I think that sticker's offensive because it's clearly
intended to offend. That's the way offense works. It's not the content of what you say, but whether you mean to hurt others. You can say the same thing, "You're so *tall*" and mean it with either awe or as a tease--and the person being complimented or teased
feels better or angry in reaction to the intent. Your sticker's "content advisory" is clearly intended to provoke. (That doesn't mean I
take offense at it, mind you--but like Tricord's comments, it
is offensive.)
It's also a good example of the joke-a-flame: piggybacking a flame on a joke to make it more acceptable. The first line of the sticker is irony. "Warning: This is a work of fiction.
Do NOT take it literally." is pretty much the equivalent of what's being put on the science textbooks. Well, actually it's a stronger statement--what's being put on the books is more like, "Warning: This is a theory. Keep an open mind." or "Warning: The following relevant information has been excluded, leaving you with a slanted picture." But whatever, close enough. By itself, that's irony, and if you feel slighted by the textbook stickers (or you can empathize with those who would), it's funny.
The rest of the sticker is a flame about the Bible.
The role of the flame in the larger argument is interesting. The obvious intent of the image is to equate the two--stickers on the Bible, stickers on science textbooks--and charge the observer with hypocrisy if he is offended at the one and not the other. The writer of the sticker should therefore try as hard as reasonably possible to be offensive to Bible-readers, as the argument only works if they are offended or object. I find this obnoxious--as if two objects are morally equivalent just because they're both stickers, despite the fact that one is clearly intended to offend. I have a dislike which approaches fanatacism for fuzzy-headed arguments from moral equivalence!
Anywah, the fact that the argument turns on the sticker being offensive explains both why it is made that way and why some are so quick to speculate that their opponents are offended. If Christians are offended by stickers on the Bible, that validates them for feeling offended by stickers on textbooks.
Is it a fair analogy? I obviously don't think so given what I wrote above, but perhaps it is best to let the reader decide. Here are the texts, side by side.
Bettina's Sticker wrote:
WARNING: This is a work of fiction. Do NOT take it literally.
CONTENT ADVISORY: Contains verses descriptive or advocating suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, sexual activity in a violent context, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness, and human rights violations and atrocities.
EXPOSURE WARNING: Exposure to the contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and, in extreme cases, pathological disorders, hatred, bigotry, and violence including, but not limited to fanaticism, murder, and genocide.
Wells' suggested warning labels for textbooks (Icons of Evolution, p. 259)
WARNING: The Miller-Urey experiment probably did not simulate the Earth's early atmosphere; it does not demonstrate how life's building-blocks originated
WARNING:Darwin's tree of life does not fit the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion, and molecular evidence does not support a simple branching-tree pattern.
WARNING:If homology is defined as similarity due to common ancestry, it cannot be used as evidence for common ancestry; whatever its cause may be, it is not similar genes
WARNING:These pictures make vertibrate embryos look more similar than they really are; it is not true that the vertebrate embryos are most similar in their earliest stages.
WARNING:Archeopteryx is probably not the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors remain highly controversial; other missing links are now being sought.
WARNING:Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks in the wild, and the photos showing them on tree trunks have been staged; Kettlewell's experiments are now being questioned.
WARNING:The Galapagos finches did not inspire Darwin with the idea of evolution, and oscillating natural selection on their beaks produces no observable net change.
WARNING:Four-winged fruit flies must be artificially bred, and their extra wings lack muscles; these disabled mutants are not raw materials for evolution.
WARNING:Evidence from fossil horses does not justify the claim that evolution was undirected, which is based on materialistic philosophy rather than empirical science.
WARNING:Theories about human origins are subjective and controversial, and they rest on little evidence; all drawings of "ancestors" are hypothetical.
(I know there are other sticker-texts around, some which might have actually been used... but I don't follow the politics very closely, and don't have the text on hand.)
--------------
The second paragraph of the sticker interests me, in that it uses clever phraseology and inaccuracies to be even more offensive than is warranted. Let me pick this apart.
CONTENT ADVISORY: Contains verses descriptive or advocating ...
There is a trick of speech regaurding the word "or" here. Logically speaking, you can attack "or ... " to any statement, and that statement will still be true. In everyday use, though, attaching "or ... " to a statement implies that you think the "..." is true a significant amount of the time. A good example is the statement, "My husbend went out grocery shopping or gambling." Logically speaking, it's entirely true, even if I know for a fact that my husband doesn't gamble. But it leaves the reader with the impression that I don't know where my husband is and think it's reasonably likely he might be out gambling.
The addition of "or advocating" is like that here. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't advocate
any of the listed activities. Adding that to the initial statement assists with the sensationalism by being misleading.
suicide: The Bible describes a couple suicides--Judas' comes to mind. There's also an attempted suicide by Elisha. I'm pretty sure it isn't advocated anywhere, though.
incest: The Bible describes some acts of incest. Lot's daughters is the best example, and Abraham and Sarah is another example (though a more distant one, and evidently culturally acceptable). I'm pretty sure it's not advocated anywhere, and Lev. 18 expressly forbids it in very strong terms.
bestiality: Not advocated. Not even described, as far as I can remember. Expressly forbidden in very strong terms Lev. 18:23.
sadomasochism: I'm pretty sure this isn't even mentioned anywhere.
sexual activity in a violent context: You mean rape? I can think of two rapes described in the Bible, both explicitly treated as wicked. Dinah's in Gen. 34 and Tamar's in 2 Sam 13. I can't say it's advocated, though: in both cases, the offender is killed in vengeance by the girl's brother(s).
murder: Described, yes. Not advocated in a general sense (in fact, expressly forbidden). God does command Israel to go to war early on, though, and that might be what they're thinking of.
morbid violence: Depends on your definition of morbid... Samson's being blinded or killing people for clothing might be what they're thinking of. I'm pretty sure this isn't advocated unless you count circumcision or animal sacrifice.
use of drugs or alcohol: There's the "or" again! As to the "use of drugs", I'll just comment that the newest texts in the Bible are 2000 years old and leave it at that. On the use of alcohol, the Bible offers a complex opinion (I once did like a 10 page systematic study on it...), but is clear that consistent drunkenness is a sin.
homosexuality: The Bible neither advocates nor describes this (except in a very general and euphamistic sense). It is repeatedly expressly forbidden. Amusing that this made it onto an "offensive things" sticker--is the writer anti-gay along with us Christians?
voyeurism: Described once that I can think of 1 Sam 11), and definitely not advocated. Actually, I don't think it's specifically treated, though there are lots of verses forbidding lust.
revenge: This is certainly described. It's advocated if you count laws advocating capital punishment, though I take these as intended to advocate justice, not vengeance. God is often depicted as taking vengeance, though. In fact, Deut. 32:35 gives the famous "'Vengeance is mine' sayeth the Lord" quote in a narrow context and Romans 12:19 applies it more widely, saying "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord."
undermining of authority figures: Demonstrated, definitely, by many including Jesus himself. Can't say it's really advocated in general, though. Romans 13 begins, "Be subject to the government..."
lawlessness: Described
everywhere. I would go so far as to say the
thesis of the old testament is that men are lawless and that this is a bad thing.
and human rights violations and atrocities: That's a subject worthy of debate, but I'll give it to you on a warning sticker. Slavery and mass killings, even genocides are described, definitely. In places, commanded or regulated by God.
Add that all up, and you get... The Bible describes cases of suicide, incest, rape, murder, morbid violence, use of alcohol, homosexuality (in a general way), voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness, and human rights violations and atrocities. The Bible advocates use of alcohol (in places), shows God taking vengeance and Jesus undermining authority figures, and God sometimes kills or commands his followers to kill people.
Woo, scary.
I'd love to know what the person who wrote that sticker was thinking of for some of those, but I suspect they simply weren't.
Tricord wrote:What value does the bible hold over other works in a non-religious context?
Histocially, it gives insights into ancient peoples--their geography, traditions, and way of life.
Linguistically, I think (someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this) the Old Testament is the only sample (or one of a very few samples) of ancient Hebrew writing.
Philosophically, the "ancient greek philosophers" you compare the Bible to--the contemporaries of the latest books' authors--have no modern day followers. Their ideas have been superceded by history and modern thought. Biblical mysteries such as predestination or the nature of God remain philosophically fresh arguments, even in this century. Biblical moral principles such as "Love thy neighbor" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" remain good ideas.
Culturally, the ideas, morals, and text of the Bible underlie all of western culture.
I am intrigued by the fact that you seem to think the Bible has
no value in a secular context or is in
no way an outstanding or remarkable book (beyond being the scripture for a large religion). Without meaning to be offensive, you're simply wrong here, but I haven't got the time or space to do the subject justice. I've been meaning to start a series of threads about the history and contents of the Bible and the evidence for Christianity, but I just haven't had the time....
and I took my pills, I changed my mind. I don't want this closed. In fact, after reading some of these posts, I'm glad I did it and I would do it again. In fact, I'm going to look for some more. 
@ DCrazy
