None whatsoever. Good luck and enjoy the rest of your time off!

I hadn't before, but i just did and yes, that's quite funny. I find it particularly silly that people claim to see religious icons in slime molds and burnt toast and such. I mean, why does a face on something always have to be somebody famous? Why does no one ever see Joe Shmoe? (gratuitous Bull Durham reference) :)

Yes, keep practicing, maybe someday you'll be as adroit and meticulous as me. Meh, what can I say? This is my fourth day off work in a row, I've read as much as I can stand at the moment, and I'm bored. Shake hands, laugh at a dog's butt together and no hard feelings?

Very good! Alas, I can only aspire to be as adroit and meticulous as others when posting to incendiary comments on the internet. I see that your skills in this regard far surpass mine. In so doing, did you happen to peruse the link I provided? I found it thoroughly entertaining.

Okay Matt, you're right. I was somewhat self-righteous. I tend to try to be very accurate and logical, and also tend to pride myself on that. That kind of pride is not a good thing and I shouldn't do it, but I'm not perfect.

However, I was being accurate and logical and trying bring some of that back into this discussion while moving away from the rudeness that has entered it. I for one was really enjoying reading it up until that point, and it makes me sad that some people choose not to participate without rudeness. So, I will now choose not to participate, but I do want to correct some inaccuracies in your post. I apologize if that again makes me self-righteous, but I'm a scientist by trade and inaccuracies just grate on my nerves.

1) Samantha put the following in one of her posts:

"I only read Christian books. Because I'm more righteous than the people who read from this list."

She did not say she was quoting Jon, but it was implied. I did not see this anywhere in any of Jon's (or anyone else's) posts, but I admit I didn't read every single one and could have missed it somewhere. If I'm wrong, I admit it, apologize and recant my former statement.

2) You're right, Samantha didn't use the word "stupid", nor did I claim she did. I used it in an example of two different ways to say something and that is the only way I meant it.

3) No, Samantha also didn't use the word "ignorant", nor did I claim she did. I said she used the word "ignorance", which she did here:

"...I will leave you to your ignorance (do not mistake that for pardoning)..." and here:

"There is nothing respectful about humoring someone's close-mindedness and ignorance."

4) Jon (the "whats-her-name" you refer to) did not ask "why there were no christian books included." She asked who came up with this list and if anyone knew of another one focused toward Christians.

5) I didn't put any words in Samantha's mouth that weren't typed in her post. Anywhere I said something I inferred from her writing, I was very clear to state such. There's nothing wrong with inferring something from what people write, the danger comes when we quote them (either directly or indirectly) as actually saying something they didn't. I was very careful about that because if I'm saying that I think someone shouldn't do something, it would be pretty embarrassing if I did that very thing!

6) Sadly you are correct when you say that most people don't have a good knowledge of the Bible, but I was referring to a specific few people who have posted in this thread, not Christians as a general population.

7) The only place I came close to telling someone how to act was when I said it's possible to challenge someone without being mean and insulting. I didn't actually tell Samantha to do it that way, just made a suggestion. She's free to follow it or not, of course.

Also, I'm sorry if you thought I was being passive-aggressive. I thought I was being very straightforward about the things I didn't like. In future, if you're going to challenge someone with facts, you might take your own advice, read things a bit more thoroughly, and make sure your facts are accurate.

What's with this self-righteous passive aggressive Crap parade? Samantha didn't put words into anybody's mouth, she "quoted" exactly what somebody said and inserted her own comments about it. Sheesh. Nor do the words "stupid" or "ignorant" appear anywhere in her post (the 4th or 5th one up). copy and past the text into wordpad, hit ctrl-f and type those words. They won't appear. I think what pisses people off, myself included, is when this whole thing started with whats-her-name asking why there were no christian books included.
I interpret that as a yet another passive aggressive stab at proselytization. There is a reason why Christian books (save for "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe") don't appear here. They're just not that good.
Most Christians actually don't have good knowledge of the bible. Sure, they can read passages, quote it up and down, but I think they fail to really apply some critical analysis to it. The ones that do and still have faith typically are decent about it. Why is the gnostic gospel so completely different from the synoptic ones? Why is it that in the synoptic gospels, Jesus never admits to anyone that he is the messiah! Or, how could the billions of species on this planet have all stemmed from Noah's ark. How does a man survive digestion by a whale? etc. etc.
I read a comment thread once where a guy posted a picture that looked like Jesus on a dog's butt (http://nynerd.com/can-you-see-jesus/) it was hilarious. Most of the offended Christians who wrote in couldn't even spell the word pray! (prey, praye, txfshogh - for example)
I agree we don't have to call people names, but we don't have to be passive aggressive about it. Also, you're putting words into Samantha's mouth that she didn't write and accusing her of doing the same thing. I suggest you read things a bit more thoroughly. And don't tell people how they should act, like I just did - telling you how to act by telling you not to tell people how they should act. That's rude too.

Samantha: I think what most people meant when they said that others were being respectful was that they were taking the words that were written and not trying to read other things into them or make up some ulterior motive for them or (as you did) putting things in quotation marks to indicate that someone said that exact thing when actually that's nowhere been stated by anyone. I think from what you write that you are highly offended by Christianity and Christians, but I would never quote you as saying such, simply because you didn't actually say that and I wish to be respectful to you. Being respectful doesn't mean refraining from challenging.

You can definitely challenge another person's beliefs without doing that, and without being mean and insulting in doing so. For instance you can say, "I think that the things you believe are stupid and you are stupid for believing them because (fill in the blank)" instead of "You are stupid because you believe (fill in the blank)" when the person you're addressing has not said they believe a certain thing, you've inferred it from other things they said. Some people might find the first way offensive, but that's just because of differences from one person to another. I personally wouldn't be offended by it, but the second would offend me because you're twisting what I've said, rather than just challenging me on it, which I don't find offensive.

Jon came to a group that obviously knows about the existence of lists of literature and asked about where she might find another such list with a different bent. It seems to me that maybe Jon is not as knowledgeable about or comfortable with the internet as many others here are and was looking for a little help and advice. I looked at it the same way I would look at someone asking if there was a similar list for young adults or fantasy/sci-fi or humanist philosophy or erotica. When you get down to it, there's no difference really, and would you have reacted so strongly to such a request?

After that other people jumped in and started a discussion about the types of things they would like to know about in advance when reading a book or choosing for themselves whether to read it and it continued to other topics from there. If you didn't like the discussion, why did you feel the need to jump into it? Isn't that the same as a Christian jumping into a discussion about a non-Christian topic and injecting their beliefs in a rude manner. I would no more excuse that rudeness than I would yours.

And one final point: You keep using the word ignorance. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Seems to me that the Christians in this thread are quite knowledgeable about the Bible and what's in it and have made their decision to believe it and in the God it describes with full understanding of what that means. Ignorance would mean that they believe fully in the Bible without any understanding of what it's about. Maybe that's what you're trying to say, that they've read it, but misunderstood it. I'm not sure though, because you don't actually come out and say that, and I would never be so presumptuous as to put words in your mouth.

Seeing this thread is like having the Jehovah's Witnesses turn up on my doorstep, why I live on the 14th floor with security so nutcases can't get in. Going to see if I can block this thread.

Matt wrote: "Jesus Christ! It's a secular list! If that isn't apparent then too bad. I'm going to the nearest christian book group and ask them to recommend me some good books about Satan."

Unfortunately, they would have a huge selection of books about Satan that they would LOVE you to read...

Stewart wrote: "I would be interested in the 1,001 books a Christian should read befor..."

Read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion a thousand times.

"

Ha! So what would be the 1001st?

I would be interested in the 1,001 books a Christian should read befor..."

Read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion a thousand times.

Jesus Christ! It's a secular list! If that isn't apparent then too bad. I'm going to the nearest christian book group and ask them to recommend me some good books about Satan.

There are many layers, opinions and emotions flying around here as can be expected with such a hot topic. The bottom line for me is and has been, Jon: click the groups link on Goodreads and type in "Christian" in the search. Soooo many hits and it wont just limit you to Christian books or authors but connect you to a list created by a Christian "panel". Isn't that what you were looking for? Maybe that's why some feel there was some indirectness in the motive for starting this post, for even starting a post at all. Seems you could've answered your question easily on your own.

Samantha, you rock!!

"Just because you don't agree with a certain lifestyle doesn't mean you can't wish them the same rights and fair treatment as everyone else." I would hope that idea is self-evident, but sadly, it isn't.

"The best way to protect our children is to keep them well informed." YES. Teach them with concepts that are right for their circumstances and level of maturity, but DO teach them.

"You read books so long as they don't use words like Goddamn, and love the book in which God continuously damns people." A little critical thinking might clear this up.

"Who's to say, that in that time and place, you wouldn't have found [Jesus's:] disruption of what you had priorly believed offensive as well." Highly likely that many people would have.

"And this is why you shouldn't censor...[b:]ecause Jesus himself was a man that upset the masses. Jesus was a man whom people wanted to censor." Exactly! So listen, think, and make up your own mind. But don't limit your experiences!

"Your faith will not be crushed by reading a description of a pornographic picture in the Cider House Rules. And if it is, your faith is incredibly flimsy." YES!

"What Would Jesus Do? He would read more books." YES!!

"Thinking is not sin." In fact, thinking is the only way we can avoid sin.

Best commentary I've seen in quite some time. It's true, honest and caring to challenge people to use their intellectual gifts.

This is a ridiculous conversation. If you can't see the parallels in telling me to be better mannered and less "nasty"--in not seeing the nastyness that happens in the subtext of kind words and only disregarding the honest words, you completely prove my point. You jump to the defense of someone who came here to offend, and did it in a passive aggressive way, and you dismiss the comments of someone who wants to be honest. You read books so long as they don't use words like Goddamn, and love book the book in which God continuously damns people.

I'll set the record straight about two things, and then I will leave you to your ignorance (do not mistake that for pardoning): I never said that Jon was being condescending. I said that everyone else was being condescending to her by treating her like a delicate flower. And also, "I only read Christian books..." was pointing out subtext. It wasn't a direct quote. I didn't need one. The subtext is clear.

Jon's comments, you are right, had no maliciousness to them. But they didn't need to. It triggered many other comments that DID attack people, people like homosexuals for one, long before I joined the thread. But we're supposed to humor these comments as though religious people suffer from a mental illness. And strangely enough, that's what you want. You dont' want to be treated like a regular human being. You have a condition. Your condition is your faith, and who are we to judge someone with such an illness? No, Jon's comments were not malicious, but you'd have to be moron to not expect them to trigger a reaction, and unlike other people, I don't think Jon's a moron. I think Jon knew what she was doing. Is this an attack? I should think it was a compliment.

I would apologize for ruining your pleasantries, except I don't believe in only taking in the good. Which was the point of my original post.

I thought this discussion was going fairly well for a while. Samantha, no one ever said, "I only read Christian books because I'm more righteous than people who read from this list." The people here discussing appropriate reading for Christians DO read books from the list, hardly any of which are by Christian authors, etc.

I do NOT believe Jon started this thread to cause trouble; if you didn't care to follow a discussion about what would be recommended or not for a person of Christian leanings, why did you jump in here?

Regarding the theological aspect of the discussion: I know the Phil. 2 passage, and although it is talking about following the example of Christ (specifically his humility), it also says he was in the very form of God, but humbled himself to become human. While the Father and the Son are separate entities, Jesus himself said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" and "I and the Father are One." (John chap. 10 and 14).

My you're being quite nasty about what was a simple question. I saw no malice in what she wrote, nor was she condescending... you however took what she said and have obviously come to fight about something. Why would someone's reading choice be so offensive to you? You are the only one on here who has elected to do any attacking, up until that point we'd had a very interesting conversation.

Happy freakin new year... perhaps your resolution should be to take a deep breath before attacking people.

Jenni wrote: "Linda: It is interesting that you peck quote from Phil 2 since that passage is about immitating Christ, not God. I understand the whole trinity thing, but people seem to get confused and think that..."

Thanks for posting this.

And yes, the purpose of this thread is to start an argument. Let's not kid ourselves. Or if not to start an argument, than to gloat about your righteousness. "I only read Christian books. Because I'm more righteous than the people who read from this list." I'm not reading to much into what you're saying. This thread was a dig at the people in this group. Unfortunately, you were counting on the fact that a lot of people treat christian like they are delicate and mentally handicapped children. Nodding, saying "well, you could be right..." "I don't want to hurt your feelings but..." To start an argument is to give you the credit you deserve. To not condescend to you. To recognize that yes, you know exactly what you're doing and saying.

And what you're doing is starting an argument or trying to establish moral dominance. You're not an imbecile. You didn't forget that you're not in a Christian chat room. You came into a group of people who want to read the books on this gigantic list, largely to gain many perspectives, and then you insulted us all in the most passive aggressive way possible. Yes, you knew that your comments would spark other comments. You knew that others would say the harsher things for you. You started an argument. Let's just cut the bullshit, okay?

And I don't mind. I think an open discourse is great. What I don't think is great is being passive aggressive about it, and shrugging responsibility for the discussion. Don't shrug it off! Be proud to open a dialogue! I can see how you wouldn't be, though, because you can't even give yourself permission to open a dialogue with yourself and read books that don't mesh with your Christian views.

The topic of this thread should not have been, "Pardon my Ignorance, but where can I find a competing list." The topic should have been, "Pardon my ignorance, but I believe reading these books will send you all to hell."

The FINAL solution?!?

Yikes...

Jenni wrote: "Linda: It is interesting that you peck quote from Phil 2 since that passage is about immitating Christ, not God. I understand the whole trinity thing, but people seem to get confused and think that..."

When I originally started this discussion, I was not looking for a fight, an argument or anything else. I was new to GoodReads and was looking for other Christians who may have asked the same question I asked myself when I starting reviewing the 1001 list.

I'm not going to apologize for my quest. It's a new year, it's a new day. I want to leave the world a better place and I can be part of the solution.

Happy New Year

People who aren't open to reading what you so pompously refer to as "trash" here and there, probably shouldn't be too concerned about reading from this list. Feel free to go elsewhere and find a list that suits your needs. This is not for you.

That being said, I plan to read to my 2-year-old daughter from de Sade's, 120 days of Sodom, just as soon as I can wean her off of Goodnight Moon. What good fortune that it is on the list!

I am a godless heathen with no common sense, good taste, or morality, after all.

Linda: It is interesting that you peck quote from Phil 2 since that passage is about immitating Christ, not God. I understand the whole trinity thing, but people seem to get confused and think that you can use 'Jesus' and 'God' interchangably. I do not believe that is the case. Besides that, I don't think Samantha was implying that anyone should read anthing in particular, but that nobody should be kept from reading anything. I truly believe that the person who started this thread did so to get an argument started, but only she/he knows the truth of that. I really wish people would understand that by trying to push your personal beliefs on others, no matter what they are, in manners such as this, they only succeed in pushing them farther away - and that... the Bible says, is a sin. I am not attached to any religion, that is my personal road to travel, but I would like to know why the Bible is to be believed any more than other writings from that time. And please don't say because the Bible says so or we will end up discussing the definition of circular logic.
I don't have a particular opinion on the Phil 2 passage and I believe many people hold their own interpretations on most scripture, hence the desire for multiple religions and war, but here is the full quote, from 2.5 - 2.11, for anyone interested.
" 5-Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6-Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7-but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8-And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross
9-Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10-that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11-and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

I guess this wasn't intended to become a theological discussion, but I just can't let one comment go. Samantha, you said that Jesus was "worldly before he became divine." Well according to the Bible and the orthodox Christian faith, Jesus was divine first, before becoming a man. "And the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." John chapter 1. Phil. 2 explains that "although He existed in the form of God...He took on the likeness of man." So Jesus was not a man who became God ("divine"), but God who became man. Jesus came to show us who God is, not to help us "understand what it is to be human." To be like Christ is to be godly, and a Christian's goal should be to become more godly. We don't need to read trash to understand humanity - it's already within our nature.

And I'm sorry to disagree, but I would not give Lady Chatterley's Lover to a child to read.

In total agreement and thank you Samantha!

Samantha, I could not agree with you more :0)
Very well put!

Right on Samantha! Excellent points, thank you...

Samantha -- You go girl! Thaaanks for a thoughtful response to "Pardon my ignorancce, but..."!

Offending people is unavoidable. You don't need to have a penchant for it--something Jesus knew all too well. People found his ideas so radical, they tortured him and put him on a cross. Who's to say, that in that time and place, you wouldn't have found his disruption of what you had priorly believed offensive as well.

And this is why you shouldn't censor--even if you're censoring yourself. Perhaps especially if you're censoring yourself. Because Jesus himself was a man that upset the masses. Jesus was a man whom people wanted to censor. Jesus lived as a man, and therefore was worldly before he became divine. Christian means "Christ-like." To be Christ-like is to understand what it is to be human. And to understand what it is to be human, is to seek the perspectives of other humans, even if you find them offensive. Like Christ, if you want to understand the divine, you will first understand humanity. And humanity is at times vulgar, dirty, violent: Offensive.

What Would Jesus Do? He would read more books.

Samantha wrote: "I notice a lot of people have congratulated the others for being "respectful." There is nothing respectful about humoring someone's close-mindedness and ignorance. It's condescending. The respec..."

And on Christmas day, no less. Perhaps not the historically accurate birthday of Christ the Savior, but He came here for all mankind.

Even secular writers with a penchant for offending.

Grace and Peace, Love and Hope.

I notice a lot of people have congratulated the others for being "respectful." There is nothing respectful about humoring someone's close-mindedness and ignorance. It's condescending. The respectful thing to do is to respond honestly. You can put all of the "sorry if I offended," or "I don't mean to make anyone feel bad, but.."'s all you want, but bottom line is this: No, I won't pardon your ignorance. There's no excuse for it when it is self-imposed. The reason a list like this exists is because these books will expand your mind. You've come here to ask, "Where can I go to reinforce ideas I already have and not have to think." Find that offensive? I don't care. Because the point of writing is not to offend, nor to make you feel good. The point of writing is to reflect on the world around us, just as this post is a reflection of what's happening on this thread. To even speak of "age appropriate material" or "how do we keep our kids from reading about gays," or "I didn't like that there was a description of a pornographic picture in Cider House Rules," or "I'm not for banning books in libraries, BUT..." is to purposefully be ignorant, be blind to the world around you, encourage this blindness in others, and put yourself into a self-imposed stupidity. I have to ask: Why even join a group entitled, The 1001 books you must read before you die," if you have no interest in different perspectives? If you are so easily offended? If, in essence, you believe thinking is sinful?

And this business about protecting our children: The best way to protect our children is to keep them well informed. So they don't go to the school library, and read nothing but Clifford the Big Red Dog, and then go to a friends house and watch Jerry Springer, giving them an extremely childish view of serious matters like sex. Better than having them read nothing but Clifford, give them a copy of Lady Chatterly's Lover, so they can view sex with some thought.

Thinking is not sin. Just as you don't have to believe everything you read in "secular books" you don't have to believe everything you read in the Bible. Your faith will not be crushed by reading a description of a pornographic picture in the Cider House Rules. And if it is, your faith is incredibly flimsy.

Did I offend? Deal with it. It's the right of every man to offend--and the duty of every writer.

As far as public school libraries go, while the material should be age appropriate, I don't think parents or teachers or principals or school boards should go banning books. I know some parents do not want their kids reading certain books, and I'm not saying it's not an extremely difficult job, it is up to each parent to monitor what their own child reads, and not try and pass that on to every other child in the school. Yes, that might mean they will once in awhile get their hands on something that they shouldn't be reading, but that will happen whether it is books, movies, television shows or music. But part of that is not only telling your children what you do not want them reading or seeing, but talking with them about and reading books, even if not completely in line with your beliefs may bring about the discussion better and more thoroughly than just telling them what is expected. Now as a child I knew I wasn't supposed to se moves that were rated R, which of course means every once in awhile I did (usually to try and be cool). However, because of what my parents taught me I knew not only that I wasn't supposed to see it because it was rated R, but I knew the parts that they would have thought inappropriate for me and not to go out and repeat those things that I saw.

Along the lines of gay marriage, while I know this is a sticky subject so I'll try to be delicate it is sometimes a hot spot for me. I believe, like many others, believe that you are either born gay or straight and that it is not a choice, therefore I see nothing wrong with books that promote the equality of the gay community. Just because you don't agree with a certain lifestyle doesn't mean you can't wish them the same rights and fair treatment as everyone else. According to the Bible we are all sinners, even the best christians among us, but all think we deserve to be treated fairly and given the same rights as others. None of us should be here to say who's sin is worse or who's lifestyle is worse (in the Bible divorce is given a lot more scrutiny by some than homosexuality). And there are some children in public schools with gay parents who may relate and find a book, such as the peguin one, helpful. Done with my rant, sorry if I offended anyone.
Lastly (I know I'm kind of all over the place), The Golden Compass, I read it at the age of 12 and thought it was absolutely amazing and immediately picked up The Subtle Knife and was disappointed that The Amber Spyglass was finished. After I finished all I really thought about it was that it was a very creative, well written book. When the movie came out, about a decade later, I was excited and then quite suprised by all the religion controversy, so I went back and read it again and did see the atheistic theme. As a child though none of that came through and I feel like I gained more good things than negative from the book. Also, as a side note, while the movie did take many of the more atheist themes out, I feel like this really took away from the story and on a whole and I would not recomment the movie to anyone. I would still recommend the book though.

I say read it all and build up immunity through exposure. You can be like Survivor Man purposely putting yourself in harm's way and then bravely dodging the dangers (lightning bolts from sinful thoughts and ungodly themes, as the case may be)

Just kidding, but not really. I'm Catholic. Really, go to church every Sunday and everything and believe in God. Just think censorship is scary.

I would just like to make a comment about trying to hide reading materials from your children or not permitting them to read particular books.
Every parent was once a child and once a teenager; do you remember the types of books you read then? Do you remember the doors that books open in your mind? If anyone, a child included, doesn't like the book they are reading, they will put it down. If anyone, especially a child, is restricted from reading a book, guess what, they'll find a way to and on top that, by restricting it, you've made it even more desirable than it would have been otherwise.
The fact is, kids grow up. They will one day be exposed to books, shows, movies, people, ideas, etc that you don't want them to be exposed to. Would you rather that the first time they read/hear something they have questions about that they come to you to discuss the right and wrong rather than have the wrong ideas about these things. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to raise their children, that is your business, I just don't care for the coddling of youth so much so that they are uninformed and quite possibly dangerous to others in the world because they don't understand or know how to handle certain situations. All this b/c they were sheltered to an alarming degree while growing up. They didn't want us to read Judy Blume when I was in elementary school (especially 'Are You There God, It's Me Margaret'). Those books taught me more about what was going on in my life at that time than my parents possibly could have.
I'm not saying to hand 'Choke' to an 8 year old, but come on. My bottom line, restriction brings tempation so be prepared.

Kristin love your comments!

I would like to weigh in on the Narnia series and The Golden Compass, the first of a trilogy.

I have a fond memory of my fifth grade teacher reading aloud The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. I loved it. I didn't pick up the Christian allegory on my own, but someone outside of school pointed it out to me. I wasn't raised a Christian, but this neither 'turned' me nor ruined the story for me. It's still a wonderful book.

I grabbed the audiotape of Golden Compass off the library shelf, not knowing a thing about it. I thought it was brilliant. It spotlights one of the strongest, most interesting little girl characters in fiction on one of the most imaginitive, colorful adventures. I was completely oblivious to atheist themes. The last book of the trilogy is where I finally picked up on that.

That turned out to be a bit rambly, but basically I mean "Yay! for great books. May they stay available."

and hopefully to understand what I'm saying despite my typos and bad grammar. lwright

Linda, perhaps you have read the Bible backwards and forwards but as you are well aware I'm sure (despite the implications otherwise) lots of people do and lots of atheists have read it and it doesn't keep them from being atheists.
Do you have a copy of the New Testament in the red letter version? Look at it folks. Decide for yourselves how you respond. Does it resonate for you or not?
I also love books on Mindfulness , Taoism and other Inspiration.

The Old Testament does not inspire me except for some passages from the Psalms. In fact it seems to frequently infuse a lot of its readers with hate. But I certainly don't advocate banning it. That's just MHO or maybe not so humble.

oh, and I think that part you write about ' intervening with grace and forgiveness to some individuals" is exactly why as a humanist I dislike that depiction of God. Jesus doesn't discriminate. The Old Testament God does with impunity. Jesus as Jew can't tell you to throw out the Old Testament but it seems to me he would love it if your smart enought to read between the lines.

Sorry, one more thing while I'm on a roll: I don't think public libraries should ban books either, but I do think what is given, taught or made available to kids (high school & below) should be carefully chosen and should not contain "adult" material or mature themes or situations that may not be appropriate. Of course this is a broad statement, but I guess my opinion is, if there is a "line in the sand" that shouldn't be crossed with regard to inappropriate material, rather than getting as close to that line as possible, I say we back up a bit and play it safe. I'm talking about what literature we expose kids too, now. There's plenty of time and freedom for them to explore lit. as an adult.

Jennifer and others, if you notice, this discussion started out with the question about books all Christians should read. That's how this conversation has ended up talking about avoiding books that contain offensive material, etc. We don't think that Christians (or religious folks in general) should only read Christian books or authors, but some people are more selective about what they choose to read than others. And of course everyone is free to read WHATEVER they want.

Lwright, Regarding the apparent disparity between the old and new testaments, the entire Bible is an account of a real God's dealings with real people and real situations. The old testament emphasizes the holiness of God, his hatred of sin and his need to punish it. Yet in the midst of the violence and wickedness we see him intervening with grace and forgiveness to some individuals. The OT also looks forwarding to the coming of the needed savior that God would send. In the new testament, we see that God sent Jesus as the way to forgiveness and life, and while the NT still condemns the same sin as in the OT, it more clearly shows the answer and hope that God provided.
BTW, just curious if you've read the whole bible?

I was actually intrigued by The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie and was hoping to read it this month. Sadly, my employer keeps interfering with my reading plans by making me work. :)

I guess to clarify my point, not just Goodreads but a specific group on Goodreads which does not mention Christianity in it's description and also posts Salmon Rushdie's book as one of the books currently being read.

While I also appreciate a healthy debate, Goodreads seems ill-suited for your purpose, why not start with your church or Google?

And that, Jennifer, was the intention of my original post. I was looking for a resource of like-minded people.

I'm glad my post also sparked other debate, as I've enjoyed perusing them.

Jeff, thanks for your comment, I was waiting for someone to make this type of point. To go back to the beginning of this thread, why wouldn't someone of such strong faith just go to a Christian site to begin with? Why take the chance to expose yourself to potentially offensive writing and imagery if it means that much to you? Here's the best part about the freedoms in this country (by the way buddhists, jews, hindus, scientologists, mormons, muslims, atheists, wiccans, etc all live here too): they are just that, freedoms. You don't have to read what you don't like or what does not abide by your faith and you can stop reading something you find offensive. If you want to be preemptive about what you are exposed to, there are many resources and groups of like-minded people to help with that.

"Bible-believing Christians" if you choose to depict yourself as such seem very confused as far as the old testament is concerned.

A red letter edition of the new testament will show that Christ taught love, forgiveness, and that we are all failed and needing redemption.

The Old Testament shows that God is like some kind of crazy jealous drama Queen killing people right and left if they don't follow
his orders.

Two wholly differ books and two different "parent figures".

So I say let your kids know that you will edit their reading while young, but be careful not to breath down their necks too long As we age we will eventually be exposed (in books if not in real life to a lot of gratuious violence) And I still say the old testaments violence is just as gratuious as what's found in the worse pulp magazines and is more often about epic type tales then moral issues.
them to worse behaviors than found

Song of Solomon... doesn't that one have the, um... jar of liver in it? I had to read that in highschool... I certainly wouldn't hand it to a middle schooler though.

When I was in Highschool the students, led by the senior class, staged a walkout due to certain parents trying to have books banned from our school library. We never had to actually follow through, the threat was enough, as well as our attendance at the school board meeting. The main book in question was "Catcher in the Rye" This was in 1996, there were a total of about 5 books these parents wanted banned, even though they admitted to never having read them. The students won out and the books are still there. It's funny, not a single one of us had EVER checked a book out of our HS library... but the idea that someone wanted to take them out of there just seemed so wrong to us.

I remember my teachers having posters of "banned books" up in their rooms... they included everything from Huck Finn to the Bible. Though I can't remember the list now... I remember thinking how crazy it was for people to ban Huck Finn, and any of the others I had read.

I just love the intelligence found here! Thanks for all your amazing opinions.

I would not recommend The Golden Compass for children - I am a middle school English teacher, and I often am the first to read new material that has been donated to our library. I recommended that this book NOT be put on the shelves because of the children vs. adult relationships, and the evil way almost all of the adults treat the children. I dislike TV shows for the way children treat adults. The disrespect is rampant and certainly shows up in the way children treat adults today. If you think Phillip Pullman is not pushing an atheist agenda, just read the last page of the third book in the series. I didn't read books two or three because of it.

Let me be the first to say that I do not believe in censoring or banning ANY books from the public libraries. Public libraries are vaults for all human thought and expression. However, I am very opinionated when it comes to children. As parents and teachers, we need to recognize that there is a lot of reading material that is highly inappropriate for young readers. I am actually very liberal in what I do have my students read in the very conservative community in which I live. (I celebrate banned book week with fervor - my sign outside my door reads "Read a banned book today!" - which has raised a few hackles until I show them the list of "banned" books, including Harry Potter.) I am appalled at the idiocy of parents who will not allow their children to read Jacob Have I Loved, but then buy all of the Twilight Series for the same children, no questions asked. It's as though the English teacher is out to corrupt their child, but the world isn't. Okay, then!

Someone donated Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon to the library. That won't be going on the shelves either. Great book, but college level subject matter. It's a good thing I pay attention - my librarian had it tagged and on display. I think the school library is definitely responsible to provide grade-level and maturity level books. The public library is the place to go for the freedom of speech we hold dear.

I really appreciate Rod answering the comment about the offensive material contained in the Bible, so I didn't have to do it. But also related to that is the fact that all of the history and issues presented in the Bible are given to us for one main reason - to show our need for Christ.

And I just gotta say one thing regarding the comments about homosexuality. Just because someone doesn't approve of it, or believes it is morally wrong, doesn't mean they are haters, bigots, or "afraid" of homosexuals. And believe me, I've heard a lot of talk like that lately, living here in California. For Bible-believing Christians, gay marriage is more than simply a civil or social issue, it is moral and religious; thus we would choose to teach our kids about it based on our beliefs, and when we feel the timing is appropriate.

I have just noticed that my goodreads mail has been sent to my junkmail account accidently for the past few days since I posted my comment on 11/14. I am glad I caught it and hopefully, it won't happen again.

Anyway, I had a couple things I would like to say in response to what has been said since my last comment.

Stephanie, I don't think we are in disagreement about censorship at all. I totally agree with you in regards to what should be available in the public library. I don't really understand why you put aside the idea of school library vs public library because if you leave aside that one point we are in agreement.

The reason I don't think certain things should be made readily available to school children in a school library is because I believe it is the main responsibility of the parents to train their children the way they want them to go. If it were a private school where all the parents agreed that the book about gay penguins, for example, should be available, then great! No problem! However, many Christians (myself not included) do get offended by the concept of homosexuality and don't want their children being taught that it is a viable alternative. Some of those parents chose to home school their children but many of them have neither the time nor the ability to be full-time teachers to their children. For those parents I think it is only fair to allow them to send their children to a school where they don't feel their values will be undermined. I am not saying the school should teach on homosexuality at all, unless to briefly mention that it does exist in sex education class or health class where the parents have to sign a consent waiver anyway...

I understand what you are saying about words. I have a tendency to use words that others find offensive when I don't mean them to be offensive. For example, I called my husband's family "trailer trash" and he will not forgive me for that. To me it was just words to describe how they are but to him it was a very derogatory comment and I should not have said it for sure.

I also love variety and diversity and you are probably right that SOME parents don't have time or are afraid to speak to their children about certain issues. I do think there are parents that are afraid of homosexuality, unfortunately, whether they are Christians or not.

I hope I have made myself clear because I don't want anyone to come away from this conversation thinking I favor censorship or dislike diversity because that would be the opposite of the truth.

I like what Laura said and I agree with her except I do consider myself a Christian, albeit a liberal one.

There certainly is a great deal of sexuality and violence in the Bible because it deals with real issues between a real God and real people. And it makes it very clear that none of those people were perfect - very far from it - because it's not our goodness that God accepts but rather it's us in our wickedness. That's the whole point! The difference between the sex and violence in the Bible and the sex and violence in secular literature rests in that point. Those people in the Bible all failed because of their human nature, but God accepted them anyway - though He did manage to kill quite a few of them in His anger. Reading the Bible you come away knowing that incest, rape, homosexuality, and all the other things that spring from human nature create a barrier between God and us. It's undesirable because of that barrier that it creates. That's all sin and evil are - attitudes and the behaviors that spring from those attitudes that separate us from God.

The problem we Christians have with Heather Has Two Mommies and similar books is that we are trying to teach our children to value a close relationship with God rather than celebrating our freedom... or rather license ("excessive liberty, disregard of propriety").

Sorry if that was preaching... I was trying to avoid it but we just can't have a full discussion without involving the philosophy behind our desire to shield our children - and ourselves - from literature that seeks to separate us from God rather than drawing us closer.