Maher: “I lied” about direction of new film to participants
posted at 9:55 am on October 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 »
Of course not. Because if they doubt the existence of Jesus, then they can’t be “serious”. All supposed evidence is based on hearsay. Also there were many Jesuses and Messiahs. Also since magic is imaginary, the Jesus of Nazareth creation is most certainly fiction.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Any description of the Crusades that doesn’t begin with an explanation of militant Muslin expansionism isn’t a description worth reading.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Getting back on topic, I’m confused by the Christian reaction to Maher’s film. I hear a lot of, “well, those are just the kooks. They don’t really represent Christianity.” OK, but if even Christians are saying that they’re kooks, why is it out of bounds to mock them? It’s not a very nice thing to do a kook, but there are enough of them that it’s in the public interest to mock them.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 8:42 PM
He’s not doing anything besides what we Christians appear to be doing. Cherry-picking what sounds the most plausible to the folks we’re trying to win to Christ.
Hey, don’t like that passage, let me try the parable of the prodigal son. Everyone seems to relate to that. It’s a nice story.
I suppose some parts that are hard to explain by shear faith, are hard to put forward as argument to our beliefs; so we compromise?
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 8:47 PM
No, any scholar that disputes his existence is making a faith based leap of illogic.
I hate to break it to you, but there are many, many secular (read: non-religious) scholars who do not doubt that Jesus existed. They simply doubt the description of him as messiah.
1) Many scholars believe that the earliest scriptures (along with Josephus) were written by or alongside eyewitnesses.
2) The fact that there were many other people named Jesus and many false messiahs is not ‘proof’ that Jesus of Nazerath as known through the Bible did not exist.
3) Again, serious scholars dispute what Jesus did, not whether or not he existed.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:47 PM
If the “kooks” are being used to mock other Christians, then it’s a problem.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 8:48 PM
The movie isn’t spoofing kooks. It’s presenting kooks as an indictment of Christianity and religion as a whole. It’s the equivalent of Michael Moore presenting Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as typical gun owners.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 8:52 PM
If that’s what he’s doing.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 8:55 PM
If it’s such given, why the need for a qualifier? Many scholars? What is a “Many Scholar”?
To me a “Serious Scholar” would be one that doesn’t believe in magical beings ascending to heaven and raising up long dead folks and all the other folk tales pasted onto a roughly historical matrix. Hey but that’s just me.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:00 PM
In all seriousness, why is mockery a problem? Are certain beliefs above mockery? It’s a free country. You don’t have to like it. So don’t go see it.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Umm…
…how about “many” as in “more than one.”
Look, do some research on the subject. There is no real doubt on whether Jesus of Nazareth existed.
What IS doubted is whether or not he was the Son of God or whether he was simply a good teacher whose disciples went a little overboard on describing what he did.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 9:16 PM
1) It’s intellectually dishonest to take a couple of extreme examples and use them to paint everyone else.
2) No one here has said that anything is above mockery.
3) I don’t like it and I’m not going to see it. But it IS a free country and thus I can opine on it.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 9:18 PM
I have researched it. You should. There are NO firsthand accounts. No historical records prior to the four gospels and no one can say who wrote those. We know they were written long after the alleged events took place. The more you dig into it the more shaky the claim becomes.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:22 PM
[Leedom, Massey] For some examples:
Horus and the Father as one
Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus’ 12 disciples)
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:22 PM
What you would call serious scholars I call apologists.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:23 PM
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.
-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar
Elaine Pagels did some very interesting work at Princeton.
See her book The Gnostic Gospels.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypt.IsisHorus.01.png
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Still cutting and pasting there ron?
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 9:36 PM
My trouble with this claim is that religion regularly produces kookiness in its ordinary practice. Right now, there is a serious battle in the Anglican church over gay people, but the issue of homosexuality in terms of traditional ideas is so incredibly minor to point of being neglible. Yet, this large church is having a schism over gay issues. And this type of lunacy about minor issues is common. In terms of religion, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are typical gun owners.
thuja on October 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM
I don’t know about this. We know for sure that there were practicing Christian contemporaneous with the appearance of Jesus. Considering that the central claim of Christianity is that Jesus was the fulfillment of messianic Jewish prophecy, it seems unlikely that the movement would’ve gained a sustainable following without an actual person claiming to be the messiah. The claim doesn’t just rest on the authorship of the gospels. Can you point me to a good summation of the skeptic’s case?
Not directed at you, but that reminds me of another weird criticism of Religulous: that Maher didn’t interview any serious theologians. If Christianity can’t be justified without a PhD (elitism!), how are ordinary people supposed to understand their own religion well enough to even call themselves Christians?
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM
This gets back to my earlier question – can anyone who has seen the film give an example where Maher did anything but interview ordinary Christians? I’m not likely to see the film, I’m not a big fan of the ambush comedy genre. It just seems like it’s being criticized based on assumptions instead of facts.
not at you – I’d still like to hear from Ed on why it was ok for Expelled to lie their way into Michael Shermer’s office, but it’s not ok for Bill Maher to employ the same tactics.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 9:46 PM
I have.
I’ve also read your “proof” – which only proves that you haven’t done any serious research.
1) When you say no one knows who wrote them and then say there are NO firsthand accounts, those two things don’t really agree with each other.
2) A fatal flaw of any so-called “proof” against Christianity is the sole use of the Gospels. Now, the gospels date back far enough that it is entirely plausible that a firsthand witness wrote them. Nevertheless, Paul’s writings predate the Gospels and they contain a wealth of details of the events.
3) Again, one can argue that the details were exaggerated, but no one really doubts the existence a man name Jesus who came from Nazareth whose disciples called the Son of God.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Even the secular, non-Christian, non-believing ones?
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Prove it.
Saltysam on October 14, 2008 at 9:50 PM
I’ve read that book, but obviously you haven’t since you would know that a central tenant of gnosticism is the EXISTENCE of Jesus. In fact, many gnostic beliefs take for granted the divinity of Jesus.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 9:50 PM
I dislike Maher who seems to be a frequent guest on Larry King spewing his brand of nonsense. At last, he’s cast as a weasel. How deserving.
Birdseye on October 14, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Then I have yet to meet them. I’m smack in the Midwest, where churches are just barely outnumbered by bars. My friends have ranged from Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Shinto, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness, Lutheran, Baptist, Buddhist, Daoist, and more. Maybe I just associate with more temperate-minded people, but in my life I have yet to see these fundamentalist nuts as anything other than a small minority of idjits who just happen to have religion as their hobby, instead of ufos, 9/11 trutherism, and all the other fields that wackos get into. The wackos are wackos because they started out as wackos, not because of the religion.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Correct you are but the “Christianity” practiced at that time was not the same one it became after the purging of the Gnostics by about the 6th Century. Gnosticism began with the Ministry of Paul and was eventually merged into Mainstream Catholicism. The Gnosticism holds that Jesus was a spirit not actual flesh. This is in line with Pauls gospel as he never mentions personal meetings with or even the references to the life of, Jesus. In original Christianity Jesus represets an “Intermediary Spirit” or for the uninitiated, the ideal initiate. An ideal to emulate in order to gain “Gnosis” or “Knowing”. My understanding is imperfect but I believe this comes close.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM
From the Wikipedia article on “The Jesus Myth Hypothesis”:
Interesting to note that to back up the notion that most scholars believe in the existence of Jesus the man, the article quotes and notes FIVE scholars (including an atheist New Testament scholar(?!)).
But there is only one “scholar” noted to rebutt this.
Now, using Wikipedia is never “irrefutable proof”, but considering the volatility of the matter and the ease of editing the articles, I find it interesting that the preponderance of evidence in this article is FOR a historical Jesus.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Yes but as a spirit not a man. Spin again.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Flavius Josephus (besides of course the Gospels) beg to differ.
If you’re going to make the cultural diffusion argument then at least get it right. Osiris is the closest analogy to Jesus in Egyptian mythology, not Horus. Maher made that mistake and now you have as well.
Parallels do not equal causality. Mothers holding infants in their laps is not exactly unique to one culture. Hey that’s logic!
I’m curious, when did Thomas Paine write that work? Was it during the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution? The period during the rule of The Committee of Public Safety where thousands of innocent people were executed? Under the rule of the totalitarian state that demanded that everyone attend the services of the Cult of Reason? The age where not wearing a red smurf cap (Phrygian cap) would result in your head being separated from your shoulders?
During the Revolution that atheists and Deists killed anybody who had views different from theirs?
It was that “Age of Reason” that Paine was writing about, right?
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Where did you get this? Dan Brown’s, Christianity 101?
The Council of Nicea was in the 4th century. Geez, Peddle your wares elsewhere mountebank.
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 10:10 PM
What is your point?
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I guess what even my Christian friend here tonight missed the point of, is it requires no level of scholarly understanding. Should Christians study and strive through their lives to always grow a stronger understanding of the Bible? Of course. I do every night. Is it required? Of course not. As hard as it is to grasp, a Christian only really needs to understand/accept John 3:16. You could no more study your way to salvation than you could buy your way to salvation. That’s why they call it faith. I believe in my Bible in it’s entirety. From the Pentateuch to The Revelation. On faith. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I believe in the literal days. I believe in the ages of the patriarchs. I believe in the deluge. I believe that Christ walked the Earth and was crucified for my sins and rose on the third day. And I just don’t believe in Christ, I love Christ.
But you have to hand it to you ron, even though you’re an ass-clown, you’re a persistent ass-clown. I’ve seen so many people like you through my years. It almost seems as important to you to preach the absence of God as people of faith to preach his existence. Almost like a religion in itself huh ron? You didn’t shake my faith. You’re not capable. You did shake my faith in a fellow Christian though and I guess that’s good enough for you isn’t it?
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 10:11 PM
They’re called “Books”. Ancient things really. You wouldn’t understand.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Wow, so many errors and so little time to correct them.
1) There is little difference between early Christianity and later Christianity as far as doctrine and beliefs are concerned. A look at Paul’s writings, the gospels and early Christian documents (like the Didache) show similar beliefs and practices.
2) Gnosticism in general predates Christianity.
3) Paul was not a gnostic. Paul doesn’t mention personal meetings because he never MET Jesus (and states as such). That said, there are some scattered comments that point to a knowledge of Jesus as a person
4) “Original Christianity” lifted up Jesus the person and Jesus the Son of God who lived, died and rose from the dead. You should read Larry Hurtado for further information.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 10:14 PM
You should probably read the texts you cite.
They continue to refute the points you try to make with them.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM
What is your purpose other than to go around trying teabag everybody like some ape house chimp?
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM
You set out to correct me but supported most all my argument. I was addressing the existence of the man/god Jesus of Nazareth not the truthfulness of the gospel. I see no evidence in your argument for the existence of such a person.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:20 PM
There were interviews with ordinary Christians, televangelist types, muslims, Jews, ex-Mormons, gay ex-muslims. And yes, by people’s own admission they will not see the movie so they are tilting at windmills. As I posted earlier, not everyone in the film looks silly. The interview with the guy who plays Jesus at that place in Florida was quite interesting. Bill also talks to a priest who is also a scientist that does not come off as silly.
deewhybee on October 14, 2008 at 10:23 PM
I don’t agree. I think they support the idea that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth of Christian mythology is not supported by the historical record.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Really? I’ve actually read these works and not some pre-digested Wiki.
Sounds to me like your Google bot is in overdrive and you don’t have enough keywords to feed it.
Care to discuss the primary arguments for and against Flavius Josephus’ accounts of Yeshua bar Yosef?
And if your last comment was for me I have two reasons:
1: Entertainment, I find this pretty entertaining.
2: I don’t want this thread turning into an echo chamber for Maher propaganda. Maher is a propagandist and his ideas need to be shot down like spoonbills. (If you don’t duck hunt, spoonbills are pretty stupid and tend to keep circling blinds even after being shot at.)
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I confess however. It has been a long time since I read Pagels and many pages have come in between. This thread has inspired me to pick up one of her other works I have always put off reading. The Origin of Satan.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I’m not sure what reality one must be in to reach the conclusions you just made…
…my post was a refutation of gnosticism as “original” Christianity.
The early dating of such documents as Paul’s writings and the Didache (along with the gospels), as well as extra-Biblical sources like Josephus and Tacitus speak to an executed man whose disciples carried on his teachings.
Again, arguing against the historical Jesus is not going to get you anywhere – there is simply too many facts and too much information that show he existed.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Again, again, and yet again…
…history is pretty straight forward in that a man name Jesus who came from Nazareth taught in and around the Judean countryside in the late first century.
Whether or not the he was the “resurrected Son of God” is up for discussion.
Religious_Zealot on October 14, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Not really troll dung. I am not qualified. Nor do I care. I assure you that I am duly impressed. Again what is your point? Are you just excited to spew hate at a real live Atheist? Congratulations. You can relate your battle with the demon possessed in breathless prose come Sunday.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Where is your historical evidence? Again.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:37 PM
I’m not really sure where received the notion that I was spewing hate.
Simply, you presented arguments and then I deconstructed them. Yes I was provoking you somewhat but I don’t remember slandering you with names or even acting hostile. Now calling me a tea-bagging chimp and troll dung is not very nice, but hey, I have thick skin. I have family members who are atheists and we argue around the dinner table all the time; this is nothing new.
I just want you to challenge the assumptions behind the statements that you were blindly throwing out.
Just remember, a very wise atheist wrote in the 5th century B.C.
darclon on October 14, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Tacitus wasn’t born until 64 AD so he is hearsay.
Josephus was born in 37 AD so once again hearsay.
No contemporary accounts nor any artifacts. No historical record.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Thank you. It really doesn’t sound that bad.
RightOFLeft on October 14, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Thank you. Now I know not to take you seriously.
philwynk on October 14, 2008 at 10:58 PM
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
- Anne Lamotte
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 11:03 PM
This is the province of bigoted fools and complete ignoramuses. If the existence of the person “Jesus of Nazareth” is open to question after serious examination of the supporting documentation, then so is the existence of the Emporer Tiberius, the philosopher Plato, the conqueror Alexander the Great, and really any other figure in history.
Simple facts, known to anybody who has even a small grasp on textual criticism from the New Testament period, establish that the New Testament accounts are historically trustworthy documents:
1) The New Testament is the best-established antiquity among all known ancient documents, by several orders of magnitude: hundreds of times more documents, copies much closer in time to the originals, greater accuracy in copies, and no serious questions about the accuracy of the texts.
2) Details in the New Testament clearly identify many of the accounts as eyewitness accounts, and clearly not mythical in any sense of the word. Dozens of characters mentioned in New Testament accounts are verified by non-biblical sources as being real characters, holding the positions they’re described by New Testament authors to hold, thus verifying that the writers had knowledge of local officials and offices. Dozens of details confirm authenticity, including such things as accurate soundings of the sea depth as one approaches the island of Malta, knowledge of trade routes, local dialects, unusual names, etc.
3) The writers of the New Testament accounts exhibit a number of characteristics historians use to attribute honesty and accuracy to the writers: the inclusion of personally embarrassing detail, for example, and persistence in announcing details that cost the author personally.
If the New Testament documents (27 separate documents composed by 9 separate authors at different times) are trustworthy accounts (which they are) and we can be certain we have accurate copies of the original documents (which we can), then characters named in the New Testament can be taken to be real, historical characters — even if you don’t believe the miracles. Jesus is the central one of them.
And as if that’s not good enough — and again, it’s orders of f..king magnitude better support than exists for any other character in antiquity — there are more NON-biblical supports for the New Testament narrative than there are for the existence of most of the Roman damned EMPORERS.
ronsfi, just give it up. You’re a mother f..king ignoramus, and you haven’t the slightest f..king clue what you’re talking about. Go home and leave scholarship to people who are actually unbiased enough to perform it. You’re obviously not one of those.
What a f..king tool…
philwynk on October 14, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Do you know what a complete idiot you’re demonstrating yourself to be????
Ken Burns’ history of the civil war: Burns wasn’t born until 1953, so his testimony about Lincoln is hearsay.
Gore Vidal’s “Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.” Vidal wasn’t born until 1925, so his testimony is hearsay.
WHAT IN THE MOTHER F**K DO YOU THINK HISTORY CONSISTS OF?????????
I simply cannot believe the lengths some people will go to in order to pretend other people don’t know anything.
You are the greatest fool I’ve encountered in at least a year. PLEASE go get yourself an education.
philwynk on October 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Same question for me in relation to Jason Mattera. During the DNC everyone was raving about his clips, but somehow those did not warrant such a stern condemnation.
mycowardice on October 14, 2008 at 11:33 PM
It may surprise you to know that scholarship is not practiced in the comments sections of blogs. Nor do I claim to be a biblical scholar. Nor did I claim that there is no historical accuracy to the New Testament. There are many contradictions and innacuracies but still no historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth outside hearsay. You certainly cited none.
As for your ridiculous claim that “and again, it’s orders of f..king magnitude better support than exists for any other character in antiquity”. I find that unsupportable in the face of actual physical evidence such as Temples, Graves, Mummies, Manuscripts, Clothing, etc. of characters in antiquity predating the Mythological Jesus by Millennia.
You might want to consult a doctor concerning your Terets.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Your comparison would only be apt if Ken Burns claimed to have been at the battle of Gettysburg himself and saw it with his own eyes and then signed the account Abraham Lincoln.
I commend you on your impressive use of CAPS! you stud.
ronsfi on October 14, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Well, in fairness to my young conservative hero Jason, there are lefty folks he interviews that are capable of extreme violence if they knew who he was. But you’re right. he was covert, much like infiltrating the Taliban just knowing they have a sharp knife in their sash. Have you seen those bandana wearing thugs kicking at and punching at law enforcement officers. I don’t know how Jason does it.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM
OMG you did a whole thread over there about Eds article didn’t you? Don’t you have any original material? Crap the whole thing is a direct quote from Ed. Well, and then one comment from you. Does Jason Matteras make you mad for showing the whole world liberalism laid bare or are you upset that he gets so much praise from the right? And you see a hypocrisy? I guess that makes sense. Maybe we should jump right in there with the MSM and beat ourselves up too.
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:03 AM
I’ll take that as a joke, because I recall what Jason looked like in those clips and he looked worse than the worst looking protestors.
Also, I think the people he interviewed were not menacing at all. Well, there was this one guy that was trying to share the earth with everyone. He must have scared Jason.
mycowardice on October 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Coward, your site scares me. You’re like a stalker and Jason Matteras is your object of affection. What is with you? Are you obsessed with him?
(Shiver) Spooky, very spooky man.
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:09 AM
You’ve never seen the way those folks treat your military (that you seem to hope and pray some percentage turn out to be liberal) do you? Ever seen them attack recruiters? I have.
BTW, I’ve been in about 31 years and I’d say there is a least 5-8 percent liberal thinking soldiers and officers. You should join and push up the percentage.
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I’m stalking Jason Mattera? For real? How many posts do I have on Jason? Not even ten in over 400 posts? Did you count how many post about Ayers Hot Air had in the last week? I’m sure the ration must not be far from mine :).
Anyways, I think we are drifting away from the point of this post and the related issues that were raised.
mycowardice on October 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM
I didn’t know that Jason served and was/is in the military.
mycowardice on October 15, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Do you like have pictures of Matteras all over the walls of one of the rooms in your place?
Just kidding.
You’re interested in the military and liberals, what do you want to know?
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:22 AM
No Coward, “I’m” in the military. Geez, where did you say you were going to school?
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I find it interesting that you present a lack of evidence as an argument that Jesus did not exist. Did you not learn in school that you cannot prove a negative? Therefore trying to prove that Jesus did not exist is a fools errand. At least the people that claim Jesus did exist have a chance to someday find evidence of their claim. I find it utterly amazing that you choose to stake a position that can never be proven correct then berate others for believing in fantasy.
Hawthorne on October 15, 2008 at 12:26 AM
MC, did you say you had a question about the number of liberals in the military?
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I thought you meant Jason was fearing for his life because he was in the military. And that’s why he got dressed like a… actor in a B serie movie.
mycowardice on October 15, 2008 at 12:29 AM
No dude, I was talking about how violent those guys get. You thought they were a pretty tame crowd. Anyway, did you ask on your site what the percentage of liberals in the military are? Were you seriously asking?
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Not quite. I think I said that Jason made the claim that all the young conservatives go into the military without backing up his claims with facts. So yes, I did ask for actual stats (not wishful thinking states).
mycowardice on October 15, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Some other time then my cowardice I guess. There are a couple of real left wing liberals in the army I’ve met over the years. Not a whole lot. We have a good number of Democrats but I would consider the better part of them Conservative Democrats. There’s probably a majority of folks Republicans. But all of them are patriots regardless of their leaning. Did you want a lot of them to be liberal?
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:44 AM
I’m not sure I care one way or another, but I do care that Jason wrote stuff that was pure speculation and made it sound like it was backed by facts. If you want and haven’t done so already, you can read the few exchanges we had this topic. So do you guys like Bill Maher in the military? How was the ‘coward’ comment received?
mycowardice on October 15, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Oh you’re still here. If I had to go with stats I’d say 60-70 percent strong Republican Conservatives, 25-30 percent Conservative and slightly liberal Democrats and a very small minority extremely liberal Democrats and others. Most really liberal folks, I mean really out there liberal folks, have a hard time with the discipline.
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:48 AM
After he said the terrorists were braver than we were? I don’t think so. Even my very liberal army friends were insulted by him.
hawkdriver on October 15, 2008 at 12:50 AM
So what do you make of the stats that showed many in the military giving to Obama? I know there were some debates with respect to amount of data but from waht I recall Obama was leading there.
mycowardice on October 15, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Fixed.
ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 1:23 AM
So very nice of you to entirely miss the point. I am not claiming the existence or non-existence of Jesus. I am only observing that you have absolutely no chance of ever proving your view while at least the other side has some chance. Editing my post to another name does not change this point whether it is Santa Claus or Jesus. You cannot prove a negative. Therefore your entire premise is based on a belief just as is the argument of the other side. Trying to pretend any moral or scholarly authority on the matter is specious since you cannot ever prove your central premise.
Hawthorne on October 15, 2008 at 2:59 AM
Hawthorne on October 15, 2008 at 3:09 AM
This would be proof of bias, and nothing else. There are rules to historical research based on textual study, and they have been in place since the time of Aristotle. In fact, they are codified in Aristotle’s Poetics and can be summed up as “Give the text the benefit of the doubt ans assume its author is telling the truth until the evidence, both internal to the text and external to it, tell you otherwise.”
When examining the text of the NT, there is a three test methodology developed commonly used by “Serious” scholars (i.e. scholars not trying to publish something sensational in order to drive up book sales). The first is a Bibliographic test, which measures what we know about the document as an artifact: How many copies? How old is the oldest known copy? How many years between the oldest known copy and the actual time of writing? Are there major changes between copies that affect possible interpretation?
The second test is the Internal test. Its basically laying the text down on a couch and asking it about its mother. Were the writers in a position to know about the subject firsthand or did they rely upon eyewitnesses or second hand reports? These kinds of questions.
The third test is the External test, where the text is compared with already known facts about the time and area to see if it corresponds with those facts. This can get quite minute in detail: Does the picture of a dyadic society Honor-Shame challenge as presented in John 8:1-8 match what we know of those challenges durring that timeperiod, or are their anachronistic elements that render it historically suspect?
Using those critieria, Historians and Religious Scholars have concluded that the NT is the most historically accurate document found in the ancient world. It corrects errors made by Julius Caesar, Heroditus, Josephus, Livy, and Pliny the Younger, all concidered reliable historical sources. There has never been an archeological find that contradicts it. ALL arguments about how the NT “gets something wrong” are conjecture based on the silence of the historical record on a given subject, a fact well known even to those “sensationalists” like the Jesus Seminar who make a living writing on how “corruptions” and “myth” render the Bible useless.
With that said, the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the single most verifiable event of ancient history. We have more and better evidence of it than we do of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, or of Alexander the Great’s existance. What causes the problem with that statement is the significance of the Resurrection. For the Historian to say that the reason for the Resurrection was Jesus was the Son of God, and that is the only logical explanation given the facts moves them from Historian to Theologian, a shift many are uncomfortable to make, so they stop short of interpreting the event for that reason. The “what” of the Resurrection is established fact; the “why” makes it problematic for historians and allows room for the sensationalists to make their utterly laughable claims.
Tom Bryant
B.A. – Philosophy (Religious Studies), Cum Laude
Clemson University-2008
papabryant on October 15, 2008 at 5:02 AM
The problem is that Maher is presenting them as the face of Christianity, not it’s kooks.
MarkTheGreat on October 15, 2008 at 7:00 AM
This from the poster, who just a few hours ago, was complaining because he was being mocked.
MarkTheGreat on October 15, 2008 at 7:01 AM
As usual, all ronsfi can display is his ignorance.
Thousands of ancient copies of all of these documents have been found. The differences between the documents are practically non-existant.
There is no serious scholar who doubts that the documents are accurate copies of the originals.
The use of serious is to differentiate real scholars from people like, for example, you.
MarkTheGreat on October 15, 2008 at 7:03 AM
The oldest known fragment of the Gospels is a copy of John, which all scholars believe was the last Gospel to be written. It was carbon dated to between 110AD and 125AD. It was also found in Egypt, which was not one of the first areas to be converted.
Most serious scholars put the writting of the Gospels to the later half of the first century. Not only could the gospel writters have been first hand witnesses, but there were still plenty of first hand witnesses around who could have challenged the accuracy of the Gospels had they tried to misrepresent anything.
MarkTheGreat on October 15, 2008 at 7:07 AM
The Gnostics are “original” Christianity?
Man, is there any subject upon which you are not willing to display your ignorance?
MarkTheGreat on October 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM
Guys, arguing with ronsfi is like arguing with a stump. He hasn’t the brains or desire to believe anything except what he wants to believe.
No matter how much evidence is presented, unless Jesus himself showed up on his doorstep, he won’t believe.
When presented with 5 scholars who disagree with him, and one who does, he immediately points tothe one who agrees with him and declares that his case is conclusively proven.
His only goal is to stir up trouble. He’s a pathetic little man with no social life, so he tries to suck the life out of everyone around him in order to convince himself that everyone else is as miserable as he is. Pray for him, but otherwise ignore him.
MarkTheGreat on October 15, 2008 at 7:17 AM
I like the way C.S. Lewis put it. Jesus is either the LORD, or He’s a liar, or He’s a lunatic.
Lord
Liar
Lunatic
Those are our only three choices. Anything else is just metaphysical mush.
Mojave Mark on October 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM
If Jesus show up on my doorstep I would believe.
By the way “Yer Dum” is not a strong argument.
That is what I call projection.
Why are you so threatened by people who are different from you? Sure sign of a weak personality.
Despite your towering intellect you offer no arguement for your viewpoint other than I suck. Weak.
Have a nice day.
ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Mmmm, this is delicious irony. May I have another piece?
MadisonConservative on October 15, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Sure MC. Why do you think I am threatened by believers? I live in a sea of them. My family are all very religious and I love them. My best friend is a Four Square Fundie. You never get tired of stepping on your dick do you?
ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Because you think they want to kill you.
Therefore I can’t imagine any of them would be friendly with you. They’d be apostates.
MadisonConservative on October 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Once again you take my one comment and blow it out of all proportion. My response was to some scurrelous pschobabbler and was meant largely in jest for argument sake. You took that to someplace YOU wanted to go about how I was absolving Islamists or summin and you still don’t get it. Also your lack of imagination is not at all suprising. Let the hate burn in your sorry craw if you wish. Some of us are understanding and patient with others who believe differently.
ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM
And how thoughtful of you to miss my point as well. The point is to show that your argument may be applied to anything at all. Just fill in the blank. Replace Santa with Zeus or Leprechaun or Superman etc. Anyway you are not interested in anything other that drippling bile onto the your keyboard in some selfserving exersize in futility. Party on!
ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Your drawout appeal to authority notwithstanding you may want to investigate the history of the China and it’s multitudes of impericaly verifiable events predating the Jesus of Nazareth Myth considerably and were recorded in contemporaniously written accounts. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM
And I’d argue that if God does not exist, there is no such thing as an objective good. Hence all “goods” are equally valid.
Your morality is indeed derived from the same sources as the theist … you just have no external reason to adhere to that morality. If a purely social construction doesn’t suit you, toss it off like a fad.
A purely naturalistic world is naturally amoral.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 15, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Luke has Jesus being born
1. During the the Reign of Herod
2. During the Reign of Ceasar
3. During the Quiriunius governorship in Syria
Herod died in 4 BC.
The Torah has a great deal of historical relevence. The NT? Not so much. The gospels are chock full of contradictions and inaccuracies.
ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Heh.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 15, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »