Maher: “I lied” about direction of new film to participants
posted at 9:55 am on October 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
CNN looks into complaints from people appearing in the new Bill Maher film, Religulous, that filmmakers misrepresented their aims in interviews. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) claims to have been taken out of context, but others claim that Maher and director Larry Charles flat-out lied. Both of them admit to it:
Pryor’s complaint seems minor compared to the other allegations in this piece. I would imagine that PBS might have some issues with Maher and Charles posing as members of their news teams to gain the trust of these subjects, as it will make it more difficult for them to get interviews in the future. I imagine CNN would have provided a lot more criticism of this practice had Maher posed as one of their news units, although CNN does a pretty good job of reporting on Maher and Charles in this piece.
Documentaries only have value when they report truth and don’t distort for propaganda purposes. Religulous obviously falls into that latter, Michael-Moore category, and that was obvious from the first time I saw the trailer a month ago. It speaks ill of any documentary filmmaker and the value of their project when they lie about their intentions and misrepresent their project as baldly as Maher and Charles do here. Deception may be needed in investigative journalism when uncovering government abuses or similar practices in the private sector, but how much deception would be necessary to find extremists in the various religions of the world? Most of them constantly clamor for attention.
In the end, a documentary exploiting the extremists in any endeavor for laughs does nothing but feed the smug superiority of the filmmakers. It’s the worst kind of self-indulgence, and in this case exposes the bigotry of Maher and Charles. We already knew that much about Maher, and now we know he’s also intellectually dishonest as well, without the courage to stand in front of his project and have a valid debate rather than lie and then poke fun of billions of people by equating them with the freak show he himself stages.
Update: Yes, CNN still can’t figure out how to create embeddable code for its videos. Yes, they’re incredibly lame. Click the link at the top to take you to the video on CNN’s site.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
OK then.
Of course, seeing the paucity and ineffectiveness of these trolls, they need all the feeding they can get!
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I don’t believe in any god. I’ve already made that clear. You talked out of your ass about Christianity and you haven’t the guts to back it up. You’re an atheist zealot, just like the Christian zealots I was arguing with in another thread. You’re two sides of the same coin.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Well at least you’re not bitter.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Wouldn’t this sort of thing open the filmmakers up for lawsuits? Libel seems to have been committed.
MadisonConservative: You aren’t bitter, or shrill, but reasoned and patient. Don’t let the zealots get you down.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Wow. Where to begin?
Muslims began taking Christians as slaves since they swarmed out of Arabia in the mid-7th century. As late as the 16th century, the Portuguese began the African slave trade. European opposition of slavery began long after that and was due largely to the influence of the Christian faith. In Britain, the abolition of slavery in the 18th century was due largely to effort of one man: Wilberforce. To this day, Muslims continue the practice of slavery.
Then I suggest you read it again – along with some of Paul’s other letters. St. Paul knew and appreciated the actual abuses and evil possibilities of slavery and he addressed himself to the regulations and the betterment of existing conditions. He inculcated forbearance to slaves as well as obedience to masters (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22; 4:1; Philemon 8-12, 15, 17; 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9). He taught that the Christian slave is the Lord’s freedman (1 Corinthians 7:22), and vigorously proclaimed the complete spiritual equality of slave and freeman, the universal, fatherly love of God, and the Christian brotherhood of men. These fundamental Christian principles were the leaven which slowly and steadily spread throughout the whole empire. They curtailed the abuses of slavery and finally destroyed it.
Actually, they didn’t and slaveowners more often than not argued that negroes were not “fully human,” much the same argument made today by the pro-abortion crowd.
ManlyRash on October 14, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Wasn’t McVeigh some sort of religious wacko? I can’t recall exactly.
Though you’re right that Christianity isn’t known for blowing up buildings in the name of their faith. Conflicts which involve religious differences can be bloody, however. Ireland comes to mind. Catholic vs. Protestant was an aspect of the conflict.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Yeah here I am an Atheist, Conservative, occasionally attends church with family to make Mother happy, supports polititians who are fundamentalist and mormons etc, and on this site that makes me a zealot. Raaaight. MadisonC I guess that makes you a Middle of the Road Zealot then. I didn’t respond to your Straw Man so that makes me a zealot. You are so smart for having studiously avoided any strong belief other than that of your own superiority. Meh.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Hawthorne on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Sorry, i forgot to close the blockquote apparently.
Hawthorne on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
That’s been the standard knock on the movie. I haven’t seen it, but in the trailers I’ve seen he interviews people with ordinary Christian beliefs (like the rapture, literal interpretation of Genesis, etc…). Maybe someone who saw the movie can tell me, what extremists did he interview to distort mainstream Christianity? I think Religulous has raised an outcry because it broke the taboo that religion can’t be criticized.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Actually religion has little to nothing to do with the conflict.
They are arguing over home-rule, not transubstantiation or the priesthood of all believers.
The dividing line between Ireland (Catholic) and England (Protestant) just happens to be an easy (if inaccurate) shorthand notation of understanding the two sides.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 5:03 PM
You’re not really serious about that “taboo that religion can’t be criticized” are you?
DaVinci Code, ‘god is not good’, ‘The god delusion’, The ‘Jesus’ tombs, etc. etc.
And that’s just from OUTSIDE religion. I couldn’t possibly list here all of the “internal critiques” of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM
BTW – a literal interpretation of creation (heavens and earth all created in 6 24-hour periods) is NOT a mainstream Christian belief.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Ed,
Are there any facts in the CNN video to support Pryor’s allegations? He says he was taken out of context, but he doesn’t say how. He says he was trying to be humorous. That much is obvious from the clip of the film shown. Also (I honestly don’t remember) in your review of the creationist propaganda film, “Expelled,” were you critical of Ben Stein for lying to Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers about the title and purpose of his film? Were you critical of the way they heavily edited Dawkins’s remarks about the origins of life? Is there any reason to believe that Cummings, who by your account represents Christianity poorly, is telling the truth about not knowing of Maher’s involvement? After all, he apparently chose not to leave when “Maher slid in at the last second.”
I find it hard to believe that all the people Maher interviewed couldn’t guess they were going to be ridiculed. It’s Bill Maher, that’s what he does.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM
There are two kinds of religious zealots: pro-religion zealots and anti-religion zealots. I’m neither, and you’re the latter. I have my beliefs but I don’t have the arrogance, gall, and vapidity to spend my time insulting someone else’s beliefs simply because I don’t hold them. Zealots do, like you have done in this thread. When you put down entire faiths for no reason other than the fact that they differ from yours, you are a fundamentalist nutjob, and you disrespect one of the biggest reasons this country was founded.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Actually. It is for me. And pretty much everyone I Bible study with.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Oh, and my question wasn’t straw man. It was direct and simple. You asserted that Christians tend to want to kill people who don’t hold their faith. Either back it up with substantial evidence, such as the 10,000+ Islamic terror attacks I mentioned in just the last several years, or admit that you were talking out of the same place you seem to hold your faith.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Any cursory perusal of even the most elementary sort provides evidence of religous violence perpetrated by various religious sects in which christianity holds a prominent position. Your beerbar approach to discourse matches your obsession with my anus perfectly. Manga!
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 5:24 PM
That’s my old senator!
Pryor (D-AR) is a good man, I voted for him in 02 and I’d vote for him again. He’s one of the moderate/conservative dems, a heath shuler / jon tester / heck even harold ford.
He has to do the typical big govt votes on unimportant things, but overall he’s a smart guy. Which is why that clip is so infuriating…. he’s NO idiot.
battleoflepanto1571 on October 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM
It’s not as common as it used to be, but it’s a major player.
From a poll conducted by Focus on the Family:
Hm, I didn’t read that part of the DaVinci Code, but it’s obviously got your dander up. I think its funny that, for instance, a visiting pastor to Palin’s church can call for non-Christians to be replaced by Christians in our banking establishments and political authorities without raising much of an objection (people were more concerned about the “witchcraft prayer”); but write a book that say Jesus had a kid (i.e. that the bible is not literally true in every respect) and that sure gets people upset. You wouldn’t think twice about telling an atheist that he/she is an amoral drag on society, would you?
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM
I didn’t say it was rare, just that it isn’t mainstream.
None of the major protestant denominations nor the Catholic church believe in a literal creation story.
Now, I’m not saying this to “pick a fight”, simply noting a point.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 5:31 PM
In other words, you’re telling me to do my own research. No, dipstick. You made the assertion. You back it up. Show us the Christian Al Qaeda, the Christian PLO, the Christian Tamil Tigers, the Christian Red Brigade, the Christian Hamas and Hezbollah and so on. Show us the Christian 9/11.
Prove that you have a goddamned clue what you’re talking about.
Otherwise, shove your unsubstantiated smears of a religion up where your brain is located.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 5:33 PM
What sorts of criticisms of religion are acceptable? It seems that any criticism is, by its nature, an insult to belief. So are you saying (honest question, I don’t mean to harangue you) that no criticism of religion is acceptable? i.e., that criticism of religion is taboo?
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 5:33 PM
I missed that point.
And if that IS what he said, then I would have problems with it.
No, write a book that purposefully distorts basic, factual church history, and instead, just makes stuff up in order to make a gnostic point…
…THAT gets people upset.
Why, do you think I would just because I believe in God?
That’s an interesting view of Christianity that you have there.
Interesting, but quite wrong.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 5:35 PM
And I didn’t say it was mainstream, I said it was ordinary.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 5:37 PM
ordinary = mainstream
Let’s not pick at words, though.
Literal belief in the creation story (God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24-hour periods of time), is NOT ordinary.
It’s not rare and quite prevalent in fundamental, evangelical churches, but it is still not quite “ordinary.”
And I’m not really swayed one way or another by a FoF poll.
Show me a poll that goes nationwide and asks a large and diverse segment of Christians, THEN I’ll change my mind.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 5:40 PM
LOL. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I could care less that you choose to remain ignorant. I do enjoy watching you gnaw your guts out in rage over a meaningless comment to an idiotic troll. More interest in my ass. Telling.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Yeah, the DaVinci code played loose with history. So did Raiders of the Lost Ark. It wasn’t supposed to be a documentary. FWIW, I thought it was unexceptional even as an adventure.
I think that because it’s one of Christianity’s main lines of attack against atheism, and it passes without comment in every instance it’s raised. It’s not even considered impolite for a Christian to tell me that I have no basis for morality, and therefore no capability of morality without belief.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 5:46 PM
I never said there was unacceptable criticism. I did say accusations that are unsubstantiated are unacceptable, especially when they are answerable. Claiming that the Christian faith is a violent religion that seeks to kill all others has been rehashed over and over, primarily by dhimmis and Muslim fundamentalists trying to distract from the fact that they are currently leading the religious hatred body count by thousands upon thousands. Rosie O’Donnell was a famous proponent of this fallacy.
As I said, if someone makes a serious accusation against a religion, I want to see evidence to back it up. If someone makes the claim that Islam is violent, there is plenty of evidence to provide. If someone makes the claim that Scientology is a cult, there is plenty of evidence to provide. The evidence about Christianity being violent, 90% of the time, reverts to events from hundreds of years ago. It’s irrelevant because all those violent Christians are dead now. The Christians in this time period have so far been unable to take home the gold crown in the genocide category.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM
The guy is a little worm.
JellyToast on October 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Also MC Assmaster, I never referred to terrorism at all. That’s your obsession. Nor did I claim Christians had any such equivalence. But don’t let little things like factual statements deter you from fantasizing about my nether regions and what I keep there.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM
I never mentioned your ass. I simply mentioned “where your brain is located”.
Thanks for clearing that matter up, though.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Just keep on running from your own words, you bigmouthed jackass.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Wait a minute, you can’t wait until you’ve already picked at a word and tell me not to pick back. RZ, you’re not fighting fair! Heh. I’m pretty sure you know what I meant by ordinary, though, so I’ll let it go.
I just noticed that the FoF poll was a web poll, so I shouldn’t have bothered with it. According to a 2006 CBS poll from the site I linked, which was a scientific poll, 55% of adults believe that God created humans in their present form. That supports my contention without proving it, I think.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Bill is in for a big surprise come judgment day!
christene on October 14, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Yeah well. NOBODY messes with our potlucks. We will potluck you under the table, mister.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 14, 2008 at 5:57 PM
During the publicity run-up to the movie, Dan Brown was interviewed many times. In many of the interviews, while stating that the storyline is fiction, he also stated that he very much believed in the underlying gnostic beliefs.
Since said gnostic beliefs can ONLY be supported with the twisted and incoherent church history he presented, it’s not much of a jump to understanding that he really BELIEVES what he wrote about church history.
It should also be stated that the same kind and types of historical “mistakes” made in the DaVinci Code can also be found in many other non-fiction books (‘god is not good’ being one of them).
Well, I’m sincerely sorry to hear that you have been treated that way.
I’ve heard that ‘argument’ before, and it’s really a complete (and probably WILLING) misunderstanding of a deeper conversation (where does morality come from?).
I simply don’t think it gets anyone anywhere by completely dismissing and insulting your opponent.
Obviously, though, others disagree.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Exactly how many of the 7 Deadly Sins did these 2 clowns violate whilst making this film? At some point they’re bound to be smote upon the head…
ocbrat on October 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Oh god. They’ve got miniature bibles. RUN BEFORE THEY EXPLODE!!!!
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I should have been a little clearer in what I wrote and I certainly didn’t mean to come across as nitpicking.
As a former math teacher, I’d have to see how the question was asked and what the alternative choices were before I gave that any credence.
I taught statistics in high school and this was a major point I made – how and where you ask your questions can have a very definite impact on the answers received.
I usually used as an example an old Burger King commercial that cited a study that showed something like 8 out of 10 people preferred the Whopper to the Big Mac.
However, in the fine print it stated that the people asked were all Burger King customers!!
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 6:06 PM
So where is the mention of terrorism?
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 6:19 PM
No wonder some conservatives are voting for Obama. They think exactly like he does.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 6:22 PM
This from the guy who says the bible is full of mistakes, of conflicts, and then when challenged to bring forth any pertinent conflict or error…says it is too complex to explain.
Talk about not having the guts to back it up…please go to your foolish atheist websites and regurgitate their arguments.
Many have in the past…do you really think the secular world would sit on this “priceless” information?
Google away my biblical scholar, and please feel free even to include the Hebrew and Greek text…I might even be able to understand your brilliance in that area…
right2bright on October 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Huevos…
right2bright on October 14, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Here’s another 10-dollar bet:
What makes the green grass grow?
I knew you’d appreciate that ;)
leetpriest on October 14, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Maher is going to hell (not for this movie, but for not believing in God), and I’m not wasting money on his garbage, but I’m outraged at the blantant disregard for the truth while filming this kitty litter.
madmonkphotog on October 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM
LYING SCUM.
profitsbeard on October 14, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I’ve seen people say that Atheists have no morals. This is, of course, an absurd claim. They very demonstrably do.
The contention is that a naturalistic atheist has only one means for explaining the existence of that moral code; it must be a social construction that enhances evolutionary successes in some way. Man is moral because those with morals or those individuals who exist within moral societies were better at reproducing. Given the current enlightened state of mankind, we have no reason to follow such a moral code should we desire to do otherwise; especially since many moral codes discourage widespread reproductive activity. Of course, there’s no good reason why the survival of the species is necessarily a “good thing” Under those conditions the very concept of a “good thing” is wholly subjective.
That in mind … each atheist must figure out right and wrong for themselves. You must create meaning in absence of some external source of it. I believe existentialists called this “facing the abyss.”
The no morals claim is insulting and wrong. The other is … well I don’t see too many ways around it unless you’re going to presuppose some absolute guiding source of good that isn’t a god of some sort…
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 14, 2008 at 6:58 PM
…I’m shocked…SHOCKED, I tell you…both Captain Renault are both shocked…he that there’s gambling going on at Rick’s, and I that Bill Maher would lie….
…I bow my head to weep….
Bill Maher would be useless if he were only to be cut up and used for bait…he’d screw that up somehow….
Puritan1648 on October 14, 2008 at 7:08 PM
You made a claim now back it up. Right. Or are you as lost as you appear?
Where do I equate Christianity with AQ?
Where do I accuse Christianity of terrorism?
I’m sorry but “Provide 10,000.000.000.000 examples of Christian terrorism or your heads up your ass” is just not a strong argument and might be confused by your intellectual inferiors (the population of Earth) as hysterical ranting.
Jussayin’
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Oh dear me, excuse me if I didn’t want to turn a post about gay marriage into an all-out discussion of the Bible.
Here’s a start. Happy?
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Anyone who looks foolish in his movie make themselves look foolish. And not all of them look foolish, and not all of them are Christians. Bill asks people questions and they respond. The look on that congressman’s face when Bill asked him, What else from the bronze age do we still cling to? was priceless.
deewhybee on October 14, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Not wanting to wander into someone else’s debate but I thought this might help.
Jesus himself critiqued the various Jewish sects (himself being Jewish) that were in existence while he was teaching. However, he did this to illustrate proper behavior by pointing out improper behavior. It was not for his own self-gratification.
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Hm. You accuse Christianity of tending to kill those who don’t believe their faith.
Typically, when that happens, today, we call that terrorism. I understand you may have not left your mother’s basement in the last 20 years, but your ignorance of the state of current world events is not my problem.
…but I understand. It’s nuance. You meant that Christians were killing non-believers on a regular basis, but not for purposes of terror. I do apologize for “taking you out of context”.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:32 PM
“That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman” (2 Chronicles 15:13).
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Right. That Presbyterian church down the street is really a holy warrior training camp.
And anyway, that wouldn’t be like terrorism.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:37 PM
.
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).
.
That’s what I mean o master of nuance.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:37 PM
<blockquoteMadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Never said it did. But hey don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Ah, I see. Your evidence is in the writings of a 2000 year old book, not of anything that’s actually…you know, happened.
I’m still waiting for you to tell me of the Lutheran and Baptist and Methodist churches that got together and started wiping out infidels.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:40 PM
By the way. That is the very definition of Straw Man.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Seeing how the people in question were worshiping Asherah (the Caananite goddess descended from Inanna and consort of Baal), a goddess who demanded human sacrifice, are you supporting the free practice of human sacrifice?
Or is that okay because its not Christians (actually the Hebrew people since you used the Old Testament) carrying on?
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 7:42 PM
You said Christianity tends to kill non-believers. How would that not make them holy warriors, and thereby their meeting places holy warrior training camps?
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Hey, Mr. “nuance” – quoting from parables is not quite the same thing as quoting commands.
Oh, and 2 Chronicles is history, not a place to find future applications.
In other words, that is what happened, not what should or will happen.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Seeing how this was a prophetic reference (within a parable at that) to the destruction of the Great Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 I fail to see how this quote has any weight.
Jesus was critiquing his own, and condemning the supposed faithful who follow in words only as much more guilty than, say an atheist.
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Let’s do a quick refresher. Straw man is misrepresenting someone’s views.
You stated that Christians “tend to kill non-believers”.
I’m waiting to see how asking what Christian churches or believers have gone on non-believer killing missions, also known as holy wars, is straw man. I guess I’m just so stupid because I’m not an atheist, right? You’ve insulted the faithful and agnostics.
…which is everyone but atheists. Huh. Almost like you…attack everyone who is a non-atheist. How odd.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Hahaha. So keep raising the bar.
1. For one thing point where I said they ever did.
2. That 2000 year old book is the one currently in use.
3. You keep inferring that I somehow think Christianity is equivalent to radical Islam which not only could not be further from the truth but is also not supported by anything I have written here.
Here. You need to bone up.
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru1.htm
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Psalms 79:6: “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.”
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die…”
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Then we’re done as a religion. If you cannot accept the base of our beliefs as the Pentateuch in it’s literal teaching, what else is up for interpretation? My bad, ronsfi, you win.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM
-sigh-
Not another use of the Crusades as “proof” that Christians are ‘violent.’
There’s got to be something like Godwin’s Law that predicts how quickly the Crusades get brought up in any religious discussion on the internet.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM
All right, we’ve established that you’re a deceitful, intellectually dishonest little prick, and have made it pretty clear that you’re the atheist equivalent of the gay-haters I was arguing with in the gay marriage thread.
I’ll waste no more time, and leave simply your own words right under your cute little game of “I didn’t say that“.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM
One person’s personal request for GOD to pour out justice is simply not the same as a continuing command for Christians (or Jews) to continue to kill.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 7:56 PM
The slow march toward a nihilistic, godless, Marxist society is just about here I guess. Through proxy.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM
2 Chronicles 15:10-15 “So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem…And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. [The LORD] was found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about.”
We’ll just pretend that these other scriptures don’t exist.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Again, your personal invective aside, the point is still true and valid – literal 6 day Creationism IS NOT mainstream (or ordinary).
Whether you like that or not or AGREE with it or not is not the point.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM
I’d argue that God, unless you can demonstrate that he exists, isn’t genuinely the source of good. I don’t think you need to justify morality on a purely authoritarian basis, either. We’re getting our morality, provisionally, from the same sources: tradition, imagination, and biological necessity.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM
<blockquoteMadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM
I accept your surrender. Now go read a book.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM
And you continue to pretend that a historical book is the same thing as a CONTINUAL call.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Tell him to name some recent cases of Christians killing non-believers in the last 10 years. It’s so much fun to watch him refuse.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Dude I already refuted your quote of this passage.
You cited a 3rd-grade level website about the Crusades as historical evidence. Why don’t you take your own advice?
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 8:05 PM
That’s right. What’s the point?
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Hawk,
In the middle of a debate where people are attacking our religion, do you REALLY think it’s a good idea for you and I to butt heads over some small point of doctrine?
If you really, really wish to have this discussion, append hotmail.com to my username and email me.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:08 PM
I think something everybody can admire about Jesus (and I’m willing to accept the Jefferson’s Bible version of his life) is that he followed his conscience in defiance of authority.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I don’t refuse. MC. I can give you none. NEVER SAID I COULD. Half the argument you have with me is all in your mind. I said they tend to want to kill me. As is evidenced by their scripture. You keep changing your standard of proof and have the gall to call me deceitful. That all I said. “tend to want to kill me.” and even that was tongue in cheek. But then nut jobs such as yourself insist on vomiting up disjointed chunks of articles, half remembered and even less well understood, from your favorite blogs and radio shows. Angrily accusing me of invective. Puhleese. You’re just incensed that you had your ass handed to you and that I made you so frustrated that you want to cry. Ha!
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM
For what it’s worth, I accept the word of God as written. You can take the slowly diluted version of modern society, but I’ll stick with what the Bible says. If I’m one of the last, so be it. Just know that the Pentateuch is not just the beginning and the first five books of the Old Testament, it is the base of our religion as any house has a base. And without a base, nothing built on it can stand.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM
No that’s fine, I understand what you believe.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 8:15 PM
I link on a curve. Please though, point out the inaccuracies you discovered.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 8:15 PM
And yet the scripture you provided “evidenced” no such thing.
In fact, the only thing it DID “evidenced” was your ability to proof-text a scripture out of context.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Jefferson’s Bible was essentially him sitting down with a pair of scissors and a copy of the Bible and editing out any “superstitious” or undesirable qualities of the Gospels.
To use the oft-used point of attack from Maher and his ilk: I could sit down with a pair of scissors and my copy of On the Origin of Species and make a version that any 6-day creationist could enjoy.
You shouldn’t edit ideas so that they go down nicely and mirror everything you think already. That’s what tyrants and megalomaniacs do, a group that Jefferson hated.
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Yeah yeah the old “Quoted out of context” tripe. One minute the bible is literal and the next oh so nuanced.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Sure, off the top of my head the first page states that Jesus spent the majority of his life in Jerusalem.
Wrong!
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 8:18 PM
For those who missed the point.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Yeah that would be wrong since Jesus never existed.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Taking a sentence out of context is not “nuance.”
Next time maybe you should try to understand what you are mocking less you wind up mocking yourself (which is what you did.)
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:30 PM
There are no serious scholars or historians that doubt the existence of Jesus.
What Jesus was (messiah, prophet, teacher, loon) is what is debated.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:31 PM
You could, if there were any mystical or supernatural parts of On the Origin of Species.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Wait … so earlier you were arguing that you never said Christians were a serious threat and now you’re quoting “violent” scriptures … to prove that they are?
Okay then.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 14, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »