. Don't mean to scaremonger but trying to counteract the flippant comments.
And airbrushing the past. Seems a very risky business. Films set in the past in Britain can now have many black actors, which is great, - but if black people say they have always been discriminated against, people are going to argue with them - there they are in the movies as doctors/ teachers whatever when in fact they were bus conductors and factory workers. In some ways it is good but should we alter the past to be woke and inclusive?

I don’t agree with fiction being censored to “move with the times”.

I don’t think we should be indoctrinating children of any faith until they’re old enough to critically analyse and make informed decisions.

What @Weedinosaurus says.

Jesus didn't say anything homophobic. Can someone provide passages from the New Testament which say or indeed command anything homophobic?

Christian's in part believe that Jesus came to establish a new covenant between heaven and earth so alot of the Old Testament (even then where does it say "thou shalt not be gay?") Is purely about providing a context for the world and ideology into which Jesus came to show a.new way and establish new commandments such as "Love your neighbour as yourself". Christian's are not meant to live their lives by old testament rules. As other people have pointed out alot of the OT is a historical document which reflects the history of it's time. Of course there won't be any gay marriage in it for example because it didn't legally exist.

Should we destroy history books and old legal documents because homosexuality was illegal until fairly recently?

I've been attending church every week of my life and have never, EVER, heard a homophobic word uttered or indeed any comment passed about sex at all during a sermon and I've never come across a single homophobic passage during a service either. I don't go to a particularly modern or progressive church either, it's a traditional one. Gay couples and singles attend and are made as welcome as everyone else. This idea that all Christian's are homophobic and all churches are like the Westboro Baptist Church needs to stop. It's just not true.

No the bible shouldn't be censored. I am 100% against censorship of any kind.

Why is auto correct putting rogue apostrophes everywhere?

If you’re going to take out all the awful immoral things in the bible there’d be hardly any of it left 🙄

It is what it is. It was written in and of its time.

That's what needs to be taught. You can't suddenly rewrite the 10 Commandments just because you don't agree with them. You point out why in today's society they are wrong/irrelevant.

It’s only evangelicals who insist that every word of the Bible must be followed. Other Christian denominations update their doctrines based on scholarship and social change. For example, there are now women priests and bishops even though there’s a sentence in the Bible about women not having authority over a man.

It should stay exactly where it is, to show people what the bible/religion is really like. Evil and outdated!

Obviously don’t censor it, but teach people to read it critically.

On the bible’s negative attitudes towards sex (eg pre-marital, gay, adulterous etc) it’s worth bearing in mind that pre-condom a lot of attitudes towards sex were about trying to prevent STDs from ripping through the community and causing infertility and birth defects etc. That’s what lines like “the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children” mean. Pre-condom, community leaders wanted everyone to stay virgin until in a lifelong monogamous relationship because that was the only defence they had to STDs.

The problem with censorship is where does it stop? First the bible, then the Koran maybe? Then ‘Gone with the Wind’ because of its racism? Then something else that someone finds offensive etc etc.
Who decides what’s to be censored - you, me, some random fascist group?
It’s a slippery slope.

I don't agree with changing the past to fit current day values. I feel as though it's just a slippery slope if the government can start censoring anything they disagree with. The Bible and other religious documents give an insight into the past and the views people had then.

"if you control the past, you control the present."

Jesus didn't say anything homophobic. Can someone provide passages from the New Testament which say or indeed command anything homophobic?

The fact that he said nothing in the NT on same-sex sexual activity can be interpreted both ways. He didn't mention it because he had no problem with it. Or he didn't mention it because there was to be no change to the current prohibition.

I also think he said nothing on sex outside of marriage. So again, you could interpret that as 'it's now OK' or 'nothing has changed on that front'.

He after all said plenty in disagreement with other previously accepted ideas and rules, when he opposed them.