Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Books It's funny.  Laugh. Toys Idle

Lego Bible Too Racy For Sam's Club 484

Posted by timothy
from the why-this-book-is-filthy dept.
localman writes with this excerpt from CNET: "Through his hit Web site and three popular books, [author Brendan] Smith has spread the gospel of 'The Brick Testament.' But now, because of what it says are concerns about 'mature content,' Sam's Club, one of the nation's largest retailers, has banned in-store sales of the fourth book in the series, The Brick Bible.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lego Bible Too Racy For Sam's Club

Comments Filter:
  • I met him at a party (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:05PM (#38160116)

    He was, a bit sadly, exactly what you would expect from a guy who has devoted a significant portion of his adult life reproducing the stories of the bible out of legos. Still, it is pretty impressive work.

  • To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thue (121682) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:05PM (#38160118) Homepage

    If the Bible was judged purely on its contents, in the same way as other books, then it would require quite a warning label [nocookie.net].

  • Hello!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:12PM (#38160172)

    Direct quotes from the Old Testament .... Illustrated by Lego characters ... People thought it was a childrens book.

    It's the Old Testament! THAT, isn't a childrens story!

    Sam's Club is bending to the will of a few ignorant souls. Poor form, Sam's Club. Poor form.

  • Re:To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:25PM (#38160258)

    That warning label neglects to warn of the Bible's descriptions of acts of pedophilia and underage sex, which could make it illegal child pornography in say Australia.

  • Re:To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:33PM (#38160304)

    "It had been arranged by the prison charlie, as part of my further education to read him the Bible. I didn't so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives' handmaidens. That kept me going."

    "I read all about the scourging and the crowning with thorns and all that, and I could viddy myself helping in and even taking charge of the tolchocking and the nailing in, being dressed in the height of Roman fashion."

  • by Paul Slocum (598127) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @02:44PM (#38160380) Homepage Journal
    The woman who posted on Facebook seems to be saying that the content that is inappropriate for children is not in the book, but on the website. The book was edited for kids, but she's saying that kids these days know to look for a website for more content if they like something, and the website contains adult-oriented violent and sexually charged themes that were edited from the book, which is marketed towards kids. I don't know that I totally agree, but I can kinda see her point that if a franchise like this is marketed towards kids, then you kinda expect the entire franchise to be that way. Just because you think the bible is the word of God doesn't necessarily mean you want to teach all of the most violent and sexual parts to your 6-year-old.
  • Re:To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @03:13PM (#38160580)
    Forceibly inpregnanting a child is one of the lesser of God's crimes according to the bible. How about several murders, numerous genocides - both direct and ordered - the creation of a realm of eternal torture... God is a nasty piece of work.

    Even those ten plagues are more evil than they seem. God manipulated Pharoh into refusing his instructions purely in order to give himself an excuse to let loose the plagues upon the rest of Pharohs country - and even goes so far as to admit to Moses that he didn't *need* to kill a substantial portion of the population of Egypt, but did so simply to ensure the people of Israel would never forget their debt to him.
  • Re:Bad Excerpt! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lina70 (120571) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @03:31PM (#38160700) Homepage

    This is exactly the problem I have with what Sam's Club did. The only complaints I actually could find posted about the book were actually complaints about the author's OTHER work and the fact that he is an atheist. Pulling the book because of complaints about his other work seems wrong to me. Pulling the book because the author is an Atheist is incredibly wrong to me, and I doubt Sam's Club did that (let's hope, anyway!). More likely they believed the concerns at face value and thought "oh my, this book contains sex and might be given to kids" without actually verifying the complaints they got. I just don't understand or agree with the logic of pulling one work because the author's other work offends some.

  • by the_humeister (922869) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @04:36PM (#38161074)

    Well, that's not a very good description. What exactly was he like???

  • warning (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kwikrick (755625) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @04:43PM (#38161106) Homepage Journal

    It's not for nothing that the brick bible website has this warning:

    "The Bible contains material some may consider morally objectionable and/or inappropriate for children. These labels identify stories containing: nudity, sexual content, violence, cursing"

  • Re:To be fair (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @07:41PM (#38162084)
    There are two mistakes that people make. Mistake number one is to believe that it is possible to prove something using anything other than linear logic. The opposite mistake is to believe that since linear logic is the only way to prove something, it is the only way to know something. It is possible for you to know something that you cannot prove to me to be true. The fact that you cannot prove it to me, does not mean that it is not true. It does not even mean that you do not have sufficient evidence to consider it known.
    Personally, I do not understand how someone who is an atheist lives believing that nothing has any meaning and will inevitably end in the heat death of the universe.
  • Re:To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 9jack9 (607686) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @08:23PM (#38162366)

    re: #1 - OK, for example, explain consciousness within the atheistic worldview.

    Strange loop. Self-referential pattern.

    re: #2 - Note that I did qualify what I said in that way. You might find that none match and be theistic, but have to invent or modify an existing religion.

    Perhaps if God is omnipotent, He exists in contradiction to any attempt to prove or disprove his existence. So maybe you can't get to religion through logic.

    re: #3 - what don't you find plausible about Christianity?

    Off the top of my head: TV preachers. Hucksters. Crusades. Slavery. Papal infallibility. Biblical inerrancy. Intelligent design. Teach the controversy. Creationism. Theocracy. Holy war. Female genital mutilation. Stoning adulterers. Pedophile priests.

  • Re:To be fair (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Friday November 25, 2011 @03:27AM (#38163998)
    You forgot egotistical. The first four of the ten commandments are all variations upon the theme of 'Worship me!' - as is much of the old and new testaments. For an omnipotent being, God is really desperate for attention. As for the descriptions of the throne room... God saw fit to include a choir of angels that does nothing but eternally sing in praise of how great God is.
  • Re:To be fair (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alsee (515537) on Friday November 25, 2011 @05:50PM (#38170312) Homepage

    I honestly don't understand. Can you help me, pointing out where my assumptions are incorrect or where you think I'm being unreasonable? To explain my confusion I need start with a silly illustration... please bear with me through it, and just point out where my assumptions are wrong in the first part or where I'm being unreasonable in the second part.

    Lets say I hand you a book about civil war era America. The book includes many real people, real places, real battles, and other real events. Turning to one arbitrary chapter of the book, we have a scene where Harriet Tubbman goes to Abraham Lincoln demanding that the slaves be freed. Lincoln calls several sorcerers into the room. The sorcerers toss several sticks on the ground and magically turn them into snakes.

    I assume we can agree that sorcerers aren't real, and that people can't actually cast magical enchantments to turn turn sticks into snakes. Harriet Tubbman and Abraham Linclon were real people, but I assume we can agree that the book's dialog between them is fictional. I assume we can agree that the book is a work of fiction, regardless of the accurate description of civil war battles included in the story. I assume we can agree that it is reasonable to make a sweeping dismissal of all of the magical scenes in the book as being fictional, regardless of any true civil war events included in the story.

    And then you hand me a book. I turn to a random chapter and I find a story about a guy named Moses going to a guy named Pharaoh, demanding the slaves bee freed. And the book then says Pharaoh calls upon his sorcerers, and they toss their rods onto the ground and enchant them into snakes.

    Note that that is not some miracle being preformed by God. According the the book you handed me, the sorcerers are magically enchanting the sticks into snakes. They are not doing a miracle with the aid of god, they are preforming magic in defiance against God.

    Ok. There were indeed real Pharaohs, and there were slaves in Egypt, and there probably was some real person names Moses.

    Now...
    Honest question: Do you believe Pharaoh had actual sorcerers? Do you believe they did real magic, in defiance against God, actually turning sticks into snakes?
    Is it unreasonable for me to say I think there is no such thing as sorcerers?
    Is it unreasonable for me to say I think that people can't do magic turning sticks into snakes?
    Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's dialog between Moses and Pharaoh is at least partially fictional?

    Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's description of sticks turning into snakes is fictional?

    Is it unreasonable for me to call the civil war book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers? Is it unreasonable for me to call the Bible book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers?

    Is it unreasonable for me to dismiss all of the magical scenes from the book as fictional components?

    In your last post, the closest thing I could find to addressing the issue was "And the misconception that the Bible is a single book that must adopt the same mode of communication throughout." Well, what if someone said the exact same thing in defense of the civil war book? The civil war book "adopts different modes of communication" in different parts, so somehow other magical parts of the civil war story should be taken as non-fiction?

    I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at a book with walking talking snakes (Genesis) and sorcerers turning sticks into snakes (Exodus), and take any of the magical scenes any more seriously than the Wizard of Oz. Sure The Wizard of Oz can teach many lessons about courage, morality, kindness, good&evil, and whatnot. But the moment flying monkeys and witches show up (or talking snakes and sorcerers) it is, in my opinion, pretty obvious that a book is overall a magic-filled fairytale.

    I honestly don't understand. Do you think Pharaoh had real sorcerers who did real magic? Or do you accept that particular magic-scene is fiction and somehow ignore/deny that as a an indication that other magic-scenes in the book are also fiction? Or... or... I honestly have no idea what.

    -

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...