History Channel's mini-series, The Bible

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
No, that does not follow. The story of Lot could be true without any of the others being true.

But Damo was not making the point that it is true, but that that it was left out because it casts the Bible in a negative light based on modern moral priniciples.

The point I made in the "Morality without God" thread is clear, i.e., that our morality shapes our religion more than the converse. You and many others attempt to ignore the parts of the bible that leave you uncomfortable and reshape the Bible/religion in modern terms. But if we can ignore/question the story of Lot or of Adam and Eve then we can ignore/question the entire Bible. As history the Bible is extremely dubious, as morality it is even less fit for modern times and as an explanation of the physical world it is completely absurd.
Click to expand...


And the story of Lot could as false as the other stories....who are to pick and choose whats fact or fiction ?
and to claim it casts the Bible in a negative light is ludicrus .... as if the incest and begetting in the first book of Gen. didn't already expose that, that the constant
killing don't already cast the Bible in a negative light.....if one believes in the story of Adam and Eve, where the hell did everyone else come from if not
from incest ?.....


And your contention in the "Morality without God" is a theory, something you choose to believe because you want to believe it...it is not any more factual
than the direct opposite which is way its been looked at and accepted for centuries....monkeys or no monkeys.

Are you also an atheist or just an agnostic like me, or maybe you're a believer.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
And they would have needed the remainder of the series to explain why his actions were righteous, and your interpretation of events is simple-minded and indicative of people who don't understand Christianity. But they aren't trying to win converts. They also aren't producing The Bible, as interpreted by Damo! Again, they are presenting a somewhat vanilla-flavored account of what is in the Bible, and avoiding anything that could be misconstrued or misinterpreted, creating drama and controversy, because they know from experience, Christian audiences will tune out.
Click to expand...
If such is the case then they probably should have avoided the story altogether, like Jonah, Ruth, Joseph and the coat of many colors, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk.. etc. They, smartly, barely touched on the predictions of Daniel.

You are entitled to your opinion, Damo, but I honestly don't think they are trying to win converts, they are trying to win ratings. Non-Christians, (aka: people who need converting) are not watching this mini-series, or at least, are not the target audience. It is presented for Christians to watch because Christians make up an incredibly huge demographic, and they dig this sort of shit at Easter. If you start filling it full of things that can be misconstrued or misunderstood, next thing you know, preachers are denouncing it and Christians stop watching, defeating the purpose of the series to begin with.
Click to expand...
Or, people begin asking questions about what really is in the Bible and gain a better understanding. However those who haven't been in church all that time get what you believe is a "skewed" view, but what in reality is an understanding of what is really there.

I had the same thought... I bet TV time at the Damo house is a fucking thrill a minute!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The kids want to better understand Christianity, it takes a full understanding of the stories to comprehend it correctly. Adding details enhances the stories, and they get to learn about part of my life which they enjoy. They ask questions, I answer them and we grow as a family with a fuller understanding of the past that made us.
 
Damocles said:
If such is the case then they probably should have avoided the story altogether, like Jonah, Ruth, Joseph and the coat of many colors, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk.. etc. They, smartly, barely touched on the predictions of Daniel.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah... they could have certainly chosen not to do a story about The Bible, targeted at Christian audiences at Easter. All of these stores selling Easter supplies could choose not to sell them, and all of the capitalists who offer "Easter Specials" could choose to not do that. Did you have a relevant point here?

Or, people begin asking questions about what really is in the Bible and gain a better understanding. However those who haven't been in church all that time get what you believe is a "skewed" view, but what in reality is an understanding of what is really there.
Click to expand...

But that's not what would happen, had they chosen to depict a controversial scene which could have easily been misconstrued or misrepresented. The following Sunday, preachers across America would have denounced it, and that would have been all she wrote for the mini-series. Christians are not going to be force-fed some alternate view of The Bible, and whenever you get into depicting specific events in a certain way, that's what you'd have. They have to be very careful not to draw controversy, and remain true to the spirit of this endeavor.

I personally think the producers had a daunting task. They had to condense history spanning thousands of years into a 10-hour series, and not step on any toes in the process, but still make something the captured interest and entertained the audience. Indeed, they have left out details, some of them very important, but it seems the details are always centered around something which is either controversial in terms of how various Christians interpret it, or things that are just too difficult to convey in the time-frame available. The story of Lot and his daughters are in this category, I believe. It would have taken too long to establish the back story, to show how the actions of Lot and his daughters was righteous and not something perverted and freaky, and very non-righteous. Rather than commit to the time they would need to convey this, they chose to skip it a move the story along. Again, this isn't a documentary.

:rolleyes:

The kids want to better understand Christianity, it takes a full understanding of the stories to comprehend it correctly. Adding details enhances the stories, and they get to learn about part of my life which they enjoy. They ask questions, I answer them and we grow as a family with a fuller understanding of the past that made us.
Click to expand...

Far be it from me to criticize how you raise your children, that is your business. But there is just a certain 'analness' about your confessing that you pause the movie to 'splain things to the munchkins. I'm sure they learn all about you and your life, and that's great, but did you ever stop to think, maybe these 'answers' you are giving them are not 100% correct? That maybe your opinion is a little off the mark or even (gasp) wrong? Oh hell no, of course this has never occurred to you, because you were born with a bigger and better brain than the rest of us, which means that you are never wrong. Whatever you think, and whatever is your personal opinion, is the truth and correct, and no one should ever doubt that.

So the kiddies get to watch two hours of a show on The Bible, and another hour listening to the old man prattle on about his beliefs on Christianity...... yep, sounds like a Spring Break to remember to me! :P
 
NOVA said:
No, it makes it 'real'....I just didn't want you coming back with strawman crap latter for me saying the 'the Bible is real'.....just wanted to clarify things.
Click to expand...

What strawman?

NOVA said:
But it is true....its as true as the Dead Sea Scrolls or any other ancient writings handed down to us or discovered thats a thousand plus years old.....no one asks you
to believe what it says but the fact is..... it says what it says....to say it isn't true is to deny its existance.
Click to expand...

Again, the fact that the Bible exists does not make it true, which seems to be the claim you made with your incoherent babbling.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
What strawman?



Again, the fact that the Bible exists does not make it true, which seems to be the claim you made with your incoherent babbling.
Click to expand...


The Bibles existence is whats true, as is the existence of DS Scrolls...however, the things written within them cannot be proven to be factual happenings...

but then, why would the ancients authors lie .... in either manuscript....how they viewed and explained events is just totally different than how we would

talk about the same events....I see no reason to call them liars in either case.


I claified what I meant and you still come back with bullshit as I predicted you would....can't help yourself can you, being as asshole that is.

to say it isn't true is to deny its existance.....true, in this case is not the same as factual or accurate.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
And the story of Lot could as false as the other stories....who are to pick and choose whats fact or fiction ?
and to claim it casts the Bible in a negative light is ludicrus .... as if the incest and begetting in the first book of Gen. didn't already expose that, that the constant
killing don't already cast the Bible in a negative light.....if one believes in the story of Adam and Eve, where the hell did everyone else come from if not
from incest ?.....

And your contention in the "Morality without God" is a theory, something you choose to believe because you want to believe it...it is not any more factual
than the direct opposite which is way its been looked at and accepted for centuries....monkeys or no monkeys.

Are you also an atheist or just an agnostic like me, or maybe you're a believer.
Click to expand...

The story of Lot is in Genesis. Did this mini series depict other incestuous relationships from the Bible? Did they tell of Cain marrying a sister/niece?

Of course, the story of Lot could be as false as all the others. Your point was that if it were true that it follows that all the others were, which is not at all true. We certainly can pick and choose what is fact and fiction.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
The story of Lot is in Genesis. Did this mini series depict other incestuous relationships from the Bible? Did they tell of Cain marrying a sister/niece?

Of course, the story of Lot could be as false as all the others. Your point was that if it were true that it follows that all the others were, which is not at all true. We certainly can pick and choose what is fact and fiction.
Click to expand...


So far I didn't see any incestuous relationships from the Bible in the series, and probably won't...whats your point....their are many things that are not mentioned
in the series version...it would be impossible to it.

And no, you can't pick an choose whats true and not true to suit you biased beliefs....thats is totally intellectually dishonest....(well, maybe you could)
 
NOVA said:
The Bibles existence is whats true, as is the existence of DS Scrolls...however, the things written within them cannot be proven to be factual happenings...

but then, why would the ancients authors lie .... in either manuscript....how they viewed and explained events is just totally different than how we would

talk about the same events....I see no reason to call them liars in either case.


I claified what I meant and you still come back with bullshit as I predicted you would....can't help yourself can you, being as asshole that is.

to say it isn't true is to deny its existance.....true, in this case is not the same as factual or accurate.
Click to expand...

So then you are just too high on meth (or whatever) to understand that "true" does not mean "exists?" Quoting your incoherent babbling and responding to the only possible thing it could mean is not a strawman.

True means factual or accurate in the context you used it. If you just wanted to say it exists, then the addition of the word "true" was unnecessary and could only possibly confuse your meaning.

The authors of the Bible were much like Homer writing the Iliad or Tarantino writing Django, but moreso. That is, they were writing of things that happened 100s of years before and intended to have a certain impact on their audience.
 
NOVA said:
So far I didn't see any incestuous relationships from the Bible in the series, and probably won't...whats your point....their are many things that are not mentioned
in the series version...it would be impossible to it.

And no, you can't pick an choose whats true and not true to suit you biased beliefs....thats is totally intellectually dishonest....(well, maybe you could)
Click to expand...

Do you just try to cover your mistakes by adding in as much confused nonsense as possible?

The point was that the mini series left out the incest because it was negative to the Bible. You countered by saying other incestuous relationships were depicted earlier in the Bible. If the mini series did not depict any such relationship then your point is fucking worthless.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
So then you are just too high on meth (or whatever) to understand that "true" does not mean "exists?" Quoting your incoherent babbling and responding to the only possible thing it could mean is not a strawman.

True means factual or accurate in the context you used it. If you just wanted to say it exists, then the addition of the word "true" was unnecessary and could only possibly confuse your meaning.

The authors of the Bible were much like Homer writing the Iliad or Tarantino writing Django, but moreso. That is, they were writing of things that happened 100s of years before and intended to have a certain impact on their audience.
Click to expand...

The New Testament was written within the lifetime of those who were eye witnesses. There is significant archaeological and historical proof of this.
 
Independent said:
That is incorrect. There is sufficient evidence that the New Testament was written within about 70 years of the death of Jesus. It was not several hundred years.
Click to expand...

No there is not. There is some evidence that some of what we call the new testament was written within about 100 years of the death of Jesus. However if you look at the history of the last hundred years that we teach our children you will realise that even if you were correct it would prove nothing and be evidence of very little.
 
Independent said:
That is incorrect. There is sufficient evidence that the New Testament was written within about 70 years of the death of Jesus. It was not several hundred years.
Click to expand...

The earliest books were 70 years from his death.

But, there is no proof that it was all written within the lifetime of eye witnesses.

By arguing that the authors of the OT were divinely inspired you have shown that you are not really interested in any objective consideration of criticism and are just opearting on faith.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
The earliest books were 70 years from his death.

But, there is no proof that it was all written within the lifetime of eye witnesses.

By arguing that the authors of the OT were divinely inspired you have shown that you are not really interested in any objective consideration of criticism and are just opearting on faith.
Click to expand...

The earliest books were within 30 to 40 years of his death. The last one was about 70 years. Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top