UK: Bible is 'lies and spin,' says C(hannel) 4

This should set things going for Christmas ...

what we need are aggressive exposes of the lies, myths, and deceptions of the so-called Bible.

Thomas Paine did a fine job in his book "The Age of Reason", but the style is a bit dusty.

Now what we need more than ever is to shine the Light of Reason, a blast from the Enlightenment, on the dusty cobwebs of medieval superstition (i.e Christianity) and blast those outdated dogmas out of the minds of modern people.

It is a shame to our country that so many still believe this superstitious nonsense.

Are you so insecure that you must mock the faith of others?

Blast religion and drive the faithful from the party. So will go left, some will go right, but none will vote Democratic.

... and that Christianity is beyond reproach, beyond examination, beyond criticism? Are these believers so delicate that they cannot endure any scrutiny?

I wonder who's REALLY "insecure"?

Beyond mockery? Yes.

I think mocking the faith of the vast majority of Democrats is both unfair and unwise.

It's just another form of criticism - one that can be enjoyed. Why not speard a little happiness while you're teaching someone something?

It is hate speach, just like racism. I am appalled that so many here not just participate but celebrate their hate.

Merry Christmas!

Saturday Night Live? Monty Python? Do you consider them all hate speech?

I wouldn't watch it.

I used to be more tolerant of religious humor and then it turned dark and hateful like the vast majority of what is posted here about religion. After that, I changed my tune and realize it is what it is. Hate speech, not fun.

Many here seem to think anybody who believes in God voted against them last election. The truth is if you eliminate all of those who believe in God and voted for Kerry then he would have lost every single state.

So enjoy the hatefest. Each hateful sentiment makes future victory less likely.

Merry Christmas!

are still licking their wounds from the last election. Oh wait! They DIDN'T lose.

Perhaps too many of us have "turned the other cheek" too often. And too many of us have made a mistake in "trying to see the good" in everyone that they also neglected to see the evil and hypocrisy.

I'm not a bliss-ninny... I'm a bit more realistic than most. Please don't lecture me when I choose to ridicule those people and those things that deserve ridicule and scorn.

This being a public board and all.

The last election was close. The next one and those that follow won't be if the haters here have their way. In a quest for anti-religious purity, they will drive the VAST MAJORITY of the party elsewhere.

Heck, maybe that's what some of them wish to do. Wouldn't surprise me.

As for things that deserve ridicule and scorn, hate is top on the list. Those that revel in it here are no better than their Freeping opposites. In fact, because they claim to know better, they might be worse.

but those who hold a different view need to be quiet. Interesting gymnastics you got goin' on there. The kind required to believe the unbelievable.

Need a biggger shovel?

Julie

If you walked down the street and hurt people hollering racial epithets, it would be wrong to ignore it.

Just as it is wrong to ignore this.

From what I see in this thread that got you started was the term "so called bible". You liken that term to If you walked down the street and hurt people hollering racial epithets, it would be wrong to ignore it??? Then you go on to make this claim: Just as it is wrong to ignore this.

Slightly hysteric attempt at justification for demanding those who hold differrent views hold their peace while claiming the right to lecture anyone-anytime you please-regardless of their requests to the contrary. In other words, your hypocrisy is still evident. You cannot demand complete freedom of speech and wish to repress it in others and expect (realistically) to be viewed with much credibility.

Julie

Is the endless stream of threads hating religion, Christianity, people of faith and more. This is only the latest in a parade of hate.

We are all entitled to hold our own opinions. But if you hold the opinion that people of a certain race are inferior, you are a racist. If you hold similar opinions of people of faith, it makes you a bigot as well.

You were all over that stuff and it was not hate speech.

It appears anything critical or questioning of your beliefs is qualified as spewing hatred.

Interesting mindset.

Julie

Questioning beliefs is different than mocking them. Saying you disbelieve is different than saying those who do are morons.

If you can't see the difference, too bad for you.

...profoundly asinine. Give me a break. Let's break this down real quick-like: Race is a product of evolutionary forces and environmental conditions, but homo sapiens sapiens are all the same creature. It's just a shade of color. For someone to say that one race is inferior to another is kind of like saying brown hair is inferior to blonde hair.

I'm sorry, but faith, on the other hand, is NOT a product of nature - it is NOT a morphological trait. It is NOT something that aids in the survival of the great mammal, the human being. It is a product of complex culture. It is a free and willful choice to have faith in any religion.

Threads that express frustration with religion is no different than someone expressing frustration with racism. Racist beliefs are sincerely held beliefs by ignorant people, and so too, some might say, of religion. It is simply an opinion, so quit playing the part of the persecuted and the martyr, and quit making false analogies. Please and thank you.

To say someone is ignorant or inferior because they believe in God is bigotry. If you do not like that position, too bad. Recent history shows what happens when people take your position -- see Nazi Germany for proof.

and I stand by that. I wasn't saying it's right for someone to call a religious person inferior - that's arrogant and condescending, but ignorant is something different. That is an opinion based on reason and logic. Not saying it is necessarily correct, but it is a valid opinion nonetheless. This is no different than saying racist people are ignorant; they are both (religion & racism) BELIEFS. Plus, these kinds of criticisms/opinions are directed toward religion in general. At times it may come out against Christianity in particular, but that's a product of Christianity being the dominant religion in our particular culture. If we all lived in, say, Iran, I'm sure the same people would be talking shit about Islam.

Your reference to Nazi Germany is not fair either, since Hitler was indignant to Jews/Judaism in particular, not ALL religions. And his hatred of the Jews was solely based on racial reasons, not religious ones.

Actually, Hitler admired the Christian Church for its power over the masses. Why? Because it's a tool of CONTROL. This fact is one of the primary criticisms espoused by those you call bigots. Some see religion as a controlling mechanism, and some people are uncomfortable with the fact that, in some cases, people do not/will not/cannot think for themselves, do not/will not/cannot question dogma and authority, and this is dangerous to the minds of atheists/agnostics/religious critics/freethinkers. Why was the Church complicit in Hitler's atrocities? Could it be dogma? religious authority? deeply held (subconscious) beliefs? all of the above? Sound dangerous to you? Look what's happening today in our country. Sound/look familiar? It would be flat wrong to lump all Christians together, but clearly the Christian Left are a huge minority in comparison to the Religious Right.

Look, as I said, religion is a choice, not a natural, inherited trait like race. Intolerance is intolerance, yes. But to equate religious criticism with racism is unacceptable. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure these critics would readily admit they are intolerant of religion. Is that wrong? Is this the same as racial intolerance? Not by a long shot. Personally, I think we should be able to put religious differences aside and work together for values we share. I just have a problem with believers - remember, 99% of the U.S. population - claiming persecution when a small fraction of 1% express their frustrations with religious beliefs. If you are so deeply offended, then I think you're being a little too sensitive. How about ignoring it?

I'm sure deep down you feel sorry for atheists, or think they're misguided, deceived, or just wrong. After all, aren't Christians supposed to spread the "good news"? Guide them to the Light? Conversely, some atheists have a personal mission to "save" people from religion. Is that wrong? Why can't attempts at proselytization go both ways?

.....cognitive dissonance. It takes true mental gymnastics to intellectually accept the principle of a "god" that sees everything we do and is judging it all, to be rewarded or punished after death.

It's mostly innocent for the majority, but beomes dangerous to society when the fundamentalists take over. They are the fanatics that want to concretize a myth by insisting that what the fictional mythology was historical.

It's like the King Arthur myth. There's probably a seed of truth there, but once you know that the myth was written in the 13th century as a fictional story, a novel, the story then becomes a much deeper assembly of the inner needs and desires of the society, and NOT TRUTH.

What better way to attempt to spray a firehose on debate that to declare it "Hate".

If your God is truly as all-powerful as his twisted book claims, any criticism us puny Men can muster must surely bounce off Him like rain off a roof.

But then again, some are so quick to try and silence all critics that I wonder about that.

It is what it is. Try reading the religion threads with a more dispassionate view and you will see it for what it is.

My Gow can survive your hate, the Democratic Party cannot.

choose to take such offense at those who would DARE to criticize religious hypocrisy and the absurdities of their scriptures.

I'm afraid I wasn't to clear... it should have been obvious that "don't lecture me" wasn't a *literal* command. It was a nicer and more indirect way to point out your brazen behavior and to remind you that YOU have very little wiggle room to start lecturing me (or anyone who DARES to criticize) without looking like a hypocrite. Get it now?

>> As for things that deserve ridicule and scorn, hate is top on the list. <<

Sorry, Alicia... "loving the enemy" and "canoodling" with those who oppress isn't something that I'm inclined to do. --- It serves no purpose other than to show weakness and to embolden them.

>> Those that revel in it here are no better than their Freeping opposites. <<

WHAT HORSESHIT! If loving your enemy makes someone feel superior, then obviously there's something seriously lacking in their lives, or they have such serious self-esteem issues, that they need to engage in mental masturbation excercises like that.

>> In fact, because they claim to know better, they might be worse. <<

Ah... another fine example of how NOT to judge others, eh Alicia? Something here stinks... I smell hypocrisy.

And the Democratic Party is, at least in theory, your friends. It is also people in large part by Democrats who believe in God, specifically the Christian God. Attack them and you'll never win another election.

Unless that is your hope.

As for your last comment, note I said "might." I didn't judge. I merely said since they claim to know better and end up being just as bad, then they might be worse. They certainly are no better and I bet a good number of them are deliberate trolls designed to splinter us on an easy issue.

...to the suggestion that to attack the lunatic fringe AS LUNATICS, you attack the mainstream as well. Let the other side look ridiculous pushing that idea. I refuse to believe it.

Includes ALL who hate huge swaths of people -- those on the right or left.

No. I don't think so.

I don't embrace hate from anyone.

that everyone in the Democratic party is my friend. Not even everyone here is my friend. The stealth bigots are among us, Alicia.

>> Attack them and you'll never win another election. <<

Oh dear! The sky is falling!

>> Unless that is your hope. <<

Yes Alicia... I hope we never win another election. :eyes:

Oh brother! What kind of horse shit is that, huh?

>> As for your last comment, note I said "might." I didn't judge. <<

You didn't judge, huh? Really? --- You didn't judge?

>> I merely said since they claim to know better and end up being just as bad, then they might be worse. <<

Here's what you REALLY said:

Those that revel in it here are no better than their Freeping opposites. In fact, because they claim to know better, they might be worse.

LOL... even if you totally eliminate the "might be worse" part... what remains is STILL JUDGMENTAL on your part. (Sniff-sniff!) What's that smell?

Those that revel in it here are no better than their Freeping opposites.

HOLY CRAP! That sure sounds pretty judgmental to me! What do you think? Can you smell it now??

>> They certainly are no better and I bet a good number of them are deliberate trolls designed to splinter us on an easy issue. <<

Ah... yes, you're on to me now Alicia. I'm a troll. :eyes:

Heee-haw! Too adorable! Oh that's rich... just... "special", isn't it?

-- Allen


edit: formatting/html

On Nov. 2. You seem determined to make it happen ever after.

Do you honestly believe none of the people here who stir battles between us are trolls? This is an ideal topic for them to create divisions.

Thanks for proving my point about "might." In this case, my "might" was right.

I can judge hate. It's easy to see and easier to be disgusted by.

I never said you are a troll. But the desire of many here to divide the party on this issue raises questions about their motives.

>> "The sky already fell" On Nov. 2. <<

The end is near! We're doomed! :eyes:

>> You seem determined to make it happen ever after. <<

Taken in context, this can only mean one thing. You're saying that I "seem" determined to make us lose elections. Really? --- What an absurd accusation, Alicia! I'm insulted. What evidence do you have to back up that personal attack?

>> Do you honestly believe none of the people here who stir battles between us are trolls? This is an ideal topic for them to create divisions. <<

Do you honestly believe that the Democratic party is one big homogeneous Borg-like collective?

Do you honestly believe that people within this party don't have different ideas and are willing to argue about them?

Do you honestly believe that the ONLY people who are willing to argue about their differences of opinions and ideas are "trolls"? :eyes:

If so, using your own definition, what would that make you, Alicia??

>> Thanks for proving my point about "might." In this case, my "might" was right. <<

HUH? What are you thanking me for? What point was there to prove?

That particular phrase (and your disclaimer using the word "might") wasn't even in question. It was the entire sentence PRIOR to that. I don't know how I could have made my message any clearer. You seem to be having trouble understanding me. Is English your first language?

In your very own messages, the behavior you deride in others is so obvious that it stinks! -- Smell it? I do.

>> I can judge hate. It's easy to see and easier to be disgusted by. <<

Then obviously you're disgusted by my hatred of hypocrisy. Clearly you're disgusted by my hatred of the absurdity and cruelty found in Judeo-Christian scriptures and how many fringe Christians (and stealth bigots HERE) use those writings to justify their bigoted and oppressive behavior.

I see that this frustrates you, but I guess you'll just have to learn to cope. (And frankly, Alicia, I'd think you could find BETTER things to be disgusted at.)

>> I never said you are a troll. <<

No you certainly didn't say the words "Allen you are a troll". You're much to clever for that. You only pointed out that my messages that are critical of religion are "no better than" deliberate trolls.

Kinda the same way that I "seem" determined to split the party to guarantee our defeat "ever after".

Heh-heh.

>> But the desire of many here to divide the party on this issue raises questions about their motives. <<

I reject that premise, Alicia. I see no evidence that many here desire to divide the party. Perhaps it only SEEMS that way to you when someone has a point of view that's different from yours. I understand how frustrating is must be whenever someone doesn't give UNQUALIFIED DEFERENCE and ABJECT RESPECT AND ADORATION of the scriptures and religion. It's HOLY!

Now then... since you're such an expert at spotting the trolls (or troll-like behavior)... and since you're a MIND-READER and you can instantly tell what people's motives are... then you should have volunteered to be a moderator!! --- But it's going to be a couple of months before you can be a moderator, so I guess the next best thing would be for you to alert on their trolling posts at EVERY opportunity you get.

Considering how *often* people disagree around here, you're bound to see trolls under every bridge. That ought to keep you pretty busy.

If you're seeking total harmony and bliss... then you're looking in the wrong places, Alicia.

You mean nothing bad happened Nov. 2? Sure could have fooled me.

Are we all doomed? Maybe, maybe just.

By persisting in the anti-religious arguments, you are making us likely to lose elections. It is clear there is a strong group of religious people who vote Republican. Do you wish to make it ALL religious people? That would be about 85% of the electorate.

No, we are not a Borg collective. (Nice analogy.) But we should be able to accept one another and not turn the beliefs of one group into the diatribes of hate by another.

I do believe that many out there and some in here wish to use religion to divide us. Like it or not, you are helping that happen.

I am disgusted by hate of people. Aren't you? Don't bigots upset you? I teach my children not to be bigots. I wish some here would learn it.

Of course, there are many here who desire to split the party. I see secession posts for God's sake. Or people who are fed up with the Democratic Party.

I don't claim to know everyone's motivations. I do know this. It is obvious to anyone that the right is using religion as a wedge issue. Why are you embracing it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

>> "The sky didn't fall?" You mean nothing bad happened Nov. 2? Sure could have fooled me. Are we all doomed? Maybe, maybe just. <<

Oh the hyperbole and drama! :eyes:

>> By persisting in the anti-religious arguments, you are making us likely to lose elections. <<

Yes, it will be *all my fault*. :eyes:

>> It is clear there is a strong group of religious people who vote Republican. Do you wish to make it ALL religious people? That would be about 85% of the electorate. <<

That's highly unlikely. :eyes:

>> No, we are not a Borg collective. (Nice analogy.) But we should be able to accept one another and not turn the beliefs of one group into the diatribes of hate by another. <<

What a funny thing for you to say!

>> I do believe that many out there and some in here wish to use religion to divide us. <<

Staggering!

>> Like it or not, you are helping that happen. <<

Yes, Alicia... it will be all my fault. :eyes: I'll take the blame.

Thankfully we have clever folks to lecture us and save us from ourselves, and to protect the Christians from their persecution, and show us the way to victory, eh?

>> I am disgusted by hate of people. Aren't you? Don't bigots upset you? <<

Oh dear! If you need to ask, then there's been a catastrophic breakdown of communication somewhere. I don't know what else I could say to make you understand.

>> I teach my children not to be bigots. <<

Okay. That's nice.

>> I wish some here would learn it. <<

Heh-heh. Indeed. Yeah, me too. (Those damned godless bigoted atheists ruin everything! LOL!)

>> Of course, there are many here who desire to split the party. <<

To whom are you referring? Anyone specifically? Anyone we know? Or is this just speculation? Please... share with us what you know.

>> I see secession posts for God's sake. Or people who are fed up with the Democratic Party. <<

Those wo leave are free to make up their own minds. Are you suggesting that I should compromise my beliefs to suit them? This is not the GOD-PARTY... please stop trying to make it that.

I see people coming IN to the Democratic party because they are fed up with God and the hypocritical religious bigots. Whatddya know? Go figure. It kind of works both ways, doesn't it.

No need for us to become Republican-lite. This isn't a church.

>> I don't claim to know everyone's motivations. <<

No... not specifically... you're much to clever to do that. You just hint at it, and even THEN you're wrong.

>> I do know this. It is obvious to anyone that the right is using religion as a wedge issue. <<

Wow! Really? Alert the media!

>> Why are you embracing it? <<

Wrong again! --- What kind of horse shit is that, Alicia?

Yes, Alicia... I'm *embracing* it. I'm a tool of the right. I'm a troll. I'm here to divide and conquer the Democratic party. :eyes: I've been figured out. Everyone here is too clever for me! I might as well go back to Freeperland.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What I *actually* said was (sarcastically) "I'm a tool of the right."

No Alicia... I did not say that I'm a "tool" in the context that you're now calling me a "tool". Any resonable person can see that you have purposely mis-quoted me, and done so out of context to try an make a person attack (under the guise of it being a clever 'joke').

Name-calling is not nice and it's also against DU rules.

-- Allen

Queer Homodays!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Horseshit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are becoming tiresome. It seems that you have nothing else to add to this exchange OTHER than personal attacks. I realize you're a "new" member here, but perhaps you'd be wise to review the DU rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You keep trying, but all those deleted posts should serve as a clue that you might be doing something wrong.

Or do you feel that there's something about you that makes you so special that you're better than me and *above* the rules?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Enough already.

By persisting in the anti-religious arguments, you are making us likely to lose elections. It is clear there is a strong group of religious people who vote Republican. Do you wish to make it ALL religious people? That would be about 85% of the electorate.

If 85% of people believe that 2+2=5, that doesn't make it correct. Consensus approval of a superstition doesn't make a superstition real.

I knew you had it in you. "Superstition." We call it belief. You use the hate word. Unsurprising.

... label the differences as "hate". It seems that for some of them, they assume that ANY difference must be driven by hatred. I wonder if this is a projected emotion... something that many of them feel themselves... so they ASSUME that any differences expressed by others must have the same motivation of "hate".

Enough to challenge you is a "zealot." You are an amazing piece of work.

I don't understand why people go around re-defining the commonly-understood meaning of words so that they can label dissent as "hate". --- Well... I suppose the "we're-the-majority-so-sit-down-and-SHUT-UP" approach is always easier than actually admitting that other points of view and concerns are valid as well. (Sigh.)

Do you not know what "zealot" actually means?

-- Allen

P.S. Alicia, it would be wise if you were to cease with the juvenile personal attacks. Your personal opinion and low regard of me is irrelavent to this discussion.

know?

The "hate word." Yah. Gimme a break, will ya?! You guys have control of everything now. You're even able to convince most of the US that atheists have the power to "ban" Christmas! Atheists like me are a tiny minority with no possible way of affecting legislation, passing laws, or otherwise oppressing anyone of faith with any kind of systemic force behind it. So don't even push that "Help, I'm religious and I'm being oppressed!!!" crap with me.



"Belief?" If you "believe" that white is black, does that make white black? No.

I have a crappy job and earn crappy pay. The people in control sure as heck don't include me. Words that mock my beliefs that are used deliberately are meant to harm. That makes them words of hate.

What I believe is what the vast majority of Americans or the world believes.

"You guys have control of everything now."

A statement that was so obvious that even *I* understood he was referring to Christians who are in charge of our government and who control our mainstream media through intimidation. He never said "you"... yet your indignant response would have the reader believe he had made a personal comment about you.

>> Words that mock my beliefs that are used deliberately are meant to harm. That makes them words of hate. <<

Ah yes... trot out the old "words-of-hate" accusation. What a joke! Disagreement and differing points of view is not "hate," Alicia. I suppose it's much easier to falsely label valid viewpoints as "hate"... that way the zealot Christians don't have to deal with their detractors. They can be dismissive of the issues and continue to feel superior.

:eyes: Those mean old hateful atheists. Who cares what they think? They are gonna burn in hell anyway. :eyes:

>> What I believe is what the vast majority of Americans or the world believes. <<

Yes and...? So? This is relevant, because....?

Does being in the majority make you more special than those who are in the minority? Does being a part of the majority mean that you're automatically RIGHT? Are you suggesting some sort of "majority rule" clause or that "might-makes-right"? Intimidation in numbers?

Does that give you permission to label any dissenting voice as the voice of "hatred"?

What exactly is your point?

Frankly, I don't plan to be intimidated into silence simply because someone bandies about the word "hate"... or because someone intentionally uses the phrase "hate speech" to label any problems I have with religion.

-- Allen

PS: Essentially what the Christian right keeps saying is "sit-down-and-SHUT-UP" along with "we're-in-the-majority-so-you-must-not-openly-challenge-our-beliefs" and "if-you-say-anything-that-disagrees-with-the-Christian-viewpoint-then-you-are-engaging-in-HATE-SPEECH".

That's very similar to your message, Alicia. Interesting.

I am not part of the right. My church is liberal. My priest tolerant. My attitudes moderate to left.

It is not just an "accusation" to say some of the anti-religious crap here is hate. Heck, it's an understatement.

No, not all atheists are hateful. Nor are all Christians. I think people should be judged as individuals, not collectives.

Being in the majority with religious belief means that those who don't agree are going to hear about it anyhow. That's just life.

Frankly, I don't plan to be intimidated into silence simply because so many here gang up on the people of faith.

P.S. My message is one of tolerance and respect. Those who hate religion here use neither.

>> Again, my "guys" don't control squat <<

You must have not been paying attention to the last election, the supreme court, the anti-gay initiatives, etc. You must not watch a lick of TV, otherwise you *would* know that the RW Christians are in charge of both our government and media.

>> It is not just an "accusation" to say some of the anti-religious crap here is hate. Heck, it's an understatement. <<

So not only are we supposed to accept the intimidation of the zealot Christians, we're supposed to THANK them for it too?

>> Being in the majority with religious belief means that those who don't agree are going to hear about it anyhow. That's just life. <<

It also means that the folks who TRULY have to endure the crap from the zealot Christians are going to complain... loudly. That's just live. Cope.

Your religion has a LOT to answer for... both historically, and RIGHT NOW, even as we speak. That's just life.

>> Frankly, I don't plan to be intimidated into silence simply because so many here gang up on the people of faith. <<

What an odd thing to say for someone who advocates the "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP" philosophy. Your ZEAL doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks on this message board.

>> P.S. My message is one of tolerance and respect. <<

You're kidding, right? Surely you're joking!

>> Those who hate religion here use neither. <<

Who hates religion? Does my rejection of religion mean that I "hate" it. Are you a mind-reader? Do you personally know the people you're referring to? If not, how can you be certain that they "hate" religion?

I suspect that the hatred you "see" is merely a projection of how overwrought and angry your messages appear to be.

I actually welcome specials like the one discribed. And my favorite threads are when we all POLITELY and COURTEOUSLY and RESPECTFULLY discuss our religious/spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof).

I don't happen to be Christian; I am a Religious Scientist who believes that God is an energy within each one of us. Someone can label that 'superstition,' and that will cause them to lose credibility with me.

Just like one can't blame all Muslims for the actions of the terrorists that used the planes as bombs on 9/11 (that would make one a hateful bigot), one can't label all Christians as 'superstitious' individuals who are responsible for the religious right extremists' bullying and perverted political influence.

And I wish everyone 'Happy Holidays!'

She has said she would boycott any channel and its advertisers who even dared to show the documentary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2844166#2844345

That I disagree with. We should all be able to explore these ideas!!

"He declares the New Testament a 'masterwork of spin written by people who were nowhere near the events they describe, all gathered by powerful editors who kept out ideas they did not like."

Above is one of the truest statements I've ever read.

I'm sorry if this offends some, but even when the Bible was put together there was so much kept out, by those who did not agree with the writings.

those that didn't make the cut. Included the book of revelations until several centuries after the new testament was compiled.

from what I understand the Gospels, the part that is the so called eyewitness - were written 50 - 75 years after the crucifixion. Many other (apocryphal) gospels found at Qumran(?)- these had never been included apparantly by choice. Choice of who? Best guess is Constantine who used the bible to advance his military plans.
Even now there are multiple versions of the bible with many different translations. Some of the translations may appear to be nuances, but when a single passage may be used to justify something like starting a war, nuance may be vital.

The church, who was greatly praised by Constantine,needed to keep control of the people and what better way to do it then to keep them fearful. Some of the texts that were written gave over control of their spiritual needs to the people themselves, thus setting up the fact that the church was really no longer needed. Couldn't have that now could we.

So that would be c. 45 years after crucifixion. And most of the other books have fragments dated to c. 100 AD, not just the "eyewitness" portions. It's unlikely the only copy of each fragment was the one retained.

And, since some books claim not to be eyewitness accounts, yippee.

As for all the various gospels being accurate, that seems impossible. They conflict too much. Traditional Xtianity settled on a fairly consistent subsection that dates to fairly early. Numerous other gospels and letters are out there; many seem to belong to one stream of thought or another.

It's like politics: you pick your sources, and just hope that the sources you pick don't lead you into a closed worldview.

Like the Dead Sea Scrools and the Gnostic Gospels. All that was left out because it didn't fit into a patriarchal worldview.

that likely won't be heard over here. Weird factoid: Apparently nobody throughout the centuries ever thought of the bible as "fact" until the early part of the 20th Century. In earlier times, people understood the concepts of metaphore and mythology.

We (Religious Scientists - progressive religion like Unity, Unitarian) believe that Moses, Jesus and Buddha were Master Teachers, and one of the teaching tools (of the wisdom) is metaphor and mythology. One can read the Bible and decide what seems wise. Can one pick and choose, and appreciate certain wisdom, despite the circumstances under which it may have been written? You betcha!

What is the point of this honestly? To piss off the people who voted for Bush? The bible is 90% Jewish and since Jews vote democratic this could insult them as well as Christians.

I don't post that often because I don't have time. Sometimes I just skim the through the topics but I'm off today. B-)

Because there were precious few Bush voters there.

I don't know how much the latest research into the writing of the Bible is well known. I think the doubt cast on the history of Davis and Solomon is recent, for instance. And I don't think the authorship of the 'Moses' books is widely known beyond "it wasn't really Moses".

The acceptance of the gospels as, well, gospel, is also widespread, without general knowledge of when they were written, or what their author's relationship to other early Christians was.

Tony and Cherie.

Does anyone know of a way to get a copy of this documentary? I would love to see it.

mag or secular humanist orgs about two months from now. No way this thing is going to be broadcast over here. Unless you know a real high end cable market or satellite that carries channel 4.- Find out if any secular humanist orgs know about this or are screening it via satellite

wake up and look around. All the killing in the name of God is just killing.

I bet Netflix won't offer it.

I think they are smarter than that.

Magdeline was not a prostitute but a leader in her time...her history was re-written to make her a redeemed sinner...and fit the mold of the male thinkers of the time.

Glad to see all of this come to the surface. Wonder what all the diehard believers will think if it ever registers that the "BOOK" is propoganda in many ways.

I am not a student of the bible...but I do believe the stories have some metaphysical truths to them...we are supposed to experience them internally-spiritually. It is not to be taken literally. (IMHO)

wouldn't gambling be a sin, in your myth-religion?

RL

And you can choose to believe it a myth. I do not.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Giftmas.

RL

Merry Christmas!

Then you won't have time for these useless threads...

RL

But I don't pray 24-7, so I'll still have time to express my views about hate, thank you.

Merry Christmas!

Which is why the idea that the account in the Bible might have been influenced by the humans who compiled it doesn't really bother me. It doesn't change my faith in God.

The anti-religious attitude I keep seeing does bother me, the more vitriolic anyway. I've got no problem with the documentary being made or shown, I'd probably watch it. But please, have some respect for people's faith. Yes, I am also quite disturbed by what passes for Christianity to many people, but you can't paint us all with the same brush.

That was the prize for eating from the tree of knowledge. We have the tools and the resources to study and learn about what really happened in the past and the present.

Faith is something that I have in the future. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has everyday since the day I was born and probably for much longer before that. But I base that faith on knowledge of what has happened in the past. I don't understand why modern humans want to persist in believing in fairy tales? Reality is so much more awesome.

All come from somewhere. Those who are religious believe the ultimate source of such things, of everything, is God. I can't understand how you can marvel at their majesty and fail to see that.

Reality was set in motion by God.

In any case, Merry Christmas.

Well, I marvel at your logic leaps...

RL

God created me as well.

Merry Christmas!

and I always thought it was my mother and my father? Everyone say I look just like my dad.

But we are all created by the creator in my beliefs.

Merry Christmas!

Who created the creator?

God is light. Think about it? Does that mean that god has intellect? Not necessarily.


PBWY
DYEW

Sorry you can't see that.

Merry Christmas!

n/t

Sorry you can't see that.

Merry Giftmas

RL

You must win lots of votes for us come election time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You really need to get out more. I can't stand Falwell.

and not eventually figure out that god is light. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm perfectly happy to take in new information. My faith is not that the Bible is the 100% absolutely positively accurate and infallible word directly from God. My faith is in God. I don't know what fairy tales you are talking about. I'm not a fairy tale girl.

that you believe in, something that is inside of you or outside of you?

Both.

then are you god?

If God is a force, an entity, energy, what have you, ergo God is not a person, the poster or anyone else. I think that is her point.

Even you.

Merry Christmas!

If god is in you and even in me, then aren't we god?

God is in everything, that doesn't make us God, it just makes us all connected.

but not of me?

You sound like you are searching for answers.

that god is in me, I suppose I could just sit here and talk to myself?

But if I want to learn something, it is good to talk to others who might not be so agreeable.


BTW: Aren't we all searching for answers?

People might learn something.

I fear too many in the world don't search at all.

I'm not entirely sure what purpose that serves.

I tried that, but it's Christmas season and the threads pile up largely unremarked. I got tired of it.

You know how everyone bows at the end and says "Namaste..." It means I honor the god in you. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. I think we all have a bit of the divine within us in the form of our spirit or soul. You don't have to believe as I do, but it works quite well for me.

My faith, to me, takes the form of a reverence for life, following the golden rule and honoring my God to the best of my ability. If you crossed Deism with Christianity (I know it sounds like a contradiction), you'd have something like my personal beliefs.

I've practiced both yoga and aikedo which is a martial art. The two are very similar in a lot of ways. That is partly why I'm attracted to gnostic christianity. The gnostics definitely had a lot of eastern influences.

We believe that God is an energy, within us all, around us, within everything. We are equally divine. And we say, 'Namaste' constantly.

Check it out - ucrs.org, rsintl.org.

And, yes, I, personally believe that we are all a 'mini-God.' God divided herself up -- she was bored.

assume this is something that bothers me?

I can't think of how to word it, but you seem to enjoy the intellectual probing, as if you want to show us the "light." Pun intended. It's fine with me. I'm always up for a good discussion.

seen through my facade?

Yes, I would like to show people the 'light, the light of knowledge that is.

I got a chuckle anyway. Do you think that faith has to impair judgement? I will be the first to admit that for some, it certainly does, but not for all. I'm no less capable of understanding science because I believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive.

:hippie:

For those who prefer to base their faith on fairy tales, then it probably impairs their judgment.

The only time I question other peoples 'faith' is when they try to shove their faith down my throat. Then I can get pretty ornery.

that a lot of the originial teachings of Jesus and the early christians have been lost or twisted.

The early christians can be divided into three main groups. The Jewish Christians, who were the original followers of Jesus and out of this group, the Gnostic and the Pauline Christians evolved.

To the Jewish and Gnostic Christians, Jesus was not some supernatural being with super human powers. He was a great spiritual teacher and they believed that god was in him because god is in everything. We are all god.

Unfortunately, the Pauline Christians hooked up with the Holy Roman Empire and deemed all other christians heretics and Christianity has gone downhill ever since.

However, because of an incredible discovery in Egypt in the last century, we can now read the unedited orignial writings, from which the New Testament is only a small part. For anyone interested in the real teachings of the early christians this is the motherlode.


http://www.gnosis.org/library.html

http://www.gnosticchristianity.com/


Peace be with you,
PBWY
DYEW

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just so much brainwashing for the masses

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We've known for over a century that the text of the Old Testament was deliberately selected from a variety of older sources and carefully manipulated for various social and political ends. What's amazing is that this can still cause controversy today.

The entry at Wikipedia is worth looking up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Scientific_views

Another day at DU. Another I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you-thread. Gotta love DU.

then we better face this issue head on. Ignoring it won't make them go away.

The Democratic Party has never had a problem having those of faith and those who do not believe, why do some here have an issue with it?

making it an issue?

Or any of the other dozens of anti-religion threads. So I am not making it an issue, I am merely responding to the hate.

The Gods thank you.

RL

I defend religion. I don't defend haters of any stripe.

that you hate, hate?

Instead of being so defensive, didn't Jesus us want us to be forgiving?

It is wrong whether you hate people based on religion, gender, sexual preference or race.

Without you Giftmas would just disappear from the face of the earth.

Yup, a seat next to God in heavan is assured the defenders of Giftmas.

RL

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How would you feel if someone said your whining makes you look ridiculous and bigoted?

and it's not 'anti-religion'. Neither does it contain any hate (I can't speak for the message that was deleted before I saw it).

It's a report of a documentary, made by a Christian, that is going to be broadcast on Chritsmas Day (possibly to get it more publicity for Channel 4).

The documentary is discussing the ideas, quite widespread among scholars (hence some the the posts saying "what's new"?), that much of the "history" in the Old Testament may be incorrect; and the New Testament was highly selective from the Christian writings available at the time. While frequently debated amongst biblical scholars, this doesn't get so much play among the gerneal population, whether Christian or not.

The documentary is also pointing out how some 'Christian' groups use this highly disputed information as the basis for their modern day politics. That is highly relevant to DU.

Your reaction (that this is hatred of Christianity) is interesting, and topical. England is considering passing a law to ban incitement of religious hatred. The British government says this wouldn't cause any problems for religious criticism or satire. However, you (a progressive Christian) are saying that any mockery of religion is hatred. Most of the posters here, also progressive, disagree. This may mean that the law is going to have big problems, if apparently similar people can have such widely separated views of what 'hatred' is.

It is impossible to deny there is a strong anti-religion tone to many posts both in this thread and elsewhere on DU. To deny that context is to deny reality.

I think the aggressiveness of evangelicalism has created a new negative image of Christianity. I don't find that surprising at all. Religion seems to be moving in a direction of intolerance that is in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus. I've become overwhelmingly disillusioned with organized religion myself. That's why I keep speaking out as a liberal Christian because I think it's very important that people are able to distinguish between the RR and the rest of us.

Right? :eyes:

That would be a start.

So if you do something to earn it, then you shall receive it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

For starters. Maybe that's part of your problem. You don't seem to respect anyone or anything.

Nobody is ENTITLED to my respect simply because the DEMAND it. One's religious believs are not a free pass to my AUTOMATIC respect in spite of everything else they do that's worthy of my scorn and contempt.

is that enough to earn my respect?

RL

No for some of his beliefs.

he is BENEATH contempt. He's vile. I have more respect for a bloated swine carcass than I do for his sorry ass. What a pathetic excuse for a human being he is!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nothing gets a pissing contest going here like a religion thread. I have my own personal beliefs and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks/believes. But I do get tired of fundies telling me I'm going to hell because I'm not "born again," (though that tends not to happen on DU, thankfully) and atheists telling me how stupid I am for believing in God. There are assholes on both sides of the fence.

I agree that the separation of church and state is an important issue today. I feel, and have always felt, that belief should be a private matter. (I also see valuable life lessons in all the great faiths -- Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc.)

However, there has to be a more constructive way to approach/discuss this issue.

but unfortunately, if you don't deal with the fundies directly and in a language that they can understand we will never take back our country.

If fighting fundies isn't you cup of tea, no problem. With 12 years of catholic education, I have special training in this area. I love running rings around them.

12 years of Catholic education, that is.

I think you missed my point, though. There are no fundies here on DU. (And if they are here, they're nuttier than I think.) I've read Alicia's posts and she doesn't sound like a fundie to me -- if she were, she'd have condemned your immortal soul to hell by the fifth post.

Most of the Christians here are pretty left-wing, and, like myself, believe in the separation of church and state. If you want to take on fundies, fine -- but this is the wrong place to do it.

It'd be nice if believers and non-believers on this board could agree to disagree on the faith issues, live and let live, and concentrate on the one issue on which we could work together. Theocratic governments FAIL. Any student of history knows that, and yet these idiots try, try again.

This place gets dumber and meaner every day. I remember a time when you could learn a lot here and enjoy some good company, but that seems like a very long time ago. Now it's mostly just shouting and cheap shots and tinhattery and people preening themselves on how much better they are than "the sheeple." A mirror image of Free Republic, in other words.

and had read the bible from cover to cover many times, said that his theory was that the bible was a collection of contemporary novels of those times.

The various myths, laws, songs, poems, chronicles, prophecies and religious texts that make up the Bible were written over many centuries. Most of the authors had no idea that at some future date their works would be lumped together and be regarded by certain people as the literal word of God. This fact alone, however, does not necessarily invalidate the Bible as piece of religious literature or a historical source. It just means that the contents have to be examined critically within the context of the times when they were written. To dismiss the New Testament as a source of information because it was written by people who were "no where near the events they describe" would also require people to reject much of the works of Thucydides, Herodotus and Tacitus together with most of the classics of ancient Rome, Greece, the Middle East, India and China. Indeed, this criterion would invalidate 99.9999999999999% of all the journalism written today.

Apart from various evangelical fundamentalists most serious Christian scholars have accepted the fact that the Bible is a historical document open to analysis and criticism for over a century. It really is a cheap shot by Channel 4 to plunder the research carried out by these academics over many years and then sell it to a gullible public as a stunning new revelation. My respect for this TV station disappeared some time ago when they started churning out cheap reality programs like 'Big Brother' which would trouble to test the intelligence of a slug.

On edit - The contents of this thread just confirms my belief that the one subject never to talk about in bars is religion. It always ends in a fight.

While I agree the analysis and criticism may not be new (though I guess we have to wait to hear the exact message of the documentary), I disagree that broadcasting it is a 'cheap shot'. I think a lot of British people won't know about extra gospels, archaeological evidence for a different history of Israel, and so on. Scheduling it on Christmas Day may be a cheap shot, however, since it looks designed to get a few Christians, especially fundamentalists, sufficently riled that it gets free publicity.

I despise Big Brother along with you.

contradictions.

An honest admission of that fact, would serve to alleviate much.

It has nothing to do with "faith" unless one is so against reading the Bible over and over and bringing forth the inconsistencies and contradictions, that they refuse to admit this book is the work of ancients who were, no doubt, writing a treatise on how to survive as a tribe in the desert.

The Bible, as Christians know it, is NOT the Jewish bible. Indeed the NT is so convoluted and so filled with contradiction that it would make the objective reader's head spin.

The Bible is laced with mythology,much of it borrowed from the mythology of other ancient people. (Read the Epic of Gilgamesh)

Read the history of the Christian religion and not just from one book.

It is not HATE to bring those inconsistencies and contradictions to attention. It is a point of fact. And whatever says that someone must "respect" people's faith? I have seen more disrespect of the Fundamentalist religion here on DU from other Christians, than from any atheist. No one is obliged to "respect" anyone's faith at all.Whatever for?

No one should mock that faith, but "respect" it to the point where truth would be muffled? Not a good idea for me.

People are welcome to believe or have faith in whatever they want,even in alien space mobiles that will take them to heaven's gate, however those who have read the entire Bible, and more than once,with an open and discerning eye, and those who do some research, will not fail to see the contradictions, plainly.

Why is it so hard to admit that? What would anyone lose by admitting that? What would be so lost, if any believer admitted this book, written by ancients who knew nothing of today's scientific achievements insist that it is the word of a god?

Read Bishop Spong "Christianity Must Change or Die"

Read the work of the Jesus Seminar

Read the history of how the current Christianity came to be and how it changes over time.

And stop demanding "respect" for your faith if you are not willing to give respect to Jim JOnes and his followers, or to George Bush, his faith and his followers, or any number of sects that people have "faith" in.

"Who Wrote The Gospels" by Dr. Randel McCraw Helms
Hardcover: 178 pages
Publisher: Millennium Press, 1997
ISBN: 0965504727

Short, readable and fascinating account comparing the 4 gospels, illuminating the inconsistencies and errors.

Helms, a lifelong Bible scholar, is also the author of "Gospel Fictions" and other great books on the subject.

I once had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Dr. Helms. It started like this (from memory):

"When you read the New Testament, remember that you are not reading history or biography. You are reading propaganda, intended to help start a new religion."

I will look for it.

Another that refutes the accepted historical accuracy of the Bible is a book by Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman. "The Bible Unearthed"

..."But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all"

PP 5-The Bible Unearthed

This scholarship has been out there for a century and is unsettling for
the grossly naive interpretation of Holy Writ. Lots of smoke and fury around something more interesting than threatening.

The work began with a safe study of the myth of the poet Homer. It seems it was more an amalgam of several "Homers" over a long period with particular slants. Oral tradition is rife with slant, but at least it wasn't the idolatry of a finally fixed paper text.

Anything stated with hyperbole and gotcha talk is buried in the fight, but it is very legitimate to question the malleable nature of editorship that suddenly stops and within one generation of ignorance gets treated like Fox News "fair and balanced". Equally bad is the editorship or misinterpretation and contemporary slant that pretends they aren't manipulating the traditions just as much as some scribe pretending he is Moses, but who is(usually) more religiously faithful to the spirit of his faith.

There were eyewitnesses in the NT but it is a close thing. Most is second generation and Paul who was a post Pentecost arrival. The Churches who used the books in their services finally wrote them down as the age of the apostles became persecution and the Jews were FINALLY writing down their own canon after losing Jerusalem- again.

Buddhist texts for example come far far after the time of the founder. The farther away the less reliable. Oral tradition in between is pretty iffy in some ways. People reading the Left Behind books can indulge even further in the opposite discredited fantasy but their retreat to the future in utter fantasy just goes to show you.

These "shocking" facts are part and parcel of nearly every seminary and religious school curriculum with no harm done and a lot more depth for having the truth better known.

EVERYONE edits.

Except god. Who apparently wrote this book. Every word, start to finish. It's holy. Yep.

:eyes:

the theory is that not only was it edited but it was reused and embellished by using the same story from the old scriptures, but told with different characters. It was call Midrash and there were NO copyright laws in that time. This was accepted practice.

Simply put, the scribes used the old stories to form a new one with the same theme, to fit the times.

It's not news that the Bible, including the "books of Moses," has multiple authorship. Reputable scholars of religion have known this since the nineteenth century, and mainstream clergy learn this in seminary. It's also known that most of the New Testament was written long after Jesus' time and that Paul didn't write all the letters attributed to him. Not news if you keep up with this stuff.

It's also true that the editors made choices about what books to include. Again, common knowledge among mainstream clergy since the nineteenth century.

But to say that "it's all spin" is an exaggeration. The four Gospels, for example, are four different spins on the same story, but all of these stories circulated in the oral tradition before being written down.

The Old Testament was already compiled by Jesus' time and existed in two versions, one in Hebrew and one in Greek (the Septuagint) for the benefit for the growing communities of Jews living outside Judaea. All the events it refers to happened before about 600 BCE. It is believed that the first five books, the ones that constitute the Torah in Jewish tradition, were compiled after the return from the Babylonian exile from unknown sources, maybe some written and some oral.

The story of how the Bible came to be is in interesting one but it sounds as if the TV reporter is deliberately trying to be "in your face."