Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Prurient material is written to get the reader(s) sexually aroused. The Old Testament, to put it mildly, was not.
|
Except, isn't the _Kama Sutra_ a manual for sex as a method of worship? So wouldn't that make it a holy book in spite of the arousing nature of the material?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Even if we leave aside all value judgments, it's screamingly obvious that citing the Old Testament as an example of societal tolerance for incest erotica is patently absurd.
|
Which is why I, at least, wasn't citing it as an example of the way
society tolerates erotica. I was citing it as an example of why "this book has incest in it so it deserves no protection" is not a valid argument.
The bible has an enormous amount of material in it that can reasonably be read as Deity expressing approval of all sorts of things we don't want people doing now, slavery, genocide and the gratuitous abuse of women being the least of it. If that doesn't make people do evil things, then why would a book about an incestuous relationship between consenting adults make people do evil things? The latter book, if I understand correctly, doesn't even represent this behavior as being approved by God.
When people upthread have made the claim that the latter book will encourage people to do evil things and thus should be banned, presenting the bible as a book that hasn't had that effect is a perfectly reasonable counter-argument.
And in the meantime--one standard for every book is still a fair way to do things. If the bible can't meet the standard, perhaps there's something wrong with the standard.