Yawn...
No person of faith believes you, atheist. Take your message of perversion to the Sodomites.
History Channel's mini-series, The Bible
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
No person of faith believes you, atheist. Take your message of perversion to the Sodomites.
No, they don't all mean the same thing especially not in the context you used it. You said...
You were responding to someone clearly making the point that the bible was not factually accurate not that it did not exist. You responded with the idiotic comment above.
You are just making a bigger fool of yourself, old man.
I've seen some rediculous debates on this board, but this one gets a gold star......all over a b grade rendidion of the Bible .....
An entertains piece ..... not for serious Bible study....not enough blood for some...not enough sex for others.....not detailed enough for yet others....
It didn't cover this and then it didn't cover that.....it don't ridicule the Jews enough....it don't ridicule the Christians enough....etc....etc....etc....
don't fuckin' watch it then.....problem solved.
An entertains piece ..... not for serious Bible study....not enough blood for some...not enough sex for others.....not detailed enough for yet others....
It didn't cover this and then it didn't cover that.....it don't ridicule the Jews enough....it don't ridicule the Christians enough....etc....etc....etc....
don't fuckin' watch it then.....problem solved.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
why, because you think you know more about it than I do?..../grins.....
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I dont know whether I know more than you about anything, however you are extremely adept at hiding any knowledge you possess.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Gosh!! Nothing gets past you does it? Wow...just imagine, no one who believes in nonsense would ever believe something that is not nonsense. The world will explode tomorrow. Wow. Such wisdom. Did god give you that?
And what on earth has sodomy to do with atheism? Far more likely to be dirty old christians taking advantage of the simple minded and the young.
Independent
Verified User
Actually, my biggest complaint is that it is not accurate enough in the areas it does cover. Jesus walked into the grave of Lazarus and brought him out in the movie whereas according to the Bible Jesus called into the tomb and Lazarus walked out still in burial clothing according to the book. It is a minor change but a totally unnecessary change that detracts from its accuracy.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well that's what I thought you meant, sorry you think it impossible.
But there is no mention in the program of the crowd wanting to have sex with the VIPs, so there is no context for Lot's proposal. And this is not needed to convey the situation. Doing a show to appeal to conservative Christian audiences, it is obvious they avoided the sexual aspects of the story. Maybe they felt it would be inappropriate for younger viewers who would likely be watching? Maybe it was in the original script and it was taken out by network censors or maybe it was edited for time? You don't know what the reasons are, you are just jumping to a bunch of wild conclusions.
You can hogswallow all you like, Damo. There were NO seriously controversial aspects, and this was by design. Yes, a lot of big stories were covered, and a lot of them weren't. But the program was presented for conservative Christian audiences, not Buddhist know-it-alls from Colorado. They don't have to include EVERY story, or the ones that YOU like.
Well I don't need to be a prophet to know what would happen if the History Channel had presented Damo's Bible. Look, you can think whatever you will about producers from Hollyweird being on an evangelical crusade, but I'm telling you, this thing was done for ratings. I don't honestly think they care one way or another if anyone is "saved" because of the mini-series. Their goal and objective was to present a relatively clean, family-oriented program depicting the history of the Bible, for predominately Christian audiences at Easter. They intentionally avoided controversial subject matter, and I think the incidents surrounding Lot fall into this category. It has nothing to do with shielding the flocks from the truth and preachers avoiding hard questions. Like I said before, been around Christians all my life, and heard about Lot and his daughters when I was 10 years old. It's not like this is something most Christians aren't aware of. It is just as plausible that leaving it out caused more questions to preachers than putting it in.
Good, as long as it's not you, and is a Christian who understands The Bible.
The story is, the angels tell Abraham they will test Lot to see if he is righteous. In the scriptures, Lot knew immediately they were sent from God, which is why he offered his daughters to the crowd. In the movie, in order to convey the sense that Lot was being tested, they depicted the event as if Lot did not know they were VIPs, but rather, just men who needed his help. Now, this is a bit of contextual liberty they have taken, but again, it is to convey to the viewer that Lot was legitimately being tested. (There is no "challenge" for Lot if he knew he was being tested.) So now we have the actual event vs. the depiction, which has Lot not really "knowing" these men were VIPs, and in such a context, it would have been extremely bizarre for him to offer up his daughters.
I said not a thing about preachers being upset at them as people start asking questions, are you smoking crack tonight? I said they intentionally avoided controversy, because their goal and objective is to appeal to Christian audiences at Easter. Again... 53 years old, I've know about Lot and his daughters for 43 years, and I'm not even a Christian. I would say that most practicing Christians who know anything at all about the Bible, already know about the story of Lot, and wouldn't have had any questions. The issue is not preachers fearing questions, it is presenting a family-oriented program for Christians at Easter.
No one said a word about preachers getting upset. I said, if they had presented The Bible According to Damo, by the Sunday following the first episode, every evangelical preacher in America would be renouncing the entire thing, and you'd be left with whatever small number of Buddhist Coloradans tuned in on Spring Break.
The context of "righteousness" is very difficult to convey on the TV screen. I'm sorry you are too thick to get that, but I've tried to explain it to you as best I can. It is damn near impossible to show a man as "righteous" when he is offering up his virgin daughters to strangers. Yet, we know by the scriptures, the angels found him to be righteous because they saved him. So how do you deal with that on the screen? How can you tell this part of the story without an enormous amount of time devoted to why his act was righteous? In a much more simple sense, the producers left out the daughter offering and sexual contexts, and focused on the fact that Lot was tested and found to be righteous. To tell the part you wanted them to tell, it would have taken an episode to explain Lot's righteousness to an audience in a way that would mitigate the obvious. They chose to stick to the most important detail, and move on.... lots of other stuff to show!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
/sigh.....and after all the effort I have put into educating you.....
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Superfreak will now post, funny that's what i was going to say about you, that's what you do, you're projecting what you do onto me.
Watch, in fact I'm going to hide this in another thread so he doesn't see it before he posts and just post a period here.
Watch, in fact I'm going to hide this in another thread so he doesn't see it before he posts and just post a period here.
It is me. There are Biblical scholars that are not Christian. Like a certain hypocrite who is trying to be an apologist for the producer of a 'historical account of the Bible" in this thread representing himself in his argument as a Christian, yet tells others in other threads that he isn't a Christian.
It would have been extremely bizarre for Lot to offer up his children for rape regardless. And again, simply depicting the story accurately wouldn't give a negative view of the Bible to Christians. They were lying, deliberately, by omission in order to not scare away the "infidels"... (yeah, my word and added for fun). I tell you this, as I stated before, because it is what the producer of the frickin' thing said during an interview on the radio I was listening to...
I really did tell you this before.
Yes, you did.
Again, utter hogswallow. I simply like the stories, when possible, to be accurate. It wouldn't even have added time to the show to depict Lot's actions accurately, they deliberately presented a more "favorable" view of the man, and yes, according to the man who produced it, it was to win converts. They feared accuracy because the stories depict what people consider to be horrific actions by principal characters.
They have given no such deep view of "depicting concepts" in any other portion, and according to the guy he was trying to be accurate, except (apparently) when it might make it "look bad" for his side...
Be accurate, especially when supposedly presenting a history (yes, it was presented as such). When you skip important bits it makes the "infidel" (again my word, and again for fun) who finds out later believe you are lying to them and drives them away from your religion.
Basically, if the book says it happens and you claim you are trying to be accurate, then be accurate, especially when it was such an important part of that particular story.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You're not a bible scholar, in fact, you don't even have a real good grasp on the context of the bible, as evidenced by your opinion regarding Lot. I'm not being hypocritical, I am not representing myself as a Christian, in fact, I have gone on record to state I am not a Christian. So where does this emote come from, Damo? Am I a Christian merely because I am arguing against your anti-Christian view, or what?
Well no, it simply wouldn't be bizarre because it wasn't bizarre. The context in which it happened is very important. They weren't "lying" by leaving out this part and didn't omit it to keep from scaring infidels. I don't believe you on what you claim the producer said, I don't believe he said what you have, and I would have to hear it for myself to believe it. I do believe that you have 'interpreted' his comments to mean what you said, and that's the problem we have with The Bible vs. Damo anyway. I'm guessing he probably said something a lot closer to what I've said, that they wanted to produce something Christian audiences could accept and enjoy during Easter season, and they intentionally avoided controversy. You'll have to show me a youtube or something, if the producers said they were doing this to win souls. I just flat don't buy that.
What I know is, the Christian demographic is probably the single strongest demographic available to Hollywood. It simply dwarfs all other special interest groups. Mel Gibson proved this demographic would support a production which honestly avoided stepping on toes or raising Christian controversy. As long as you stay away from "Jesus was gay" or "shacked up with Mary" or whatever off-beat trendy concept Hollywood has been known to come up with, and you remain fairly true to the story, Christians will accept it.
The story of Lot and his daughters could have been included, but in order to have the audience believe Lot to be righteous, it would have taken a great deal of explaining, because we typically don't associate righteousness with offering up virgin daughters. It's not something we can wrap our minds around, unless we understand the entire context of the story, and even then, it challenges our faith in God.
Well, other than the "win converts" part, it sounds like he is saying what I have argued. It is you who is using "favorable" in quotes, did the producer use this word? I disagree that it was to show him more "favorably" but rather, more simply. In order for us to comprehend and understand how a man could deliver his virgin daughters to a hoard of deviants, and that this was the righteous thing for him to do, it would require a lot of story-building, and time. The story was accurate, it just didn't include this most complex and complicated part because they lacked the time to explain it sufficiently. If they had just thrown it in there, the viewer would have not understood how angels found him righteous, it contradicts our general principles.
The significance in the Biblical story is to illustrate Lot's test of faith, much in the way Abraham was tested with sacrificing his son. In the Biblical account, Lot knew these VIPs were sent to him by God, and his actions reflect the magnitude of his faith and to what extremes he would go in order to obey God's will. Just as was the case with Abraham, Lot offered his daughters, but the daughters were not delivered, the angels intervened. In the story of Abraham sacrificing his son, they took artistic liberty as well, in order to convey a feeling or sense to the audience that otherwise would have been lost. They depicted his son as a young boy, and he went up the mountain not knowing he was to be the sacrifice. When he realizes what Abraham is about to do, he struggles, but in the Biblical account, the son was in his 20s, and went willingly, knowing he was to be sacrificed. Why did they not tell this part of the story accurately? Well, it's because they have to convey a story through emotion and feeling, in order for the viewer to remain involved. If this is not done, things seem illogical and the viewer becomes confused and frustrated, because they don't get what's going on. Having his son be portrayed as young and naive, delivers a much more powerful sense of the event than portraying him, as he was, in his 20s, and fully aware of the sacrifice. Was it 100% accurate? No. Did it convey the message they intended to convey in as short a time as possible? I think it did. I also think this is true with the story of Lot, there was no need to go into the whole 'daughter' thing, it wasn't relevant to the story, which was Lots righteousness being tested.
It wasn't a lie. You keep claiming they were dishonest and lied, and they didn't, Damo. Leaving parts of a story out, is not lying... never has been, never will be. Lying is when you intentionally tell something that isn't true and you know it isn't true. And again, they have been fairly accurate, but I have pointed out things that weren't 100% accurate myself, I never have claimed it to be 100% accurate. For the most part, the 'inaccuracies' are basically done for context and sake of the audience, in order to move the story along. This is a huge presentation with a whole lot of things to cram into 10 hours, and I think that is the aspect you are missing here. They simply can't include every story, and present something watchable. What we'd have, is one event after another, quickly being covered with no contextual explanation, and after about an hour of this, your mind would simply stop paying attention to what was on the screen, as you begin to think about checking on life insurance and scheduling that root canal you've been putting off. They are attempting to tell this story in a compelling way, which captures the imagination and attention of a Christian audience, and they can't become bogged down in deep subjects, which would take hours to adequately cover. In order to do the "epic" production they are doing, AND to include and tell every aspect of every story, as you want them to, it would take a 60-hour miniseries instead of 10.