Baby Bible Bashers ( merged threads )

[Ivan Drago]

anyone else watch this? pretty disturbing viewing

[Commander Harris]

anyone else watch this? pretty disturbing viewing

 

nope, what was it about?

[Cade]

Really scary stuff.

 

And to think that Evangelical Christianity is the second fastest growing religion on Earth after Islam truly frightens me.

 

It's the march of the Idiots.

[Domokun]

Crazy. Just saw the tail end.

 

The wee blond boy was fecking terrifying.

[Ivan Drago]

Crazy. Just saw the tail end.

 

The wee blond boy was fecking terrifying.

 

felt really sorry for him at the end, his parents were mental.

 

they spoke openly earlier in the program about spanking their children to discipline them, which fair enough isnt necessarily that bad, but then the dad spoke about 'getting the rod out' if his children rebelled.

[BigC]

I saw it advertised but didn't catch it apart from about 30 seconds at the very end.

 

It's not difficult to figure out what happened.

 

Very scary stuff indeed.

[The Doctor]

Really scary stuff.

 

And to think that Evangelical Christianity is the second fastest growing religion on Earth after Islam truly frightens me.

 

It's the march of the Idiots.

 

What's your definition of Evangelical Christianity Cade?

[Cade]

What's your definition of Evangelical Christianity Cade?

 

 

Foaming at the mouth, wild eyed, ignorant, bigoted, homophobic, racist, bible-bashing, inward-looking inbred morons.

 

That just about covers it.

[Debtor]

Sounds like another 'cut and paste' job using mad Americans to discredit Christianity.

Who would have thought that would happen on C4 eh?

 

Read for yourself - all of it. NIV

[The Doctor]

Foaming at the mouth, wild eyed, ignorant, bigoted, homophobic, racist, bible-bashing, inward-looking inbred morons.

 

That just about covers it.

 

I'd consider myself an Evangelical Christian, but I don't recognise myself in that description Cade.

 

Do you actually know anyone who claims to be an Evangelical Christian?

[Banjoheed]

Watched the show and out of the three children featured, I felt the most sorry for the blonde kid. His Dad is clearly insane and no child should be forced to do what he was told to.

[Moriarty]

Sounds like another 'cut and paste' job using mad Americans to discredit Christianity.

Who would have thought that would happen on C4 eh?

 

Read for yourself - all of it. NIV

 

Its not hard to put together a program discrediting christianity.

[Ivan Drago]

Watched the show and out of the three children featured, I felt the most sorry for the blonde kid. His Dad is clearly insane and no child should be forced to do what he was told to.

 

the relationship between the brazilian girl and her dad made me feel a bit uneasy...

[BigC]

Its not hard to put together a program discrediting christianity.

 

Or any other religion for that matter.

[Moriarty]

Or any other religion for that matter.

 

indeed.

[RobM]

I'd consider myself an Evangelical Christian, but I don't recognise myself in that description Cade.

 

Do you actually know anyone who claims to be an Evangelical Christian?

 

I think if he did they would be shouting it loud enough for him to hear it.

[Banjoheed]

the relationship between the brazilian girl and her dad made me feel a bit uneasy...

 

True, very creepy.

 

The 'Reverend' Terry Durham's Dad was a total nutter as well. All he wanted was to make millions off putting his kid on stage.

[Craigieboy]

Religions who indoctrinate children to that degree scare me. FFS, let them play on the swings or something.

 

Interestingly, in one religious cult, it is recognised that those who were brought up in it, find it terribly difficult to leave as an adult. A lot of people who convert as an adult are more willing to leave when they realise that it is all a lot of b/s & actually fairly dangerous.

 

It seems that bringing children up in a 'fundamentalist' religion has a massive effect on the childs mind. In some cases, they stay in the cult due to fear that has been succesfully instilled in them all the way through their life.

 

Obviously there are exceptions.

 

.

[Pete Seeger]

the relationship between the brazilian girl and her dad made me feel a bit uneasy...

 

Was thinking along the same lines. Really felt for the blonde kid. What chance does a child like that have

[Guest asr_jambo]

Hey guys !

 

jst wanted to see if anyone else watched the baby bible bashers on channel 4last thursday. If anyone did what did you think about it ?

[Craigieboy]

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5257

 

.

[BigC]

Sounds like another 'cut and paste' job using mad Americans to discredit Christianity.

Who would have thought that would happen on C4 eh?

 

Read for yourself - all of it. NIV

 

I would like to have the.patience to be able to read the whole thing cover to cover, just to be able to say I've done it, but on the other hand I really don't see the point.

 

You don't need to read 1000's of pages of books about witchcraft to know that witches don't exist. In the same way you don;t need to read the bible cover to cover to realise that the Christian god is made up, as is the Islamic god and Jewish god (although essentially they are the same one).

[Debtor]

I would like to have the.patience to be able to read the whole thing cover to cover, just to be able to say I've done it, but on the other hand I really don't see the point.

 

You don't need to read 1000's of pages of books about witchcraft to know that witches don't exist. In the same way you don;t need to read the bible cover to cover to realise that the Christian god is made up, as is the Islamic god and Jewish god (although essentially they are the same one).

 

 

You mean you have preconceived opinions?

You must base you ideas on evidence, and if you talk about the Christian God then you must read the book as it is the primary evidence. Only then are you in a position to have an opinion. Others have done so, some dislike what they read some don't, but they have not disregarded the thing without due consideration.

[Acey]

You mean you have preconceived opinions?

You must base you ideas on evidence, and if you talk about the Christian God then you must read the book as it is the primary evidence. Only then are you in a position to have an opinion.

 

Nonsense.

[BlackJAC?]

You mean you have preconceived opinions?

You must base you ideas on evidence, and if you talk about the Christian God then you must read the book as it is the primary evidence. Only then are you in a position to have an opinion. Others have done so, some dislike what they read some don't, but they have not disregarded the thing without due consideration.

 

And what version would that be exactly? The bible has changed so much since its beginnings that you'd be hard pushed to find any original text still remaining. The bible is now worthless as it's been doctored more times than an African's birth certificate.

[Debtor]

Glad you made the effort to find out which version and read it.

The closed mind never makes an effort to see for itself, but that is your affair.

[BlackJAC?]

Glad you made the effort to find out which version and read it.

The closed mind never makes an effort to see for itself, but that is your affair.

 

Nice.

 

Nothing like trying to belittle someone with the auld 'closed mind' argument whilst using the "Lets just assume" mentality.

 

I'm glad you base most of your observations on assumptions, otherwise I may have been ever so slighted by your remark. Wp.

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

And what version would that be exactly? The bible has changed so much since its beginnings that you'd be hard pushed to find any original text still remaining. The bible is now worthless as it's been doctored more times than an African's birth certificate.

 

Bit racist is it not?

[BlackJAC?]

Bit racist is it not?

 

How is it racist?

 

What's the difference between that and making a comment about the French and cheese, or the Germans with their sun loungers? if it makes it any better, then feel free to think of it as the white South African contingent. Africa isn't an exclusively black continent. is that what offended you?

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

How is it racist?

 

What's the difference between that and making a comment about the French and cheese, or the Germans with their sun loungers? if it makes it any better, then feel free to think of it as the white South African contingent. Africa isn't an exclusively black continent. is that what offended you?

 

I think it was obvious what you meant and we all know it wasnt the white South Africans.

 

And if you cant understand how it reads as racist then no point in continuing.

[BlackJAC?]

I think it was obvious what you meant and we all know it wasnt the white South Africans.

 

And if you cant understand how it reads as racist then no point in continuing.

 

Get a grip, mate.

 

And what exactly did i mean? That most Africans don't have birth certificates, thus when one is required they're more often than not forged? Check it out for yourself, it true, so stop just jumping to silly conclusions.

 

 

Some people are all too quick to use the racist card , even when they haven't got a clue what they're actually calling racist. "OMFG, someone joked about Africa, IT MUST BE RACIST!!!!!!" Do you even know what racism involves?

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

Get a grip, mate.

 

And what exactly did i mean? That most Africans don't have birth certificates, thus when one is required they're more often than not forged? Check it out for yourself, it true, so stop just jumping to silly conclusions.

 

 

Some people are all too quick to use the racist card , even when they haven't got a clue what they're actually calling racist. "OMFG, someone joked about Africa, IT MUST BE RACIST!!!!!!" Do you even know what racism involves?

 

You seem to be the resident expert.

[Pete Seeger]

Nonsense.

 

I hope i don't make any spelling mistakes here but it's not often i agree with you acey. But your spot on here

[BlackJAC?]

That's certainly put me in my place.

 

Rather than actually give your reason on why you think my comment was racist, you chose to shoot me down on the one line I purposely put in knowing it was the only line you'd respond to. It's what people do when they haven't got a clue why they deem something to be racist as they just like to blurt out the same auld one liners without putting too much thought into them.

 

Ok i'm racist in your eyes, we got that out of the way, so now tell me why making a comment about forged African birth certificates is now racist?

[The Doctor]

And what version would that be exactly? The bible has changed so much since its beginnings that you'd be hard pushed to find any original text still remaining. The bible is now worthless as it's been doctored more times than an African's birth certificate.

 

We've seen this before, it was untrue then and it's untrue now.

 

The bible as we have it, the canon of scripture is undoubtedly the single most accurate and reliable ancient text on earth. There is a science called textual criticism which rates how reliable ancient texts are, according to how early the oldest copies of manuscripts are and how many are in existence. The bible has thousand of ancient manuscripts, some less than 100 years from the original date of writing. Other ancient texts have far fewer.

 

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. This compares to less than 700 manuscripts for Homer's Iliad, the next most well-documented work from antiquity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#The_New_Testament

 

If you want to know more about how the canon was put together (around the middle of the 4th century CE) have a look here; http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml

It explains why those gospels and letters that form the bible were decided upon and by whom.

 

I am quite happy for people to reject the gospel message, to believe in atheism, to claim that it's all nonsense, but don't base your unbelief on a lie in the first place. You can not believe what the writers of the bible wrote, but you can't not believe that they wrote it.

[The Doctor]

Also, I should say that I watched Baby Bible Bashers tonight for myself and I was quite disturbed by it.

 

The blonde boy was obviously disturbed by what he saw in NY. His father, who at best was misguided if well intentioned, lost the plot and started insulting people. Not a great way to get your message of love and forgiveness across.

 

The black boy was being used as a money making exercise. His father had him almost branded as a commodity for sale. Quite wicked and wrong. That laddie was being exploited.

 

The Mexican girl was so in awe of her father that she had him on a par with Jesus, something he seemed happy to accept. The fact that they sleep together is worrying and unhealthy, although I'm fairly ignorant of their culture, maybe that's socially acceptable in Mexico?

 

Overall I was fairly uncomfortable with the whole thing. When I see stuff that Christians do that appears to exploit people, particularly children, it's hard for me to accept. If I use that Christian cliche, What Would Jesus Do?, then it's fairly obvious to me that He wouldn't do that. Stand outside a pub and preach at people? No, the Jesus I know would be in the pub, holding court, telling funny stories that made people think about the world and their place in it.

[Ivan Drago]

Also, I should say that I watched Baby Bible Bashers tonight for myself and I was quite disturbed by it.

 

The blonde boy was obviously disturbed by what he saw in NY. His father, who at best was misguided if well intentioned, lost the plot and started insulting people. Not a great way to get your message of love and forgiveness across.

 

The black boy was being used as a money making exercise. His father had him almost branded as a commodity for sale. Quite wicked and wrong. That laddie was being exploited.

 

The Mexican girl was so in awe of her father that she had him on a par with Jesus, something he seemed happy to accept. The fact that they sleep together is worrying and unhealthy, although I'm fairly ignorant of their culture, maybe that's socially acceptable in Mexico?

 

Overall I was fairly uncomfortable with the whole thing. When I see stuff that Christians do that appears to exploit people, particularly children, it's hard for me to accept. If I use that Christian cliche, What Would Jesus Do?, then it's fairly obvious to me that He wouldn't do that. Stand outside a pub and preach at people? No, the Jesus I know would be in the pub, holding court, telling funny stories that made people think about the world and their place in it.

 

 

id agree with you 100%, i would also point out that its too easy too watch it and just blame everything on christianity (im not a huge fan of it myself), they could probably get plenty of disturbing examples from every religion, and atheism as well

[269miles]

Religions who indoctrinate children to that degree scare me. FFS, let them play on the swings or something.

 

Interestingly, in one religious cult, it is recognised that those who were brought up in it, find it terribly difficult to leave as an adult. A lot of people who convert as an adult are more willing to leave when they realise that it is all a lot of b/s & actually fairly dangerous.

 

It seems that bringing children up in a 'fundamentalist' religion has a massive effect on the childs mind. In some cases, they stay in the cult due to fear that has been succesfully instilled in them all the way through their life.

 

Obviously there are exceptions.

 

.

 

That's what religion is and religion does.

No free thinking individual would choose religion.

The Vatican would burn at the stake some of the most revered thinkers of their time : Copernicus , Da Vinci , Galileo.

 

The only thing that 'scares' me about Evengelical Christians is their influence in America.

[269miles]

Also, I should say that I watched Baby Bible Bashers tonight for myself and I was quite disturbed by it.

 

The blonde boy was obviously disturbed by what he saw in NY. His father, who at best was misguided if well intentioned, lost the plot and started insulting people. Not a great way to get your message of love and forgiveness across.

 

The black boy was being used as a money making exercise. His father had him almost branded as a commodity for sale. Quite wicked and wrong. That laddie was being exploited.

 

The Mexican girl was so in awe of her father that she had him on a par with Jesus, something he seemed happy to accept. The fact that they sleep together is worrying and unhealthy, although I'm fairly ignorant of their culture, maybe that's socially acceptable in Mexico?

 

Overall I was fairly uncomfortable with the whole thing. When I see stuff that Christians do that appears to exploit people, particularly children, it's hard for me to accept. If I use that Christian cliche, What Would Jesus Do?, then it's fairly obvious to me that He wouldn't do that. Stand outside a pub and preach at people? No, the Jesus I know would be in the pub, holding court, telling funny stories that made people think about the world and their place in it.

You clearly don't know the teachings of Jesus.

[Commander Harris]

That's what religion is and religion does.

No free thinking individual would choose religion.

The Vatican would burn at the stake some of the most revered thinkers of their time : Copernicus , Da Vinci , Galileo.

 

The only thing that 'scares' me about Evengelical Christians is their influence in America.

 

let's look at that point another way - if there are a large number of "Evangelical Christians" in the united states, are they not entitled to have representation in the same way that any other large group of people should be represented?

[269miles]

let's look at that point another way - if there are a large number of "Evangelical Christians" in the united states, are they not entitled to have representation in the same way that any other large group of people should be represented?

 

Numerically there are not a lot of them. But regardless , being the US ,

Are they entitled to 'representation' ? : of course.

 

I didn't talk about their 'representation' : I am concerned about their level of political influence. Because they have TV and money.

[euan64]

let's look at that point another way - if there are a large number of "Evangelical Christians" in the united states, are they not entitled to have representation in the same way that any other large group of people should be represented?

 

perfect example of why democracy doesn't work.

[269miles]

perfect example of why democracy doesn't work.

Isn't democracy having your interests represented ?

Isn't that the while point of democracy ?

[Commander Harris]

Numerically there are not a lot of them. But regardless , being the US ,

Are they entitled to 'representation' ? : of course.

 

I didn't talk about their 'representation' : I am concerned about their level of political influence. Because they have TV and money.

 

I think their "influence" is proportional to their number to be honest. if "evangelical christians" elect people that they want to represent them to positions of power then that's democracy in action.

 

fair enough you weren't meaning that kind of political influence, I misunderstood you.

 

so what influence does money and TV get Evangelical Christians? And how is this any different to any other group in America?

[BlackJAC?]

We've seen this before, it was untrue then and it's untrue now.

 

The bible as we have it, the canon of scripture is undoubtedly the single most accurate and reliable ancient text on earth. There is a science called textual criticism which rates how reliable ancient texts are, according to how early the oldest copies of manuscripts are and how many are in existence. The bible has thousand of ancient manuscripts, some less than 100 years from the original date of writing. Other ancient texts have far fewer.

 

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. This compares to less than 700 manuscripts for Homer's Iliad, the next most well-documented work from antiquity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#The_New_Testament

 

If you want to know more about how the canon was put together (around the middle of the 4th century CE) have a look here; http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml

It explains why those gospels and letters that form the bible were decided upon and by whom.

 

I am quite happy for people to reject the gospel message, to believe in atheism, to claim that it's all nonsense, but don't base your unbelief on a lie in the first place. You can not believe what the writers of the bible wrote, but you can't not believe that they wrote it.

 

I think that the most damning event for Christianity was the Nicean Council, convened in 325. What they did, and this is not in dispute, is to bring all of the Christian leaders, of the time, together to agree on a universal dogma. Christians of the time had many varying beliefs. There were disputes and it was not common Christian belief that Christ was God in Man. They just got everyone together and said, "It doesn't matter what it is, but we are all going to leave here agreeing on something", and that is how we got Christianity as we know it.

 

There was a lot of discussion about the different Gospels that were to be included in the forty copies of the first Bible that was to be published, but by the end of the first Nicean Council, there was no official agreement. Regardless, the Gospels that were eventually included were so chosen to convey the message that modern Christians know. A lot of contradictory Gospels were excluded and even destroyed. There were some included in those first forty Bibles that were not included in later, or modern day, Bibles.

 

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest the many of the Gospels, by that time, were not originals, but copies of copies of copies with lots of alterations or even explicitly fraudulent.

 

They dismissed the beliefs of significant groups of Christians of the time, embraced that which gave them the most power. This is the origin of the cardinal rule, "the only way to Heaven is through Christ. The only way to Christ is through the Church."

 

At the very minimum, Christianity was hijacked to build a power structure to maintain control of a crumbling and disorderly empire. At the worst, what Christianity is today is omissions and alterations of the truth, both intently and by accident, and inaccurate information or outright lies.

[mac]

I think that the most damning event for Christianity was the Nicean Council, convened in 325. What they did, and this is not in dispute, is to bring all of the Christian leaders, of the time, together to agree on a universal dogma. Christians of the time had many varying beliefs. There were disputes and it was not common Christian belief that Christ was God in Man. They just got everyone together and said, "It doesn't matter what it is, but we are all going to leave here agreeing on something", and that is how we got Christianity as we know it.

 

There was a lot of discussion about the different Gospels that were to be included in the forty copies of the first Bible that was to be published, but by the end of the first Nicean Council, there was no official agreement. Regardless, the Gospels that were eventually included were so chosen to convey the message that modern Christians know. A lot of contradictory Gospels were excluded and even destroyed. There were some included in those first forty Bibles that were not included in later, or modern day, Bibles.

 

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest the many of the Gospels, by that time, were not originals, but copies of copies of copies with lots of alterations or even explicitly fraudulent.

 

They dismissed the beliefs of significant groups of Christians of the time, embraced that which gave them the most power. This is the origin of the cardinal rule, "the only way to Heaven is through Christ. The only way to Christ is through the Church."

 

At the very minimum, Christianity was hijacked to build a power structure to maintain control of a crumbling and disorderly empire. At the worst, what Christianity is today is omissions and alterations of the truth, both intently and by accident, and inaccurate information or outright lies.

bj, you have totally hit the nail on the head

[BlackJAC?]

I don't want to people to think I'm here to carry on the age old "God doesn't exist" argument, I'm not, as I consider myself to be an agnostic, not an atheist. However, i do concede that if push came to shove, I'd slot into the 'agnostic-atheist' side of things rather than the 'agnostic-Theist' category.

 

Too many Atheists spend so much time and effort disproving the other side, that they themselves become everything that they despise about the other side. I was like that myself until I realised how hypocritical I looked.

 

Something that irks me no end however, is how some Christians automatically dismiss your opinion all because you?ve chosen to ignore religion as being factual, so they assume you know f-all about the bible and it?s preachings, thus you?re giving a closed minded opinion on all things religious. Well, here?s a revelation, I probably know more about religion than most of the believers as I have done my research, read the bible, studied religious beliefs etc, etc, etc for the best part of my life, so if anyone feels the need to call me ?closed minded? I?ll soon put that theory to rest.

[Flux]

It's on CH4 now....

[BigC]

You mean you have preconceived opinions?

You must base you ideas on evidence, and if you talk about the Christian God then you must read the book as it is the primary evidence. Only then are you in a position to have an opinion. Others have done so, some dislike what they read some don't, but they have not disregarded the thing without due consideration.

 

Preconceived opinions? I don't know what you mean by that.

 

The bible has talking snakes in it. I've read that bit.

 

I also know that talking snakes don't exist and have seen no evidence to suggest they ever have done.

 

The bible says that god took a man to the highest mountain in the land so that he could show him his whole kingdom (essentially suggesting that the world was flat -in keeping with popular opinion at the time). I've read that bit too. Yet I know the world is not flat.

 

My opinions on the bible as a whole are based on the bits I've read so I don't know why you think they are preconceived?

 

I've not been to every Hearts match this season but if you had, you would still consider my opinion based on what I had seen, instead of dismissing me completely.

 

As I've said, you don't need to read the whole thing cover to cover to realise that it is fallible.

 

The way I see it, is that you either believe in talking snakes, or you believe that some of the stuff in the bible is not literally true - essentially metaphorical stories.

 

If you accept the former, you're a wee bit nuts. If you accept the latter, then where do you stop? The virgin birth? The ressurection? Pretty much everything really.

 

Yes there are some nice moral stories, there are also some nasty ones.

 

But there is nothing that points to the existance of any god, that I have seen. (Feel free to point me in the right direction).

 

There is evidence of someone who managed to convince a lot of other people that god existed, but evidence of an actual god is pretty thin on the ground - otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it.

[The Doctor]

I don't think the bible sets out to prove God's existence or not BigC.

 

It does point to God's existence though, Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse".

 

I know you're not even remotely a creationist, but although that's the word used it's not a verse about creation per se, it's about recognising God in the world we live in, in the things around us.

 

The other thread throughout the bible that points to God's existence is in relationships, the bible is not a proof of God, but it is a story of God's relationship with mankind, perfect, then broken, then partially restored, then fully restored.

 

Yes, some is metaphor, some is also poetry, some is song, some is parable, some is cultural. I have no problem defining the lines between these things, I don't think it's as black and white as 'believe it all literally or believe none of it'. In fact it's not meant to be understood like that.

 

There are some absolutes in it, the 10 commandments spring to mind, but many Christians would have no problem going to war and therefore killing, particularly WWII or the like. A necessary evil I suppose. So even those 'absolutes' can be compromised.

 

If that makes it wishy washy, or too open to interpretation, so be it, but for me that's one of the challenges of being a Christian, to work out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12), in the face of Holy God. (The phrase 'work out' here refers to working out a mine rather than trying to make sense of)