A History of Christianity
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch - one of the world's leading historians - reveals the origins of Christianity and explores what it means to be a Christian. When Diarmaid MacCulloch was a small boy, his parents used to drive him round historic churches. Little did they know that they had created a monster, with the history of the Christian Church becoming his life's work. In a series sweeping across four continents, Professor MacCulloch goes in search of Christianity's forgotten origins.
1. The First Christianity. He overturns the familiar story that it all began when the apostle Paul took Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome. Instead, he shows that the true origins of Christianity lie further east, and that at one point it was poised to triumph in Asia, maybe even in China. The headquarters of Christianity might well have been Baghdad not Rome, and if that had happened then Western Christianity would have been very different.
2. Catholicism: The Unpredictable Rise of Rome. Over one billion Christians look to Rome, more than half of all Christians on the planet. But how did a small Jewish sect from the backwoods of 1st-century Palestine, which preached humility and the virtue of poverty, become the established religion of western Europe - wealthy, powerful and expecting unfailing obedience from the faithful?
3. Orthodoxy - From Empire to Empire. Today, Eastern Orthodox Christianity flourishes in the Balkans and Russia, with over 150 million members worldwide. It is unlike Catholicism or Protestantism - worship is carefully choreographed, icons pull the faithful into a mystical union with Christ, and everywhere there is a symbol of a fierce-looking bird, the double-headed eagle.
4. Reformation: The Individual Before God. The Amish today are peaceable folk, but five centuries ago their ancestors were seen as some of the most dangerous people in Europe. They were radicals - Protestants - who tore apart the Catholic Church. In the fourth part of the series, Diarmaid MacCulloch makes sense of the Reformation, and of how a faith based on obedience and authority gave birth to one based on individual conscience.
5. Protestantism - The Evangelical Explosion. Diarmaid MacCulloch traces the growth of an exuberant expression of faith that has spread across the globe - Evangelical Protestantism. Today, it is associated with conservative politics, but the whole story is distinctly more unexpected. It is easily forgotten that the evangelical explosion has been driven by a concern for social justice and the claim that one could stand in a direct emotional relationship with God.
6. God in the Dock. Diarmaid MacCulloch's own life story makes him a symbol of a distinctive feature about Western Christianity - scepticism, a tendency to doubt which has transformed both Western culture and Christianity. In the final programme in the series, he asks where that change came from. He challenges the simplistic notion that faith in Christianity has steadily ebbed away before the relentless advance of science, reason and progress, and shows instead how the tide of faith perversely flows back in.
Everyone clap for Thomas & William! Tom you're clearly an extremist and even though you have good grammar you're either a weak minded sheeple or a m****. If anyone who knows even a drop about space or the cosmos or even just spends a 1/2 hr looking into space somewhere that light pollution isn't an issue and still believes that those evil and hilarious stories the Romans wrote like 1800 years ago in the bible are real they need help!! Seriously, how can anyone that's not a brain dead chimp come to the conclusion that some fairy tale being created planets and stars and whatnot billions and trillions of light years away? And since the religious believe we're all alone, WTF would be the point?! That's almost as bad as those who believe we co-existed with dinosaurs!
Eg, the worlds biggest dumb ass and liar ken ham in Kentucky who has a saddle and human riding a t-rex. Now to the guy who was ranting about Protestants, the catholic church is the worst of them all. The fact that 80% of the priests are gay and have been caught multiple times on film in gay clubs or in gay clubs are still claiming they're evil which is getting them killed all over the world. Then there's the fact that those loving people used to burn people to death for owning certain Swiss clocks or by stating the earth revolves around the sun or for a dozen other pointless and stupid reasons. Could also go on and on about the same priests, bishops and even popes who are condemning others are themselves busy raping and molesting children or committing all the same crimes they're killing others for.
I've seen some stupid comments from the obvious religees in here but some of the worst are saying atheists are the bigots and the mass murdering bastards of the past. WRONG! More people have been killed in the name of religion than all wars and disease combined. Guess who's at the top? Yep good old loving Christians. To answer the other stupid statement, you can see this best and most often in the u.s where the so called religious want the right to take away everyone else's rights that don't fit the model of what those ignorant half-wits inbreds think they see in the bible. The hypochristians can break every rule and commandment in that holy book they hold dear but if anyone else does well they need to be punished especially dem queers!
If it wasn't so disgusting to see you'd have to laugh. Eg; denying marriage licenses to gays or denying services to them like at restaurants or at that hugely important store for the whole country, Hobby Lobby! Ha. The one thing that always puzzles me is where is your god/imaginary friend in all of this? If jebus is so against so many things that'll send you straight to a cookout down below why doesn't it ever show up to stop any of these actions? It's so powerful but yet needs humans to do all its work, really? The jews are supposed to be gods peeps yet that all loving being stood by letting 6 million get massacred, ya sounds great!
Now to the person claiming that millions have met, felt and talked to god, odd then that there's such differences and contradictions about it. Weird too that the 3 biggest religions all share the same imaginary being yet each thinks they're the special ones and the others are all wrong and going to hell. The one common thing is they're all copied from bits and pieces of older religions and each other. There is factual proof of some of this if you actually think it's even needed.
Take the hilarious story of Noah's ark, they found the tablet with the original story some 1000 years or more talking about the floods which happened all the time back then and told them to build a boat big enough to fit as many of the people and livestock as possible and then someone got ahold of it and twisted the story adding in things like building the boat so big it would take every tree in Iraq to make them just snap in half the second it got floating, and then the funny part of taking 2 of every animal on the planet. Priceless! I wonder how he traveled the planet gathering all those animals with so little notice? How did the 800yr old or whatever it was manage to get the special feed for each or separate them all, build the boat and catch the animals without a tranquilizer gun? I guess these are all minor details the religious don't want to hear about, after all they're not known for dealing with facts.
I could go on and on for days about that pro rape, pro slavery, pro roman/anti-Jew, mass killing loving book called the bible and that's only 1 of the religions but I've got a true fairy tale to watch with my niece, Snow White. For all you others with common sense and intelligence on here, I wish you the best of luck trying to get through to the sheeple who still think the Stone Age peeps knew more than we do now in 2016.
Read the Book... Most disappointing book ever...
Mr. MacCulloch considers himself "immensely privileged to have been trained as a professional historian" and that he has "enjoyed the precious opportunity of research, teaching and discussing" things pertaining to his profession.
However, the Author does not even mention the persecution of the early Church by the Roman Emperors. He does not detail Emperor Nero’s persecution of the early Church and during which persecution, the apostles Peter and Paul were put to death. He does not mention the fires that engulfed and destroyed much of Rome. No mention of Trajan the Roman historian, etc. What kind of 'historian' is Mr. MacCulloch ? In my opinion, a very poor historian, with no signs at all of a 'professional'.
Besides, his 'interpretation' of history and historical facts is simply not true; they are horribly 'skewed' - to say the least. Obviously, no historian is absolutely 'objective'; there always will be the 'subjective' element of all our understandings of historical facts and evidences. However, the mark of a good historian is that he or she is well able to 'sift' through the available data and make a sensible and sane judgement. If however, the acclaimed 'historian' is not even aware of the data or simply ignores the available data, how on earth is he or she going to be able to make this sane judgement. And in my judgement, Mr. MacCulloch has either 'repressed' the facts and/or simply ignored them. Again, a very poor thing for a 'historian' to do.
Mr. MacCulloch is obviously not a Christian and therefore does not even accept the Bible as God's Word. He therefore does not 'believe' in the Lord Jesus Christ as His Lord and Saviour. This one fact alone should 'caution' people who read his works. All said and done, only a true believer who accepts the Bible as the Inspired, Inerrant Word of God can and will have a true understanding of the Scriptures and of History - which really is His-Story; The Story of God and His dealings with humanity.
Mr. MacCulloch himself admits, "I would now describe myself as a candid friend of Christianity" He goes on to say that he still 'appreciates' all that is happening in 'Christianity'; although calling it all "something so apparently crazy".
Mr. MacCulloch then has the temerity to call upon his readers (he means those who know better...) to accept with charity "this (book) as an apophatic form of the Christian Faith". No. We cannot do so and we make no apologies for saying so. God and His Word cannot be known in any apophatic way - never is God known by negation, only by His Own Revelation in and through the Lord Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son.
Mr. MacCulloch himself further admits that "the book is self-evidently not a work of primary-source research; ..." However, he goes on to tell us that his "aim is to tell as clearly as possible ... (a) tale, in ways which others will enjoy and find plausible." Plausible - did he say? Now what kind of true historian would even want to do such a thing. Why ever should any true and good historian ever have to write down anything other than the truth. And if it is the truth that he is passing on to his readers, then he need not worry about putting it across in any 'plausible' way. This simply need not be done - at least ought not to be done by any 'professional historian'.
And no wonder then Mr. MacCulloch does not accept the Bible as God's Word. For obviously, since he does not even believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, he cannot read any part of the Bible as being 'plausible'. Indeed, he says so in as many words.
Listen to what Mr. MacCulloch himself says in describing what he believes the Bible contains - "It describes ancient encounters with God which are far from straightforward." Now, whatever did he ever mean by that.
"It tells stories which it does not pretend ever happened, in order to express profound truths, such as we read in the books of Jonah and Job" It is very obvious that Mr. MacCulloch has not taken the pains to familiarize himself with good sound literature that is readily available out there today that has not only affirmed the historical validity of all 66 books of the Bible (both the Old Testament and the New Testament), but is pathetically ignorant of even the kind of literature he is talking about. No judicious historian has ever questioned the historicity of the Books of the Bible. Now, if one does indeed question the meaning, that is, the interpretation of any particular book, that is a very different thing. However, a historian need not worry about the interpretation of any piece of literature, where facts are concerned. And interestingly the book of Jonah is just that – a very unique experience of the Prophet Jonah and God’s dealings with him. Like I say, obviously Mr. MacCulloch has a hard time ‘swallowing’ the story of Jonah than that the great fish had swallowing Jonah. Hasn’t Mr. MacCulloch read of plenty of other stories of people who were swallowed by huge fish and lived to tell the tale! Very poor research, I must say. The only other explanation is that Mr. MacCulloch is very biased in his judgement - again, not a very good sign of a ‘professional historian’. I pity the students who have to listen to him daily!
And yet Mr. MacCulloch tells us later within 2 pages, "Maybe the Bible can be taken seriously rather than literally." This is no doubt just an 'antic' of his, however it terribly fails in whatever purpose it might have had. Just how does Mr. MacCulloch imagine or wish his readers to take the Bible 'seriously' and yet not literally? I'm beginning to wonder, in what other areas Mr. MacCulloch needs help.
Mr. MacCulloch does even worse - he actually has the audacity to pronounce (as if his own sentiments and opinions were inspired and therefore absolutely correct...!) "Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all discovered that the text between the covers cannot provide all the answers." Obviously, Mr. MacCulloch has taken the liberty of 'pronouncing' his own opinion as Dogma and established truth. Whereas the fact of the matter is that (speaking only of the Bible, of course...) the Bible alone claims to have all the answers that mankind ever or will ever need - for life and eternity.
Again, it is obvious that Mr. MacCulloch is either ignorant of what Christians have all along affirmed about the Bible and how they have always and ever found complete satisfaction and comfort (which of course includes serious answers to fundamental questions about man, God and His universe, etc....) in and through the Bible, God's Revelation to mankind. I suspect that Mr. MacCulloch has probably found it most frustrating that 'Christians' have found their answers in the Bible, however, he has failed to do so. And of course I can understand that this is very frustrating. But then, however frustrated a 'professional historian' is, that grants him no license to make unsound and unwarranted judgements about something he does not even understand! Again, signs of a very poor historian.
Mr. MacCulloch is fond of using words rather lightly, besides not doing through research, things which a good historian should be careful about. In fact if one does not even research and study, he cannot be even a historian, leave alone the desire to be a professional one. Take for example these words of Mr. MacCulloch - "Jesus seems to have maintained that the trumpet would sound for the end of time very soon, and in a major break with the culture around him, he told his followers to leave the dead to bury their own dead." Funny, that Mr. MacCulloch should have criticized the Book of Jonah because he could not take it 'literally' and yet he here takes the words of the Lord Jesus 'literally'. Did he ever ask himself how dead people could bury their own dead!!!
Obviously, Mr. MacCulloch has not done his homework, and shamefully, it shows. Everyone who has even a basic understanding of the times of Near Eastern People (not to mention that authors has written about this very phrase and explained it all very well...) would know that the expression let the dead bury their own dead was a proverbial expression. When a prospective 'disciple' once informed the Lord Jesus to allow him first to go and bury his father, the Lord responded by saying, "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead". It is obvious that his father had not yet died. When asked leave to 'first go bury my father', all he meant was that he wished to complete his responsibility of caring for his (probably now) aged father. However, the message of Christ about the Coming of the Kingdom was urgent enough to allow filial obligations to be suspended for a while. And that was all that Christ meant. I would have supposed any 'historian' should have known this. But obviously, Mr. MacCulloch could not have known this - he has not done any research, nor could he bother himself to do so. Very poor on his part.
But the entire book is full of such nonsense. Mr. MacCulloch would perhaps have been better off writing fictional novels. Poor fellow. I wonder no one ever told him to get a proper education. The least he could have done was to at least read for himself, rather than go ahead and write things and make a fool of himself. I wonder too, that his 'students' did not do any research either. Personally, I do not know. Perhaps students and others did tell him these things. In which case, Mr. MacCulloch is without any excuse. I'd rather believe that Mr. MacCulloch is sincerely unaware of his blunders.
However, that simply makes him a very ignorant person. In this age of internet access and such a wide array of learned and scholarly articles and books, one cannot be justly excused for being ignorant. Not at least when one purports to be a 'professional historian' and even lectures regularly. What is this world coming to. What a shame that people do not even search and research things for themselves. Even worse, publishers are apparently only interested in making money - even if it means publishing and printing books that contain error and/or worthless junk.
I realize I'm using rather strong words and expressions here. However, I firmly believe that everyone has a basic right to at least be sure that reputed publishers take up writings of competent men and women, not those of ignorant ones.
I would readily have excused Mr. MacCulloch's ignorance. However, I cannot and will not excuse his irreverent words against the Lord Jesus Christ. This book blasphemously speaks against the Lord, making His Words (the words of the Lord Jesus) and His actions to be ridiculous.
For instance, Mr. MacCulloch writes, "He made crowds laugh." Now, from where ever did Mr. MacCulloch gather this information. Nowhere in the Bible does it inform us that the Lord made anyone laugh. Some became angry with the Lord - this is true. But there is no record of the Lord making anyone laugh. Perhaps Mr. MacCulloch gets this idea from modern movie depictions of the Lord Jesus, which are all wrong. He further writes, "He shocked or excited them with irreverent comments on authority;..." Again, speaking about allowing the dead to bury their dead, Mr. MacCulloch writes, "He produced outrageous inversions of normality". But there is no such evidence that those who heard such words were 'outraged'. Yes, it is true that the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees were often offended and outraged. But not because the Lord Jesus spoke 'irreverently' or said anything that was untrue. No. Even the very enemies of the Lord Jesus admitted that He did no wrong. And finally the only reason they crucified Him was because He (according to their knowledge) being a mere man, claimed to be God Himself (calling Himself the Son of God, an equivalent term).
For the above mentioned reasons, I cannot and will not recommend Mr. MacCulloch's writings on history. He fails to be even an average historian, leave alone a 'professional' -most disappointing.
The very fact that 'satan' is apparently roaming this earth, having free reign to do whatever he desires with no intervention from 'god' highlights how ludicrous this belief is. 'Casting' satan down to the very planet where 'god' meant to create humans instead of the billions of planets out in the universe smacks of a religious conspiracy. Any deity who messes up 'his creation' so badly that he has to drown them all to start again with a naked drunk is not worthy of the title of 'god'. How any sane, thinking individual can subscribe to such a belief is beyond belief.
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch can't be much of an academic grouping all of the heretical non-Christian sects into the one word CHRISTIANITY. So-called religious offshoot claiming to be sects of Christianity are not Christian because they deny the CATHOLIC CHURCH or Eastern Orthodoxy Church and they deny absolutely the SYMBOLISM of the Holy Scriptures: WORD OF GOD.
It is very much like a Jew after declaring himself an atheist STILL CLAIMING that he is a Jew: that is an oxymoron; because, a Jew is a religious distinction not an ethnic distinction. That atheist has ostracized himself: he is a man without a country.
This is the same mentality of Protestants STILL CLAIMING to be CHRISTIANS when they have deserted Christ like Judas Iscariot. What else can you say about a Protestant other than that he is a traitor: Protestants would be more truthful if they declared themselves to be FOLLOWERS OF JUDAS ISCARIOT.
This is what people that claim themselves to be Protestants are. They are no longer followers of Christ no matter what they claim their literal interpretation of the texts are. Protestants are not followers of Christ; rather, they literally declare themselves Antichrist(ian).
This is what Protestants do: they hate the WORD OF GOD (symbolism = Word of God; because, God can't be talked about directly only indirectly on an abstract level) but Anti-Christians love to be grouped into that "most important of words" CHRISTIAN because they know it will confuse people into their literal way of thought.
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch wants to join the Muppet caravan on their way to HOLLYWOOD so that he can also be eligible, along with Miss Piggy, Kermit and the Muppet Company, to obtain THAT RICH and FAMOUS CONTRACT.
To H: Just a clarification: Christians began to be called as such because of the Greek-speaking believers in Antioch who referred to Jesus as the Christos (Messiah). The Acts of the Apostles records this in chapter 11 verse 26, but the sect became only a legal religion when it became a state religion in 380 CE when emperor Theodosius declared it as such...
I agree with everything that you said, and to reinforce that I have given these clarificatory details because until 200 CE, The Way (as Christianity was known in its primitive stages) did not see itself outside Judaism but as a renewal of it from the inside. However, with the council of Jamnia, the birkat haMinim of the rabbis made it clear that Christianity is now cast off the whole of the Jewish way of life. But by then, the faith of the community had grown to see itself outside of Judaism as well mainly due to the composition of its members as more Gentile, and that tensions were then too high for both sides at this point...
However, it's ironic that while the Jews "cursed" us then, we never cursed them back, yet almost 2000 years later, we kill them in the Nazi Holocaust (something we will never be proud of from a faith perspective). It only goes to show that even in institutions who purport themselves to be of divine in origin, still we make the most (in)human of mistakes of which history has witnessed and preserved...
Only goes to show, no one is above everyone else for we are equal in humanity and death...
if any of you guys had ever attempted or have taken a class in university on the origins of chiristianity you'd know that originally christianity was a jewish sect because jesus was jewish... it only became "christianity" and survived until today because of the emperor constantine who converted the whole roman empire into christianity because of a dream he had and then died a non christian himself. there was 4 councils (nicaea, contantinople, ephesus and chalcedon) that took place where bishops and other important people met and decided upon which will become the foundation of christianity one of which was the trinity .
Paul who was the first to spread the news was a jew and believed in remaining with the judaic laws unless you were a gentile.. paul boasts of not having ever met jesus but that god had spoken to him in a dream and asked him to spread the news to gentiles. and he only started writing 60 years after jesus's death
as for the men that wrote the gospels their is no proof of knowing that the author of the Gospel of John was in fact john or the author of Mark was infact mark and so on and so forth.. each gospel shows the author's point view and gives us a glimpse into the political and social times that these people lived in...
my theology teacher himself said that today christianity as a whole is equivalent to a cult... now everything stated above is historical fact.. it is impossible that jesus never existed but what we do know is almost every person that has writen about jesus had never met him...
I agree with everything that you said, and to reinforce that I have given these clarificatory details because until 200 CE, The Way (as Christianity was known in its primitive stages) did not see itself outside Judaism but as a renewal of it from the inside. However, with the council of Jamnia, the birkat haMinim of the rabbis made it clear that Christianity is now cast off the whole of the Jewish way of life. But by then, the faith of the community had grown to see itself outside of Judaism as well mainly due to the composition of its members as more Gentile, and that tensions were then too high for both sides at this point...
However, it's ironic that while the Jews "cursed" us then, we never cursed them back, yet almost 2000 years later, we kill them in the Nazi Holocaust (something we will never be proud of from a faith perspective). It only goes to show that even in institutions who purport themselves to be of divine in origin, still we make the most (in)human of mistakes of which history has witnessed and preserved...
Only goes to show, no one is above everyone else for we are equal in humanity and death...
I am not allowed to comment in this thread but i really want to discuss my unicorn, has anyone seen him?
i think the goblins took him and sold him to pixies who bargained him with Jesus for mohammed (peas be upon his chin) winged horse.
If i dont get him back im calling in the virgin mary and the seven wise smurfs to sort it all out..
Yes, I saw your Unicorn, Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch is riding him all the way to HOLLYWOOD to get his RICH and FAMOUS CONTRACT.
Jesus (peace be upon him) is a messenger of the one almighty god like adam,noah,ibrahim and moses
It was god in a physical body he was fortold about his coming in old testament.
This doc is mostly correct, but could use some advice.
Oh realy. And what would that "advice" be? Pray tell
i was always a seeker and an explorer and i love to find out the truth about what i believe in.. i was looking for answers and thank God He leads me in this site. i was enlightened by the facts that I've learned. its not about religion science or philosophy.. its about facts, evidence that time has produced that is emerging in our present times.. it's up to us now what to believe and how you will stand on your belief..
"i love to find out the truth about what i believe in.. "
Most of us go about it the other way round...
or at least i hope we do- i dont usually reply to the commenters of meta-magical thinkers but the blatant absurdity of what you wrote needs to be checked if not- you truly are everybodys fool.
You seriously will believe in something -
actually believe?
as in faith?
as in you are convinced?
then state in the same breath that you are actually interested in the truth and the evidence of reality of the situation?
that you know nothing about yet you believe?
and you still "believe" do you?
sort your head out.
bonkers
it is fascinating how "the-thinking-atheist" has no pricetag, and this does
"Religion" is a BUSINESS. INVENTED by-the-wealthy, for CONTROL OF THE MASSES, and for PROPHET from it. (Profit from it) Invented for a similar reason as TV was invented. As a form of DISTRACTION. (and to make "CERTAIN PEOPLE" vvery-wealthy) IT is also a "form of" HYPNOSIS. Like TV is.
Words like "Berth, and Birth." Exact SOUNDING & pronounced words, meaning exactly DIFFERENT things. Just as "the Son," and "the SUN," sound the same, but mean exactly different things. IMPO, "SUN" worship, aka SON worship; became Anthropomorphized ( SUNized, aka SONized) BY MAN. "Wealthy man" WHY? To keep the "poor" from CHOPPING THE HEADS OFF THE RICH!
Were "God" so Omnipotent, WHY would there be such diversion in wealth? WHY would children be starving, even in "America" aka "the North American Union." WHY is there MURDER, RAPE, and THEFT? WHY aren't "Thou shalt not RAPE" or "Thou shalt not ABUSE children," in the 10 commandments? WHY are there HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of different "Christian-belief systems?" WHY are there so-many DIFFERENT "Religions?" (all 'thinking' THEY are "the way.") WHY would we need Armies, OR "Doctors?"
We wouldn't.
IF "the Pope" is "Jesus under a veil of flesh," then WHY would he need a "bullet-proof-car" when he comes out to see the people he supposedly "represents?" Wouldn't his Daddy protect him?
He wouldn't. Or WON'T. Or perhaps, he refuses to? Wouldn't or couldn't his Daddy protect him, like when he "protected Jesus when He was "crucified?"
HE would. But doesn't, or can't.
So WHY do people get SO angry, when you don't AGREE with THEIR beliefs?
They shouldn't. But do............
"Money" is NOT "the root of all evil.
" RELIGION-IS!"...........PhD. IN METAPHYSICS
PS "Don't think, FEEEEEL. It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. DON'T concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all-that-heavenly-Glory." (Bruce Lee)
Except that terms like "son" and "sun" are not the same in Aremaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek
It's also interesting that there are so many references to ancient Egyptian belief in Christianity. Amen is uttered after most every prayer, but little do the christians know that they are reciting the name of Amun, known late as Amun-Re, Egyptian deity of creation and the sun. Amun is commonly seen holding an ankh, which resembles a cross without a closed circle on the top protrusion, which could symbolize an eye closing, which represents the blind following of people to come. He is also holding a was scepter, which resembles the staff carried by many previous religious figures including some popes. Also, the name Jesus Christ bears uncanny resemblances to the Julio-Claudian royal lineage, having the same initials as Julius Caesar. One of Julius' sons Caesarion, ruled Egypt alongside Cleopatra about 30 B.C. Similar to the Muslim account of Jesus, I believe that he faked crucifixion, sparking christianity. Christianity later dominated the roman empire, and along with it, much of the basis of our current society. from there it was easy going for the upper class, who hid under the guise of religion, and being closer to the gods, to make their people work so that they may be oppressed, and their money stolen from them by the already rich, which continues to this day. It is also notable that there was, long ago, an obelisk torn out of the ground and brought to the river Thames, located in London, which is also the location of the Queen. Similarly, there is an obelisk in Vatican City, as well as the washington monument in D.C. Obelisks originate in Egypt and symbolize the sun god Ra, also known as Re, who was later melded with Amun to form Amun-Re.
I really like your clarity. The penitent among us, should learn the origins of the established religion they have chosen to follow.
Science is the root of evil. I mean think about it, why could Jesus walk on water? Heal the sick? How did he get resurrected. How did he ascend into heaven?
Simple! Think about it, all those things. It's gravity! When Newton made gravity, he made all these things impossible. Jesus wasn't the only guy to walk on water, everyone could do it. He didn't get killed by the Romans, it was simple punishment for him not to float up so they nailed him. Once they released and even put him in a cave he escaped and floated. Then people said "No uh! Jesus was the only one who could do that". Not true! We need to turn off gravity!
Now, there might be some holes in my theory but I can explain them. OH NO THE CIA! I need to run!!!
Wow, I really hope you are 16 because that was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "NEWTON MADE GRAVITY???" Ummm......NO, I thought YOUR GOD did this....you know, like on one of those 7 days or something.
And no word said about The Armenian Apostolic Church that was founded in 301...
Why don't you enlighten us Vahe Grigoryan? That sounds very interesting.
Yes, it is unfortunate how often documentaries and documents like these find it very convenient not to talk about the Orthodox and Apostolic Churches of the East. There is also a Church that was established in 375 AD in the southern most part of India when Syrian Christians migrated there which over the course of time imbibed within itself the flavours of Indian culture. Fascinating stories these are but never brought into light.
This is a fantastic documentary! I would say every Christian should watch this with openness and should be challenged! Thanks for posting the documentary.
The Church of the East was created as an independent ecclestiastical organization before the council of Ephesus( 431) it was established in 424 A.D. in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. it was not because of christology that they split but because of politics between christian byzantium and the zorastrian sassanian persian empire. they lived near the borders between these 2 empires and there loyalty towards persia was put to the test and ended in massacres during the time of Shapur, Shapur II (39 or 40 years of persecution)m, Bahram V etc. Christianity was seen as a Roman religion from a persian zoroastrian perspective. so the patriarch of Antioch (on roman terrotory could no longer be their patriarch) but the katholicos of the East instead (the church of the east did not use the term patriarch for the katholicos formally until 498 AD)
The Church of the East was created as an independent ecclestiastical organization before the council of Ephesus( 431) it was established in 424 A.D. in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. it was not because of christology that they split but because of politics between christian byzantium and the zorastrian sassanian persian empire. they lived near the borders between these 2 empires and there loyalty towards persia was put to the test and ended in massacres during the time of Shapur, Shapur II (39 or 40 years of persecution)m, Bahram V etc. Christianity was seen as a Roman religion from a persian zoroastrian perspective. so the patriarch of Antioch (on roman terrotory could no longer be their patriarch) but the katholicos of the East instead (the church of the east did not use the term patriarch for the katholicos formally until 498 AD)
Mankind invented evil, and make it absolute. For example, devils make people sin, and etc. Having invented absolute evil, they move on to invent absolute God.
A question for the faithful:
Do gods cease to exist when people stop believing in them?
Some say that god created man....i think man created god.
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
Learn to talk about true understanding, not just ignorance disguised as opinion.
Mankind is at its most evil, when it believes that it is fighting evil.
faith is a beautiful thing but religion is the most dangerous and destructive thing we have ever invented. having faith in a higher purpose is accepting that there might be something more important and magnificent than you. which is a good thing. keeps you from getting too full of yourself. but religion is a means of control. a tool for staying on top. a tool for staying in charge. it inevitably only corrupts and distorts the very thing it pretends to be.
Here's a hyp0thetical; if all traces 0f religi0n c0uld be wiped 0ut and n0 menti0n made, w0uld G0d reappear in 100 years time?
dnt worry ill pray for u wcb
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't realize how condescending you sound when you tell somebody that you will pray for them. If you truly had their best interest in mind, you would never say such a thing. And it is a thousand times more offensive to say that to somebody that is not religious.
i was being sarcastic... I very rarely pray bro. And saving lives....I'm a Med student... I hope i will be able to do that... dnt worry us religious ppl can make jokes to ;)
You're religious and you don't PRAY!!! WHATTT??? What religion are you in....and can I join??
i plan to save peoples lives before i go to heaven
Then go into the Navy and be a SEAL....or a lifeguard....That's about the only ways you're going to save anyone's life.....telling stories about something noone knows is just going to hurt and destory others intellect and self-preservance which doesn't need help from a GOD, only other human beings.
These Religious primates need to hurry up and go to their heaven so our more evolved can undo the damage they have inflicted. If only it was legal to put humans down aswell...
hahaha, we will see bout that my man!!
@Dami Akomolafe...
no disrespect intended..but what is faith,,every really break it down..what exactly is really going on inside ur mind...for real dami .
"the masses" come on dami, i am the most evolutionary high point on the "god" dam planet...i dont know what the masses are..i just dont see the point..faith takes u no were besides ,,,u guessed it ,,faith...how stupid does that sound..
i have faith Bad faith (existentialism), mauvaise foi, a philosophical concept wherein one denies one's total freedom, instead choosing to behave as an inert object...
that would mean i really am water and some star dust..and i eat sleep and shit..and mess around in my head..and do really not much else there is no god...Dami just faith,and belief..there the only "gods" people know..
its so hard to even talk about "faith" it takes "faith" to even talk about it. so i am gonna shut up..lol..cause i really dont get it..
The story of christianity is just part 2 in the story of Abrahamic monotheism,(judaism, christianity and islam).
Abrahamic monotheism is just original fascism, one god ,one empire ,one emperor.
It is all an invention of men with greed in thier hearts and swords in thier hands. Cyrus the great invented judaism and became the jewish messiah and created a buffer state for his persian empire! Constantine was a monotheist sun worshiper trying to unite his east and west roman empires with a roman unified state religion. Islam was invented by nestorian and ebonites "heretics" fleeing from a byzantine power struggle.
Its all just re-written dumbed down paganism
I often wonder in meditation and observation on the subject of" RELIGION-SPIRITUALITY-ADDICTION-LUST-DESIRE-FEAR" how close the delusional need they fill is,,what i suppose my point is there is no point..the mind is in control..i get the strangest reaction from my mind , if i am sitting quietly, and think of the word god..i mean i actually see the word in my mind..GOD..than trying to just let it go, and observe ..holy sh## the stuff ridiculous stuff that comes in there ..the images the dogma ..yada yada .. same with porn..a big splif..glass of beer.. Ferrari..those little worms that crawl up a guys pe##s when ur in the "bad water"..
It is amazing to me..after the mind starts to take off..it goes on its own..based on my experience history environmental background education..
and than if i can catch it ..and change my direction...it didnt me a thing..there was no real need..pointless..
just my own thing..thought i would share.. PS i have a little baby Jesus doll and my cat chews it.. just kidding "sharks"..lol..srry
you sound confused?
after receiving the " u seem confused? " i looked over what i wrote.
i think u are correct.not well writ-in.lol
so my point..is that the image of something is the meaning.
images hold more power than almost anything in the mind.
fear..if i picture in my my mind, one of those little barbed worms crawling up my penis..wow..i feel fear..nasty.can almost feel it..
addiction..if i picture something i am addicted to it can cause a physical response, or even a mental obsession.."ie" weed,sex,porn, cocaine,food,AIR..whatver the case maybe
spirituality..what ever i picture as spiritual..what ever holds meaning and fits the definition to me of spiritual, becomes that image in my mind..
lust..there is an image
desire..the Ferrari, lexus, the little house "the beaver grew up in" what ever..education, knowledge..what ever desire is huge..
now if i were to say just the word "GOD" in a room full of people.that have been as quite and still breathing slowly relaxing..for 15 min, as best they could.. the image of god and the meaning of god would be in the for front of there mind..
so if u cant see the connection between the simplest of things..than i cannot help ..u have reached a delusional state
religion is no different from a Lexus..or a house..or an i pod..there all based on a delusion.."ie" a need
" Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.[2] These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)[3]"
if u are not observing..u are the observed..its all images created by the mind for the mind..
sorry so long very hard to explain..had a great "image" in my mind..
so anyone delusional?
I have theory.
If there is a god, what if it turns out to be some kid. Playing a video game like "Sims Universe" or something. And he's gone off to build other worlds or do the dishes and forgotten about us. Is he really worth spending all this time worshiping and devoting your life to him?
I think my theory holds as much water as others I've heard.
Prove I'm wrong.
Yes I agree @joshua89. Once I had a theory about Cinderella being transvestite with a hidden agenda to ultimately kill the prince. No one tried to refute me. It will be the same with your story.
something has been lost...People say faith is bull. Faith is a very Powerfull thing that empowewrs the masses... Yes it can be used for control but so can many things. The theory off attraction... THE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS ALL OVER THE WORLD.....the reason that THE ARROGANT DICKHEAD GETS THE GIRL, while the nice mild mannered nerd goes home to his right hand (I fall into neither of these categories, im somewhere in the middle. God gave me a tupac like face and a voice that makes ppl, listen).
I see the bible as a personal development thing rather than a dedicating ure life to God thing.... Well not tbhe kinda god u guys talk of or suspect.
But the fact that when u do onto another man as you would like to be done onto yourself, is a way of glorifying god....this would mean that your fellow man is god....right?
psalms tells us ye are gods. Every one of us....Its a powerful text, which in my opinion helps us come together and realize that we are all part of something bigger. When we f--k each other over we are f--king ourselves...conflict is not encouraged by Jesus unless they start to use the temples as a market place...(oh wait look at the church now). The only time we see Jesus gettin pissed and violent is when they start selling shit in the temple (or just outside). Think about it..... How has it been distorted? It disgraceful. As the human body is also seen as the temple of the Holy Spirit, then we are not supposed to f--k ourselves... Let our spirit be diminished. Eat shitty foods, let others kill our dreams instead of listening to your inner voice and your own dreams!
FOR ME ITS POWER TO THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! There is a reason in my opinion why its been corrupted and made to look ridiculous....easier to control this way...
Dami i'm not one to debate with people on religion because hell it's a never ending debate it just keeps going and going. And I don't like argueing with non-believers because it gets on my nerves to argue when its one choice to believe or not I mean God is not forcing anyone to believe in Him anyway so what is there to argue about. But I'm totally understanding what you are saying dude I feel you. I'm a christian and I believe in learning and being taught the whole truth in the teachings Of Christ. I don't believe that this is happening alot though. And that causes confusion. If and when you read say The King James Version Bible from Genesis to Revelations. Did you just read the entire Bible? No Actually you didn't there are so so many more books in the Bible than that.. is that being preached and talked about? There are so many different versions of the bible words changed around that have different meanings like say supposed the easy to read versions of the bible to cause confusion what the original translation is. To be honest the word of God is not hard to understand the bible The WHOLE BIBLE is not hard to understand only if we received the WHOLE message. the WHOLE TRUTH. And its been hidden from the masses in order to control. False teachers, false preachers, so called prophets, popes? Men and some Women leading some people/sheep astray. For profit and power for Themselves. And that turns people off. I used to be one of the sheeple myself going along this how its been taught tradition nonsense. I am one to ask search and seek the truth for myself taking it further. There is no excuse in the day and age we live in not to be able to find out any kind of information that we want to even information with christianity religion however you want to put it.. you just have to be careful and cipher thru false doctrines which that is an on going debate too, so we can't make excuses. Umm I wanted to comment to you I felt that you were kind of getting railed on lol so I wanted to say i admire your Faith. I believe and have faith too. One thing I always found funny is that people always are quick to say i don't believe in God or I don't believe in Jesus Christ, God this or No God that but they don't mention Satan, He is so good at deceiving why doesn't anyone talk about that? I don't know maybe some don't believe he is real either. Blessings To You Peace
individualism is a modern cult developed after the so-called enlightenment. It is innaccurate as not only are we all interconnected but this connection is inescapable even if you would want to. Individualism is attractive as it implies personal freedom and autonomy but it is a delusion.
@Joshua - a very similar thought occurred to me when I was in grad school and had been dabbling with genetic algorithms a bit. What if this universe is nothing more than a PhD research topic of some hyper-dimensional being? Once he finished his degree, he got a real job and forgot all about it. :)
your level of approach needs to be raised before an intelligent discussion could be edifying
@maddog3 - Yes, but that's exactly the point. It isn't possible to dispute, or even intelligently discuss, any 'theory' that is not falsifiable. Joshua's creation argument is every bit as valid as those put forth by Christianity, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc ... Actually, it's more valid, since he concludes that you shouldn't waste your life in worshipful devotion to such an imaginary entity. He also wisely chose not to include a time-frame for the "Most Holy God of Sim Universe", thereby avoiding potential embarrassments such as the 6,000 year old Earth debacle.
@Joshua89 - This made me giggle so badly!! I used to have the same idea! (Being a Sims player) Nicely done, sir. Nicely done. :)
Christianity can claim it's true do to the fact that it has a book, ancient relics and ruins and 'witnesses'.
I ask then, since I have seen English castles, witnessed magic tricks and read the books, is Harry Potter really a wizard?
Or is there another logical explanation.
Atheism is not a religion. There are around 38,000 denominations of Christianity, and only one form of Atheism. The Christian-pool has become so diluted that they are capable of the broadest views imaginable on defining what constitutes a "religion". For some reason Christian's always have this burning desire to lable everything. You just can't leave it alone, can you?
We're all born Atheist, some just get lost.
We are all born non religious, some get framed by a book of books written in a language they never knew, never will.
az
Interesting, I've been looking for a documentary like this one for quite a while. I've always found documentaries about the early history and the Reformation, but not one nice documentary about the history of the religion from beginning to present.
And personally, I'm going to try and avoid what's inevitably going on down below...but I have to say, I am a spiritual person, I can't lie. I believe that we aren't alone in the universe and that there's a higher power. I do see sense in many aspects of my religion, but fallacies in others. I don't consider it perfect, but a basic guideline, but I do take other perspectives in account. That's all.
@Rodrigo Pereira,
There you go. That is a comment where anyone can put their arguments for or against. I'll put mine against:
Pantheism is indeed "sexed up Atheism" not because Dawkins says so, but because the very nature of it will point to.
It's a form of spirituality that is somewhat compatible with science. In Pantheism, God is identical with the universe, but God also lies beyond or outside of the universe.
The following atheists where/are on many occasions using the words "spirituality" and "God" (in pantheistic connotation), thus they can be logically classed as pantheist atheists: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Lucretius, D'Holbach, Hume, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking. Note, they don't believe in supernatural God.
The main argument why pantheists are very close to atheists is because pantheists focus on the universe and nature as God, but without any supernatural being or intelligent creator involved.
Well now, I'm going to ask you what you mean by "somewhat" compatible with science. In my view it is either science or it is not science. Somewhat? Do you say that "somewhat" is a good enough standard?
@lakhotason,
Ah semantics, semantics. What I'm saying (and probably what Dawkins was trying to say) is that pantheism is very close to science and atheism. For sure it's not the same and never can be for the very simple reason: science is a tool which relies on the scientific method and every belief system is just a belief, devoid of any scrutiny and critical thinking.
Should I re-phrase myself: Pantheists use the word God in the similar connotation as atheists or scientists do.
@vlatko - Sounds reasonable. I'll keep it in mind.
There was a time when Atheists earned the term “free thinker”. It was a time when Atheists used their rationality and logic to try to solve philosophic problems that are created when one believes in God, but it is no longer that time. Atheists now have a single religious leader who tells them what to think. Richard Dawkins is the most quoted atheist of our time. Atheists seem to look up to him as a wise leader and expect him to answer these questions for them. Their trust could be put in the hands have a much more qualified man than Dawkins. Dawkins, while he may be a gifted biologist, fails as a philosopher. His own made up definitions of philosophic positions, such as Pantheism, are completely wrong. But Atheists follow his divine words with such gumption, they could never admit when he is wrong. When I state that Richard Dawkins is a failed philosopher to Atheists, they usually say “He never claimed to be a philosopher”, and one time an Atheist even added, “That must be the wisdom shining through”. Whether or not Dawkins has claimed to be a philosopher, he is ultimatley acting as one when he discusses philisophical positions and/or philisophic problems. Now, I want to correct all who believe the lies and bull spewed by Dawkins when it comes to philisophic matters.
Right, and who are you? give us your peer reviewed qualifications and let us see if you can even remotely compare to Richard Dawkins intellectual capacity.
By the way "Philosophy bakes no bread"
But it tells when and where you should bake and when you should not, the atomic bomb doesn't have philosophy in it, just reasoning and science giving hands for a better world
I don´t really care all that much about Richard Dawkins and would never consider him being the leader of anything.
Why should it be necessary for an atheist to be a "free thinker" solving philosophical problems?
@Rodrigo Pereira,
I don't know if you're aware but there is no single precise argument in your comment, regarding Dawkins and the atheists in general being wrong.
You know... in order someone to take you seriously you need to offer more than one paragraph packed with unsubstantiated personal labels.
For example and for starter show us how Dawkins is wrong on Pantheism.
Pantheism
Dawkins has described pantheism as “sexed up Atheism”. He says that pantheism is simply atheism, because they don’t believe in a God, instead they use the term God to refer to nature. If you were to walk up to any pantheist or philosophy professor and gave them this definition, they would laugh at you. It is simply wrong.
While pantheists do use the term God to refer to nature, there is more to it. Pantheists do believe in the divine. They do believe in God, even though they do not believe in the common Judeo-Christian concept of God. Pantheism comes from the Greek words for “all” and “God” and it literally means “God is all“. If Dawkins could even take the time to understand the name, he would realize just how wrong he is. They believe that the universe is one with an all-encompassing, immanent God.
Told you I was bored Vlatko. Don't you think that Rodrigo was talking more of Dawkins as a person you shouldn't emulate and follow blindly rather than a question of Dawkins' philosophy of Pantheism?
And I would like to hear the answer from you to that question. Do atheists on this site tend to emulate or mimic (my word) Dr. Dawkins?
You have a unique view. I would really like to hear. It's the curiosity thing.
@Rodrigo, any pantheists i have met will say that nature and the universe as a collective entity is GOD but there is no being or intelligence they would call god.
it wasnt even an insult. you are painting all pantheists with the same brush. perhaps the mistake that Dawkins made in that comment.
so what other parts of philosophy do you disagree with Dawkins on?
Welcome back Rodrigo! I glad to see you have returned. Let us continue our back and forth.
I would like to think that myself and most other atheists are still considered free thinkers, open minded and capable of rational thought. These qualities are probably to the most common amongst us. We use our abilities to look at a situation from many different points of view and decide what seems logical. And when examining the evidence offered by religion as to the logicality of its claims, it is hard to see that it is true.
While the bible most definitely DOES provide wonderful morals to live by, Do not kill, steal, cheat, lie. Try to do unto others as they would do unto you, if that were all that it said, it would be the perfect book to follow your life by. But unfortunately it does not. There are many examples of cruelty, racism and intolerance for anyone with a differing point of view. Massive wars, death, destruction, unimaginable torture and subjugation have happened over thousands of years because of the different interpretation of a book supposedly about peace on earth and goodwill towards men. And I find it impossible to use such a book to live my life by.
Also the bible is full of laugh out loud, to use a word popularized by Azilda, absurdities. Some of these stories seriously have to categorized as fiction. Rising from the dead. Virgin birth. Woman made from a rib. Talking snakes. Two of every animals on a boat. Lived in a whale for three days. Wife turns into salt. My namesake Joshua using trumpets to blow down city walls. Great stories, if they were read just as stories.
I had a children's bible when I was young and I loved to read it. But I was reading it as a a book of stories, not a life guidance manual. It fell into the same category as the Mother Goose and Dr. Suess stories. While I thought it would be great to have a gingerbread house, or magic beans to go visit giants. I also wanted a trumpet to blow down walls and a boat filled with two of every animal.
As for Richard Dawkins, I can see where you are coming from with him. He definitely comes across sometimes as arrogant, unfeeling, sarcastic and downright mean. But I can also understand where he is coming from. He has been speaking on this subject for many decades now. And trying to lobby any unpopular opinion can get tiring after awhile.
I think he may be suffering from our own Achems_Razor disease. Luv ya Achem, but you get understandably grouchy now sometimes.
But the reason Dawkins is singled out as our 'messiah', haha, is because he is able to to put together thoughts and ideas that are here and there and present them into reasoned, logical arguments. He has the ability to do what a good professor of any subject can do. Teach it so others can understand it. And now people are starting to understand that religion has been holding our species back for millenia and they want to change that.
Dawkins may be the most vocal of atheists, but look at what he is up against. The power of the church is a formidable foe. And it is only very recently that we have had the ability to voice our ideas and opinions. Only as far back as a couple of generations have we even had the ability to speak our unpopular ideas. Prior to that if we said something like, there is no god, you would be lucky if you were just shunned from society. History is littered with bodies of those who would say such 'heresy'. Even today in many parts of the world, saying such things will earn you a death sentence.
So don't worry to much that atheism will impact your religion to much. We are still a small, but growing, minority. We are up against many, many generations of deeply ingrained, sorry to this term but, brainwashing. Religion will be around long after you and I are gone.
Rodrigo, I wrote this using my own free thoughts and ideas. Yes, I have used ideas from other people, but I have collected these from allot of sources and have come up to my own conclusions and post them as my own. In a word I have been educated.
I send you and your family happy thoughts
Cheers
PS
Vlatko, good to see you make an appearance. Thank you so much again for having such an important and downright entertaining site.
Achems Razor disease? absolutely. But it is usually only the religee's that say that Hmmm? It is of course exceedingly hard to try to cure the religee's of their insanity, not that I am really trying, their disease is almost incurable, like a virus as Dawkins says. The only ones that can cure the religious of their form of insanity are the religious themselves, as is the case of most addictions.
Dawkins, as a scientist, doesn't say "there is no God".
the music was tedious, the presentation - like the music - overly turgid. if you can get thru it, there are some good spots - such as the history of the eastern church in asia, which i was not aware of.
but here's a rather staggering omission during his treatment of christianity respecting national socialism - he left out the reich concordat, wherein the RC church gave hitler internatinal recognition, in exchange for some minor prefermensts - thi was negotiated by the future pope. not a pretty picture.
also, the fellow is gay, and apparently, agnostic. not that there's anything wrong with that, but you might feel like you've been had.
i felt the thing was long on sentiment, atmosphere, bombastic imagery, short of information.
I've watched many discussions about the bible and about Jesus by "Experts" and I don"t believe any of them have realy read the bible. Jesus was not God in the form of a man. Read John 1:28 where Jesus said !The Father is greater than I. The Holy Spiret planted Jesus into Mary when he was born, being the son of God, He was no part of Mary, as the son of God he could not have been any part homan. I've never found in the Bible where Jesus refered to Mary as Mother. The "Experts" place more truth in the books of Mark and Luke, calling Matthew and John copkies of Mark. Don't they k now the Mark and Luke were
taught by Paul?. cls44l
Have not seen this as yet but I read a lot of the comments. Would anyone care to comment on Perpetua of Carthage & Felicity and where they got that sort of faith?
I myself have my God/Creator/Yahweh but have not found any "religion" that makes me comfortable. I believe we are spirit and these are times to strengthen this and help everyone understand that we are all the same. Our bodies are made of the same stuff as all life and planets, stars etc., and we are at the crossroads of treating the afflictions in this world, our home or continuing in our actions which can only be described as suicide.
The Bible is many different writings chosen and put together by people and while we have some that are missed out I doubt if these are all there are.
I choose to keep things simple and the messages tell me to take care the most of our least, don't slander or judge and treat everything and everyone with care and respect. My mistakes make me strong and give me my curiosity and gratitude for life.
I am grateful to Vlatco for every documentary whatever my reactions, I am learning so much.
I am grateful to you that make comments and learn from them too.
One last question, was there slang in Jesus's time and if so is there a good site for this? Eastern and Western thoughts and meanings differ so much, I am studying Hebrew and it has opened up a whole new world.
Long documentary, long comments :) I watch and read am all... Good doc. Tnx for posting. I had already my opinion about Christianity, and this only confirmed it. After fall of communism church in my country (Montenegro) has risen again, and do much damage sporting national chauvinism in the rounding countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia)... I am not talking for the Orthodox church only, but for Roman Catholic and Muslim community.
It is not that 'God' may not exist but that there is no reason to postulate such a being. And this are for many reasons. First, we cannot conceive of anything greater than a man. Can we imagine what creates billions or trillions of stars in a 15 billion year old universe? No. We are a subsequent part of this process and it is important to remember that.
Our relative morality and bronze age myths cannot possibly serve as the model. Which is what religion does. If anything science, by pulling back some of the layers and revealing much of which the ancients had no clue, has already gotten us closer to 'god' (the reality of the nature of creation) than any religion ever has! And religion is tribal. You dont see one science for NY and another for Syria. Science is universal and that is the hallmark of truth. We can still have spirituality but it should be about contemplation and turning one inward to the world of mind. To the 'heart.' No religion required. We are the living embodiment of the great mystery of life in this universe. We do NOT need look for meaning of it in books but in our bodies hearts, and minds. We never really experience anything outside of our minds..do we. Even though the universe we look out on seems to be 'out there' it isn't, is it? All experience is internal.
peace.
*And Constantine chose Christianity for strictly practical reasons and look what it became right away.
The only reason to "postulate" a being simply comes from a refusal to accept that we as humans have no more special status in the universe than a rock or a centipede. You can certainly condemn the logic of this response to scientific analysis of our place in the universe as "just not wanting to accept the "truth" of reason. This is exactly the definition of faith. Using scientific analysis makes sense when deciding matters of public policy and day to day survival but at the point of personal choice for the individual it loses its authority. A summation of all history may provide nothing but condemnation for the practice of religion in all its failures and flaws but provides no final authority over personal faith no matter how illogical it may seem. Faith should have no more burden for proof than science has for proving a unobservable being does not exist. You are correct all experience is internal and once the individual has examined his or her "bodies, hearts and minds" and choose's to hope for something greater than what they find lacking they have chosen their personal journey. Tribalism,religous persecution, bigotry, hate and injustice must all be a part of the nature of man as has always been assumed by the "sinful nature of man" by most religions. So it must be also true for the atheist who must agree God does not inspire men to do these evil things since he does not exist.
The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness. Joseph Conrad
Hey u all know that the Catholic church accepted evolution no longer as a theory, but a fact.
You mean they were overwhelmed by evidence of what is real?
They accepted it YEARS ago.
dnt make me get pissed at your self ritous ass. we are now seeing the extremists in the athiest world too.
before making smart comment. learn about the 100's of top scientists that happen to also be catholic priests or imams. Dnt be so closed minded . HA!! its funny when a religious guy has to say that to an atheist.
@Dami Akomolafe,
No it's not funny. It happens all the time.
Look I'm sorry, I know kids who take up evolution faster than these so-called self proclaimed speakers of truth of whatever god they worship. The fact that it even had to take so long is amazing from my perspective. And I think that's a good thing (for me and the kids). I will try to be more subtle next time.
Yes and no. The issue of evolution has been addressed by several Popes, and Cardinals over the decades. However, the Magisterium, whos job it is to interpret the word of God, has never issued a binding statement validating it into the faith. You must remember that for decades the Church opposed the theory of evolution fiercely. Evolution became a monkey on the Church's back, and wasn't going away. Eventually the Church realized it either had to get on board, or get left behind. Today evolution is still not accepted by the Vatican, it only has it's "place" in theology.
im sorry guys. I just think that religion is a different way of thinking about the universe. im not filling the gaps in with god...
I just believe tht there is somthing greater... I belive in some kind of creator..... I know u guys think thats stupid.... but on a level
SCREW U GUYS!!
once again I§m gonna warn u about becoming just like the ultra religious that u hate soo much.
Its ure call... I wsnt attacking... But u felt the need to mock and show no respect. Its like the Salem witch trials. lool
There is something very true about what you say. I do have a couple of questions and I'd like you to understand I am really interested in your answers. I will not now or ever ridicule or mock. I however cannot speak for any others that happen to be looking in and that can be a problem. With that understanding you can either answer or not.
Did you post your beliefs with the intent of debate and/or the willingness to debate if challenged? ( When I say debate I mean an honest straightforward exchange being your expectation)
Lakhotason.. I did and im very happy and open to do so! I love debate. And I will reply trying to understand best i can from others paradimes rather than my own.
Loved your "sermon". Seriously I thought it to be pointed but hilarious at the same time. Nothing like satire to expose the truth.
Well I thought that this was a good doc. The comments below seem to gravitate towards opinions on Christianity, but I rather like the way this doc didn't do that, and stuck to the historical events that shaped it. I learned a few things too! Like how I had an ally in Baruch Spinoza, his statement that ''god is not a supernatural being, but rather god and nature are one' resonates well with me, and I think that I might have liked Voltaire.
When I look at Christianity as being a good or bad thing, I look back on J.C. promoting the meek and impoverished way, and then look at the modern televangelist living their rock-star lifestyles, it's hard to see the resemblance. I believe that there are a lot of good hearted Christians out there, and I would never condemn them for their faith or for the actions of others. As this doc so clearly demonstrated, there are all kinds of Christians.
well said bro
Dear Rodrigo Pereria
Thank you for coming back to the site and replying to my comment. I enjoyed reading it and I am glad you stand up for what you believe in. But I want to challenge your beliefs. About the universe you live in and the way that you understand it now. What you believe is, by far, not the correct version of the truth. I would also like to state that I do NOT know the answers to the mysteries of the universe. But some of the questions are being answered, using theories, logic, reasoning and testing. Using ancient deities as the answer to questions like, where do we come from and how did we get here, does not come close to a reasonable or logical answer.
I would like to address some of the points in your reply and let you think and study for yourself what makes more sense.
I will stand by my original 99% chance that there is no god. I site the lack of any physical proof of such a being as my reasoning. I am unable to see, hear, speak to god in any way. If such a being existed, wouldn't it make sense to at least make your real presence known to everyone.
There is also the fact that there have been as many gods over the ages. As many gods as there are cultures on earth. Which one is correct? Your god? George Bush's god? Bin Ladin's god? Ghandi's god? Some hippy in California's god? Who's god is the right god.
The next point I would like to address is the point that you were making was, that Stalin and Hitler were atheist. And that because of that they had no 'divine guidance' they were allowed to do what they did.
One of the most widely known facts about WWII was that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. There were still some religious overtones to it. But for the most part, it is true that WWII was not a religious war. But it was a war. And like every other war before and after it, it is about power, control and armed robbery on a massive scale. It just used different propaganda and persuasion techniques than previously used. Instead of a cross or a star or moon, they used a swastika and a hammer and sickle instead. Stalin killed over twenty million of his own people, not because he cared what sky being they believed in, but because he was a mega maniacal psychopath with absolute power. And instead of being called fuhrer or comrade Stalin, they would have been called kings or popes or holy men.
These men cared not about religion as you think of it. They cared about the power and control. And how they got it was by using religion. Or socialism or fascism or the money religion. Whatever worked. Religion is just another man made invention to pacify you and provide you with 'answers' to questions they really have no idea how to answer. And while you are busy trying to answer those god questions they are focusing their attention to other things.
To say that these comment are 'nazist', is a interesting thing to say. The best way to show you that they are anything but, is the fact that we are having this conversation. I have my point of view, you have yours. If this was a extreme socialist state, and we were having this conversation, one of us would be in very serious trouble.
I was also intrigued by your 'a world that is based solely on science and reasoning is a world doomed to war and destruction' statement. Yes, it very well could be. But I think we hold ourselves (barely) back from that point is, not due to the fact that god is telling us to, but to something called humanity. I don't plan on killing anyone or taking over Europe. I don't need god to tell me that killing, stealing, lying and cheating are wrong. I just know that because I'd rather get along with my neighbours so, I don't do these things. I also know that to be a good neighbour, you help when you can, as best you can. Because you might need help later. I think there might be something to karma.
One thing I really don't understand is the devoutly religions obsession with death. I'm not particularly worried about what happens when we die, because I don't know what happens.
And neither do you. In fact no one does. And I highly doubt (sorry) that you are probably not going to be living on a cloud with angels or whatever you may believe what heaven is. And I'm pretty sure I'm not (thankfully) going to spend eternity being tortured and burning in pain because I chose to sleep in on Sunday morning. But do hope that the injured, sick and dying find some kind of peace after their suffering. Whatever that may be. I still don't know.
You make a point about to the mysteries of religion. I agree. There are many mysteries. But I would call them mysteries of the universe. There is an incalculable amount of knowledge, riddles and questions out there. And science is trying to answer these questions. Some are right, most are wrong, but the TRYING to answer these questions is what separates science and religion. Religion tends to throw its hands up and say "God did it!" when they don't know an answer. That may have worked for generations stretching back to our inception, but that answer will not do anymore.
Which bring me to the final point of your reply. You mention several times about the education of today. You go as boldly to say;' Everyone thinks their a genius today after havein the poorest education of human history.'
I will ignore the cheap shot pointing out your spelling and grammatical mistakes in this sentence and go straight to the point of the message.
TODAY, AS IN RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE, BY FAR, THE MOST WELL EDUCATED AND INFORMED POPULACE THAT HAS EVER LIVED!
Sorry to go caps lock on you, but I needed to get that point across. The fact that both you and I are able to read, write, use this computer, navigate modern society in general speaks volumes about our educational systems.
I am assuming your an average working guy, not some super rich nobleman or something. Just a member of the masses, nobody special, like me. Very few generations ago we would not have even had the opportunity to learn basic elementary level educations. Most people could not spell their names. Many people still can't, but that number drops daily. I believe that the smartest person that ever lived is alive right now and probably has absolutely no interest in religion whatsoever. Our species is due for another DaVinci or Einstein or Oppenheimer that will come and shake up the world as we know it for better or worse.
The people, the masses are learning. And when you learn something, usually the answer poses more questions. And more and more people are coming to questions like "What did god have to do with this?'
And god is staying silent while the questions keep mounting.
I'm confused by the quotes you have selected. They seem odd choices.
While I do enjoy the writings of Victor Hugo, but you probably should have picked a different person to quote. He actually died a non-theist and was quite opposed to religion in his later years. He was unsure of religion as he went through many different denomination during his life. I'm sure he was spiritual in some sense, but not religious.
C.S. Lewis on the other hand was an atheist who turned into a devout christian. And is also one of the best fiction writers of all time. The Chronicles of Narnia is a massive sweeping tale of fantasy. Talking animals, epic battles, moral dilemmas, wise advice. Sounds like another book I know about.
Edward Young was also a devout Christian and another of histories greatest writers of fiction. Although Night Thoughts is supposedly based on true events, these events depict a world steeped in deep religious intrigue. He also managed to live in a perpetual state of retirement after Night Thoughts came out, becoming quite wealthy. Because it became a favorite within the church.
Saint Augustine, well, was a saint so probably did something for the church. I don't really know. I do know she is one of the approximately 10,000 named Catholic saints.
Now I'd like to leave you with some quotes as well.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Carl Sagan
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet
Napoleon Bonaparte
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason
Benjamin Franklin
I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them
Galileo Galilei
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.
George Carlin RIP
Jesus Christ! (I do like religion for the vernacular)
This is a long post. Sorry. I just started typing and here we are.
Cheers
I will reply to this very soon
This is very hard to explain, really, because i can see why think like that, I understand your side I really do, but for you to see my side more clearly, you have got to get rid of your prejudice and think with an open mind. here is an article that can make my opinion more clear to you.
This is writen as a response to Richard Dawkins but it suits our discussion as well. Thank you for your reply.
It seems that he thinks scientists are all reasonable, sceptical, honest people who insist on having evidence for all their beliefs. Religious believers, however, are irrational, and their faith discourages independent thought, is divisive, and dangerous. Faith, Dawkins said, is “a process of non-thinking”, or of “believing because you have been told”, without any evidence at all. Presumably scientists who have religious beliefs are rational during the week, and suddenly become insane on Sundays.
It takes only a little knowledge of history to undermine this black-and-white view of the world. It would be ludicrous to accuse Plato or Aristotle of “non-thinking”. But Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, to name just three Christian theologians, continued the Greek philosophical traditions, reflecting in detail on how these Greek views could be reasonably thought to be completed by Christian monotheism.
Today, if you take a course in theology at Oxford, Dawkins’ own university, you will be challenged to think for yourself, to engage with the best philosophical minds of the past, and to decide for or against specific religious beliefs on the basis of the best reasons you can find.
Most believers do not get involved in such abstract intellectual arguments about God. Christians quite rightly sustain their faith by personal response to the love of God which they see in Christ, in the sacraments of the Church, and in their personal experience. But they do need to know that faith has a rational foundation, and that in fact most of the great classical philosophers, Christian or not, have thought that there are very good reasons for believing in God.
In fact modern philosophy and science have both arisen from a resolute attempt, initiated by theologians, to think hard about the nature of the universe, and to decide whether it is founded on a spiritual reality or is at base purely material. Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and the co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, A.R. Wallace, were all explicitly motivated to pursue science by their religious beliefs. Of course you do not need religious beliefs to be a great scientist, but to say that having religious beliefs is incompatible with being a scientist is just historically false.
Dawkins may think that the spiritual hypothesis has been demolished by materialism. There are indeed some philosophers who think so. But, as anyone who teaches philosophy knows, there are also reasons for believing in God. Even scientists who are not avowed theists, such as Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, usually accept that there are good reasons for believing in a designing intelligence, even if they think there are stronger reasons for declining that inference. There are reasons for belief in God, however, that can be intelligently believed and discussed, and to deny that is wilful prejudice and intellectual dishonesty.
There are reasons for belief in God, however, that can be intelligently believed and discussed, and to deny that is wilful prejudice and intellectual dishonesty.
When I watched the two programmes presented by Dawkins on Channel 4 this week and last, I could find only two reasons given by him for not believing in God. One was his misunderstanding that natural selection is an alternative to intelligent design. It is not. Natural selection can be intelligently designed. Almost all the theologians I know accept both natural selection and the intelligent design of the universe by its creator. This discussion has become confused because “intelligent design” has been used by some (such as the biochemist Michael Behe) for the thesis that there are identifiable biological phenomena that require all scientists to posit an intelligent designer.
Almost all Catholic theologians and scientists reject this thesis. But naturally they believe that the process of evolution is itself intelligently designed, as a way of generating a great diversity of emergent life-forms, culminating so far on Earth in intelligent human life.
The other reason is that a creator would be as improbable or complex as the complexity he was supposed to explain, so would not really be an explanation. This is more interesting, for it introduces a discussion about what an “explanation” is. A theist claims that scientific explanation, in terms of general laws and initial states, is not the only sort of explanation. There is also “personal explanation”, in terms of purposes and values. This is the sort of explanation used by historians, novelists, anthropologists, critics of the arts and ethicists. It is a perfectly familiar form of explanation. The question “Could there be a personal explanation for the universe?” is one on which there is rational discussion, and on which different views are held. It does no service to clear thinking to say that if anyone thinks there is such an explanation — for instance, that the universe exists because God chooses it — they are irrational, non-thinking, and have suspended their critical faculties. This is abuse, not argument.
What, then, about the claim that religion is the root of all evil? The twentieth century saw more people killed in warfare than any other century. Two world wars, the Falklands conflict, Vietnam and Korea, the massacre of dissidents in Russia … the list is long and tragic, but religion does not figure as a significant factor. Ironically, science does, since it is scientists who have designed weapons of mass destruction that can destroy the world, and built the arsenals that have made modern warfare possible.
Has science, then, produced more evil than religion? Lazy thinking would undoubtedly say yes. But what we really need to do is distinguish, and point out that it is the use of science by those with a blind will for power that is evil, while science can be used for good in medicine and agriculture. So it is with religion. Religion can be used by those with a blind will for power (though the “religious” need scientists to make their bombs). But religion is also the source of immense good — hospitals, hospices, relief organisations, universities and schools, great cathedrals, music, art and literature and philosophy. Would the world be better without such things?
What Dawkins’ programmes lacked was any sense of complexity or discrimination. It was all uncomfortably like 1984, with its vastly over-simplified binary oppositions — “science good, religion bad”. He did present some very creepy religious believers, but when he deigned to include a sensible one — Richard Harries, the Anglican Bishop of Oxford — he dismissed him as not really religious; “betraying both reason and faith”, he commented. The bishop betrayed reason just because he was religious, and betrayed faith because he did not seek to apply Old Testament injunctions without qualification to modern society.
And that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, is what Dawkins thinks “faith” is: taking a Holy Book literally, and applying all its principles unthinkingly to modern life. He did indeed find some people who apparently try to do that, though even they must do some thinking occasionally, since the Bible does not mention nuclear weapons or cloning, for instance.
So why can Professor Dawkins only see the bad in religion? Why is he incapable of making an objective, “scientific”, study of it, in all its diversity? ...I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do know this apostle of reason, when confronted with the word “faith”, suddenly becomes irrational, careless of truth, incapable of scholarly analysis.
Anyone with a little knowledge of moral theology will know that biblical literalism is alien to those who seek to make moral decisions for the Church. The papal encyclical Veritatis Splendor, for example, is a rigorous and finely argued document on morality which makes clear that Christian moral decisions are made on grounds of reflection on natural human inclinations, in the light of belief in a creator God and the revelation of God’s love in Jesus Christ. When reference is made to the Bible, it is taken as a record of developing moral insights that culminated in the person of Jesus, who gave as his main principle of interpretation, “Love God and your neighbour as yourself”. That principle needs to be carefully worked out, but it certainly excludes applying ancient biblical texts literally without reference to the Church’s long tradition of moral reflection.
Dawkins argues that morality can exist without religion, and the main Christian tradition would agree. God has planted some knowledge of natural moral law in the hearts of all. But Dawkins adds that Christian morality is cruel, brutish and poisonous because it seeks to make us moral by fear of Hell, and makes morality a matter of “sucking up” to a cruel and tyrannical God. We should seek good for its own sake, and affirm life “in a way that religion never can”.
Perhaps what Dawkins is doing is warning us of the pathologies of religion. Such pathologies exist, and they are to be eschewed. But virtually all the Christians I know do seek the good for its own sake, since God is precisely the Supreme Good. They affirm life and hold it precious because God creates and values life. They see in God a limitless, precarious and vulnerable love, in which they seek to participate. Whatever this is, it is not sucking up to a cruel sky-god.
So why can Professor Dawkins only see the bad in religion? Why is he incapable of making an objective, “scientific”, study of it, in all its diversity? Why is he unable to make distinctions between the many different forms of religious belief? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do know this apostle of reason, when confronted with the word “faith”, suddenly becomes irrational, careless of truth, incapable of scholarly analysis. I really think it must be some sort of virus, and I wish my colleague a speedy recovery.
You need to cite the author.
@Rodrigo Pereira,
Cite the author and if you want to copy/paste something, please copy/paste a highlight not the entire essay.
While this is a well written essay that does address a few of my points, I would rather hear your words Rodrigo. Let us have the debate and not copy and paste quotes back and forth.
Thanks:)
@Rodrigo Pereira
"you contradict yourself, oyu say atheism is an association of free thought and next you condemn the thinking of religion."
Firstly, I cannot condemn the "thinking of religion." This requires cogitation on the part of the Theist. I am however, expressing my unfavorable opinion for an Ideology that has opted for the regurgitation of ideas written millenia ago, and the condemnation of anything new that may threaten the status quo.
"Thinking is a very difficult ability that must be learned by free thinking that means you have to learn, Religion, philosophy and Science"
What? How does one learn to think? The process of learning how to think, would be thinking. What a ridiculous thing of you to say.
"Thinking is a very difficult ability that must be learned by free thinking that means you have to learn, Religion, philosophy and Science"
"What? How does one learn to think? The process of learning how to think, would be thinking. What a ridiculous thing of you to say. "
These 2 sentences explains the impossibility of further discussion.
I don't know how to respond.
I think i'm gonna say yeah...man that's it...
I live in heaven it's cool i've never heard of jesus.
okay, this is my first comment. Afer watching and enjoying well over 50 docs on this site.
I grew up
come on ....give it an other try!
You grew up....
edit: i see it worked below.
az
hahaha!!! wow i ddnt even realise I fcked up here!
Religion has decieved us,and continues to,so does science,technology,Govenments,that keep us uninformed,and lie to us all the time.Religion gave us false Gods,from every faith,they have all been corrupted,and worship a God in the sky.How ever,l believe there is a creator God,for l believe there is a spirit world.We are in fact spirits clothed with a body.This body dies,but the spirit never dies,but re-incarnates time after time.We think we are the body,so the body tells us ''it'' is all there is,because without knowing that there is a creator,the spirit seems not to exist.
You are exactly correct! I believe that we are spiritual beings experiencing human existence. Also, I believe that God is not a person, rather God is an ever evolving process, a divine process, which permeates every thing in this physical universe and other spiritual dimensions as well. I totally agree with your view.
Leave it to the Brits to make sense out of nonsense. God Bless the BBC!
If it wasn't all caught on film and we only had hearsay and all was shrouded in 'Mystery'..... then Micheal Jackson would have been the latest incarnation of Krisna.. and thats just going on looks alone...
I have been checking Oz's comments score for over a week...to see if he was coming back. There has been 923 under the "most active members" but now it show 922....How come?
Oz i know you are there.
Kick that Fuck...n ego away and come back...we were finally getting somewhere.
You need to reach out....you got the spunk as Psymythe wrote: "its been a lot duller. He had so much spirit"
When the teacher said "write this way or that way, you certainly didn't quit school with that brain of yours!
Sharpen your pencil...there is a mountain of lies to climb over!
Someone suggested i write a poem...
here it is:
1 1 back to back makes an arrow
if enough are standing in the middle
we can go side ways towards evolution
let's go damit!
az
Christianity has been in apostasy almost since the beginning. It didn't take long for man to do what he does by nature and begin to corrupt it and set up the Nicolaitan system of clergy control over the unwashed masses of "laity"...the thing Jesus said in the book of Revelation that he HATED.
The Catholic church perfected the Nicolaitan apostasy, and it was handed down to the Protestant churches which perpetuated it...like mother, like daughter.
If the Body of Christ was to be pure and holy as intended by Jesus Christ, there would have been a diametric progression from the earliest church at the time of Pentecost, (Acts 2), until now, but that didn't happen. That's the proof that organized Christianity is in apostasy.
Wow. And I've only watched the first 3 minutes.
It's good to inform atheists about the mysteries of religion, so they can start arguing better instead of arguing as illiterate people (as most of them do, protected by the mainstream view, which they stupidly and firmly believe it's their genuine invented ideology, and not materialist and capitalist brainwash detergent they have been swallowing since babyschool) who got their graduation and now think they know it all, that the right of opinion is birth given, so they can say non sense all day, hell it's a democracy (IDIOCRACY).
Well since you obviously seem to be having the right to say non sense as much as you wish i think anyone else deserves that right too.
An ideology is any body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. Atheism is none of those things. Atheism is more of an association of freethought, if you will.
You Theist zealots have not only been drinking the "brainwash detergent" for millenia, you've goddamn-well been bathing in it.
Silly Theists.
Silly, you contradict yourself, oyu say atheism is an association of free thought and next you condemn the thinking of religion. Please think, the one brain washed is you. Thinking is a very difficult ability that must be learned by free thinking that means you have to learn, Religion, philosophy and Science, Silly you, silly you...
Rodrigo
Think of being an atheist as, not smoking is a habit. We just don't indulge in it.
Wow, did you ever pick the wrong site to start that argument in those words.
This site has some of the most well thought out, reasoned and and persuasive comments on the internet. It seems that the vast majority of the people posting are hardly illiterate, as you claim. The regulars here and our host Vlatko, (a million and a half thank yous, by the way) that are on this site have taught me as much about the world, in a greater variety of subjects, and from many different points of view as my formal, er...materialist and capitalist brainwashing education.
And upon graduating from brainwashing, I realized one very important thing. I do not know everything, and never will.
But one thing I have managed to learn that if you step back and think about religion seriously, you come to the conclusion, that the whole man in the sky thing, really makes no sense. I'd say with 99% certainty that there is no god and religion was created to control the masses. I will give you 1% chance there is a god, just because very few things can be 100%, but religion is definitely man made.
I say spend some time watching and conversing on this site, and hopefully you will gain the knowledge to set you free from the greatest of lies.
Very interesting to read your post. I see this is your first comment on this site. looking forward to more!
az
The greatest of lies? Hmmmm That's an interesting concept and I am sure that there are as many understandings of it as their are grains of sand or stars in the sky or human beings. Pontificating nonsense.
99% certainty!!! I Can name a few people that had your dangerous and poor idea. These people helped in the biggest human killings, cause they were so sure, where could they go wrong?
Everyone thinks their a genius today after havein the poorest education of human history.
These anti-religion comments are nazist to say the least, the good think about a democratic society is based on the conflict of ideas, the religious liberty, and atheist as well, lately there has risen an atheist idea that religion should dissappear, this is anti-liberty, science isn't the truth, like Azilda said, none of this opinions came to me directly, but a try to think with a free mind and i came to the conclusion (right or wrong) that a world that is based solely on science and reasoning is a world doomed to war and destruction.
Religion puts the attention on how we see the world, your lifes and most important our deaths.
People have been badly educated, with the (religious belief) that truth is science, and everyone leads empty lifes because they simply cant relate to one another, because they lost the very thing that keeps people together. Science is not sacred and we need it to better our lives but if it controls it, it will lead ultimatly to the destruction of what makes us human.
The mysteries of religion, makes think in humbleness, helping the other, put our hapiness second and the life of the other first.
Teach us to life outside materialism.
A world with no churches will be a bloody cruel, world.
Church is represented by people, good people and bad people, like everywhere. But ultimatly it's not the people but the idea behind it that's important and must not be lost.
------------
Certain thoughts are prayers. There are moments when, whatever be the attitude of the body, the soul is on its knees. ~Victor Hugo
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. ~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
By night, an atheist half believes in God. ~Edward Young, Night Thoughts
God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed. ~Saint Augustine
@ Rodrigo,
It is interesting that you compare anyone to Nazis. For real dramatization you should compare them to christians, the Nazis pale in comparison the deaths caused by christians. And saying the bible is unscientific is not anti-religion, the anti-religion part you came to that conclusion all by yourself. There has been no name calling and kindergarten like behavior of calling other people illiterate solely because you are unable to understand their point of view, by anyone other than yourself. If you have a valid argument, by all means, bring it forth, but resorting to childlike manners already puts the favor of the argument against yourself. Life with churches is also bloody cruel world(as is proof from the last millennium or two). To say the world would be wore is really an invalid argument, I would choose a court of law over a church decision any day. The churches are never based on facts, and would gladly burn someone who does not agree with their point of view(truth is neither required nor relevant). Law systems are more scientific, they require solid proof. It has already been proven that taking the churches out of the equation has a much more positive result. I'm not sure what you mean with the truth is science part, it does not make much sense. Though the reality is that science cannot function without truth. As soon as something is proven to be not true, it gets discarded, and is no longer valid. This does not apply to religion, no matter how untrue anything is it will always still be an integral part of religion if it is there, and especially if it benefits the religious structures.. Truth is neither required, nor even relevant. If it was not for advancements in science all the untrue parts of the bible would never have been questioned. Neither religion nor the concept of god is a quest for truth, where science is.... What I do hope, is that someday science can actually prove that there is a GOD, however, in the interim, all that science has done is disproved everything in the bible(s). If there is the smallest part of truth in the bible, please, go ahead, prove it .... Like they say, put your money where your mouth is..
@Rodrigo, everything you believe about religionS, you learned. None of it came from you directly.
az
Thank you for your comment below az. I very much enjoy some of your comments also. I have just finally decided I can no longer keep silent.
I find it hard to believe that in this age of logic and reasoning that these myths and stories, from eons long since past, can still have such a controlling influence on the world. There are real problems that need sorted out on earth.
But so much time and resources are devoted to things with no proof.
Imagine, instead of every few blocks in a city, a tax-free building sitting there, that is only used once a week and on certain holidays. These churches are replaced with a cancer research center or a school or library or some other center of learning. And I'm not talking about the great cathedrals, those are impressive works of architecture and should be saved. But the drywall and 2x4'ed churches could be used much more wisely.
And If they took the money from what religion produces and spends on their lies, on more worldly endeavors, perhaps we might move forward as a species, instead of clinging to ancient beliefs.
And that whole world peace thing would be nice too. I just can't wrap my head around killing people over who's invisible sky overlord is best.
Thanks for reading.
@Joshua89
In the small town i live there is a church for rent, i was just saying a couple days ago; "what a great venue this could be for a youth hostel".
az
Mysteries of religion?? what mysteries are there in religion? All man made fairy tale stories that even children can hardly believe in, talking snakes, women made from a rib, burning bushes et al.
You want some real mysteries, try the mysteries of the cosmos via science/cosmology. Beats your man made books/bibles all to h*ll.
Mainstream view? are you talking about the religious christian majority? 2 billion and falling, thanks to your impotent gods.
And who has been sticking in your mouth your religious brainwash pacifiers since birth so you can suck up the all the lies and misconceptions of the abhorring religions that have tried to hold back the progress of new science paradigms since conception.
I am still waiting for your "rapture" so our planet can be rid of you mostly illiterate, fundy, happy-clappy, religee's.
The rapture is not real it's not mentioned one time in the Bible.
Like i said, illiterate responses, i'm not talking about the mysteries you read in your comic books, i'm talking about the mysteries of human faith, morals, and philosophy, things that go beyond your arrogance and pride in being ignorant, read please, instead of going to the internet to read quotes of an overrated writer as Hemingway and base your poor opinion on it.
@knowledgetzpower:
Right, the rapture is not real, tell that to the loony-toon religee's, they have whole websites up concerning their long awaited rapture.
@Rodrigo Pereira:
You say you are talking about "the mysteries of human faith, morals and philosophy"
I will tell you about the morals you speak of right out of your Yahweh's bible.
Leviticus 26:27-29...your Yahweh made the people eat the flesh of their sons and daughters.
Numbers 13:17-18...your Yahweh commanded Moses to kill everyone and keep the little virgin girls for themselves.
There are hundreds more concerning all the atrocities committed in the name of your abhorrent gods and religion, wont go into all the gory details of praise be the one who bashes the little children against the rocks and other such gems.
Dear Rodrigo,
I have tried my utmost to not respond, but alas, my willpower be weak, must be the illiterate tendencies showing through.
All I could muster together was a simple quote from a famous illiterate atheist that sums up this situation perfectly:
All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway
there are higher regions of existence than the human thinking mind
Yes hell is a democracy and heaven a dictatorship.
If that's how things are then I preffer hell every time. Must be my illiterate atheistic streak.
okay, this is my first comment. Afer watching and enjoying well over 50 docs on this site.
I grew up as a Christian. Infact I went to a Catholic school. And before I continue Im gonna hafta state that I do consider myself as a christian still. I am somewhat religious.
Reading these comments has recently become very boring me. and its comments like this, RODERIGO! and MANY WHO HAVE REPLIED TO HIS VERY CHILDISH COMMENT IN SIMILARLY CHILDISH WAYS, that has made me disollusioned. I mean seriously..
1) RODERIGO- what are u talking about? what the hell are u talking about? I will assume u are christian like myself...You did not make any sort of argument....u simply just typed a stupid rant that dsnt add anything. theres nothing i or anyone else will gain from reading the mindless trash u just posted. Think before u type.
And also think about what being a christian means to u.... i mean, what the hell? do u think everyones gonna be like ´SHIT MAN THAT RODRIGO GUY IS RIGHT! IM GONNA GO STRIP MYSELF NAKED AND BAPTISE MYSELF IN THE RIVER OF GALILLEE, JUST LIKE OUR LORD SAVIOUR!´
No.... Roderigo, sorry to say, they will not.u now just made ureself look like an ass. clap for ureself! If ure sole purpose for being a christian is to make others feel inferior to u.... or to make urself feel better better than other people... well ure not in the right club.. Thats not christianity bro. I dnt remember jesus ever having that attitude.
2) WISE OPEN MINDED ATHEISTS- Watch out. You will become that which u loath. infact it has already begun. I hear it every day. I would never critisize someone for being and atheist. I have many Athiest friends who have very different views to me. Thats the beauty of the world my friends.
I know u feel the need to protect ureselves because u guys have been pounded by ultra religiouse ppl for so long... but we´re not all friggin ultra religious. Some of us just like what jesus says in the bible...
I mean when he walks in to the synogogue and asks the men why they have separated the women from the men...they get all pissy. And jesus leaves is like ´screw u guys im goin to pray with the women cause they are no less than us´. I personaly think thats a nice message (Im a dude by the way. I dnt have a vagina, and ive never burnt a bra).
BUT U GET ME A LITTLE BIT GUYS? I mean the church persecuted women in the name of christainity during the middle ages... But are they not supposed to be the religion of jesus christ? As scientist (I happen to love science also), do u think this correlates accurately to the actions of Jesus....Our leader?.... Or the wars that have been fought in the name of christianity. Because yes you guys know thats for sure what jesus woulda done.
So i leave u with a query and a message.
query- Is it religion that causes problems? or people? Because I mean ive been manipulated many times in my life... by both religious ppl and atheists. Or is it only the religious that manipulate?
message- Do not act all high and mighty! no one knows the answers to the great questions... and i dnt ever remember reading about a man with a beard that lives in the sky. Disrespect the people, but dnt disrespect the message! because while i dnt agree with it all, there are some really beautifull things in there as well. Ure not open minded if u think mocking religious ppl is fiine. Just maybe understand that the language spoken to describe the world around us, the universe even. Is spoken differently from person to person. From group to group. From culture to culture. Dont look down on ppl that belive in god, or who are christian.... Otherwise u will see the atrosities that will occur from ure side in the future. Just accept our differences...and thats that!
I like all u guys really, even roderigo
in reply to your query:
It is the religions that manipulate people, look around, hear around. There are many books with great messages but very few books full of absurdities that are followed like the bible. Everyone who follows the bible keep having to weed the crap out to get to the flowers. Now you will say that's ok...gardening is the same way. Right? I prefer to mulch my garden and then i don't get the weeds!
I too give respect to religious people who do not deserve bashing, although at times it comes to be the only way to answer to their "pulling you into their belief system".
I am a spiritual person but never was religious.
Energetic spirituality is individual only!
az
Azilda - this message goes out to you. How dare you make such comments as the one you have clearly made here. What gives you the right to call anything absurd?! Sure freedom of speech, if you want to go that far, but freedom of speech comes with responcibilities. One is to not disrespect others. Another is to have proper understanding of the subject matter. It sounds to me as though you've been jaded by something or someone. (Not to pass judgement, myself.) But honestly, What Dami has said (and good for you for voicing your opinion, Dami!) has been perfect. Simply perfect! If you took your own advice, Azilda, maybe you would have seen what he was saying instead of jumping to conclusions. Religion does not discriminate, people do. It's those who write the dogmas and doctrines that are the ones who change the message. At the end of it all, it's people we have to blame (Including those pesky angry atheists), not the message. When the medium changes the message, you can't blame the message for that, but you sure can blame the medium. This is blanket statement for all religions (including atheism - They've got their faults too). Next time you feel the need to make such comments, maybe you should take your own advice and "weed the crap out to get to the flowers." Honestly - how can you be so opposed to the Bible, haven't you ever played the telephone game? Did you call the person who didn't hear the message right absurd?!
I read your post and I look forward to replying to it.
Tomorrow. Sorry, Rodrigo wore me out for tonight.
Cheers
@scoobsnheather:
Clearly, the irony of calling me a pesky angry atheist in an anger and hate filled response is completely lost on you.
I find it deeply amusing that you compare religion and the bible to a kids telephone game.. the analogy is so appropriate. Personally, the first question I would have asked, having to play the absurd game, is this the best god could come up with?
cyberdog breath..... Did u just diss me? When did i call u a pesky angry athiest? or are u talking bout Roderigo? Clarify.
Cyber Dog - There are a few of angry atheists out there and you can't tell me otherwise. There are a lot of angry ___insert organization here___ that are at the very extremes of all beliefs (and "Non befiefs"). Because "you" (Whomever calls themselves by this term) don't believe in God, per say, does not make you any more nobel, or educated, or dignified than the extremist Christians, Bhuddists or Hindus. I cannot stand (Yet I do for the sake of sheer entertainment) when one faction thinks more highly of themselves. You are all wrong, yet you all think you're right. Even those like dear Az (Sorry love, I know I'm calling you out.) whom call themselves Spiritual Independants. You all get your core beliefs from somewhere, someone or some thing...Yet you call Christians and the like Absurd because they have some ass backward stories in a book they read. Well I'm sure if you go through every situation, every person, every thing that comes from your own belief, core roots, even as an atheist, I'm sure there's at least one absurd stories, or two, beind each and every one of those contributing factors. You all have sat there arguing over the smallest of details and because of that your squabbling has lead you to look at the small piece of a very large picture. No one is right and no one is wrong. Atheist, Christian, Hindu, Wiccan. We're all right and we're all wrong. Why? Because we are the medium and it is in our nature to be flawed. When the medium passes down the message (regardless), it'll end up like the telephone game. I chalk it up to the idea of Communism. It looks great on paper, but people always mess it up.
And Cyber Dog - I did not personally call you, or anyone here, a "A pesky angry athiest", if you'd like to put that label on yourself, by all means, do just that. For the record, I directed by comment toward Azilda and non else (well, Dami a little, too). So please, save your "I'm standing up for the guys over here to be their spokesperson" and put it to a better, more positive use.
Amen Brother Dami.
@Scoobsnheather bonjour!
"There are many books with great messages but very few books full of absurdities that are followed like the bible. Everyone who follows the bible keep having to weed the crap out to get to the flowers."
Are you telling me that this is not the truth?
There are many books with great messages.
The bible contains a lot of nonsense and many good messages.
Everyone who follow (i did not write who read) the bible to dictate their life do have to sort through the nonsense.
The bible was translated therefore interpreted by humans who fought for power and control thousand of years ago. My words are nothing compare to the actions depicted here and there throughout the books (because yes the bible are BOOKS not a book). If in this generation we took the best books on spirituality and put them together, we would have a much better bible that fits the times we are living in. Still it would not fit everyone but at least it would be LEGIBLE.
A decent human will be decent without the bible to tell him/her how. He/she will discover his/her own spirituality without a book to tell him/her what it should be. He/she will do so by listening to his/her own mind and perception.
i could add more but i have a long working day ahead...will be back!
az
@Scoob
You keep accusing me of accusing people of being absurd. I never wrote to anyone they are absurd, not even you. The book has absurdities, many, that doesn't mean people reading it are absurd.
Don't stretch, it snaps out of sense.
az
My point - maybe you didn't understand clearly is that, what may be absurd to you may not be absurd to me (and visa versa), and heck! There may even be things that we both say is absurd, but isn't to X, Y and Z. You can't even say for certain that (in IMHO) you could write a book on Spiritualism and you wouldn't get a guffa or two out of me. I can garentee you would, as a matter of fact. We all have our own beliefs that stem from absurdities, whether from a book, an event or another individual. My Mother has a wonderful saying, truth is stranger than fiction. So it's in my logic to say that, regardless, behind all of our core beliefs, no matter if we're an independant or belong to a group, there's at least one absurdity behind each and every core belief we have. For every opinion there's one to call it "Absurd". I find it such a waste of our time to find the faults in others, in stead of looking at the big picture and learning all we can from those we deem "Absurd". Maybe there's a reason "they" believe in what they believe in, and who are we to judge that? Instead of judging, we should all be learning. After all, isn't that the point?
As a side note, I would also like to say, Our perception as humans is based on our own individual realities. Your perception of this life is very different than mine. My life experiences, the things I've seen, heard and read have been different than yours. That does not equal either of us as being "Decent". You can listen to your mind and body all you want, but then you have the arguement of those individuals who are serial killers...etc. Not everyones perception of reality is a "decent" one. Who's to say an unmedicated person with a major mental illness would be listening to their body and mind...sure, they might be, but is it the healthiest? I know this is an extreme example, but maybe you should rethink your position. Maybe ask why, instead of why not?
And bonjour back!! :D
I was wrong in my comment and unhappy.
I've seen a lot of articles lately sayng that religion is something of the past, a becoming a thing of fanatics, and i see anti-chistianity comments like i never seen before.
Add to that a growing atheístic confidente based on rational arguments about religion that are not related in anything as the way a believer see's religion.
I talk about ignorance because, it seems to exist a disregard for the philosophic bases of religion in the atempt to critize it.
Atheísm now looks like a religion to me it even has it´s own gurus like the "worshiped and believed" Richard Dawkins.
I see a world of people alone, without kids, being 50 and living like 20, the materialism ideology is growing at a high speed. Divorces, abortions, wars, people full of stuff but when I look everyone is depressed deep down.
Stuck and chained to the Ideology these people proudly defend but that will ultimately destroy them.
(when i say these people i dont mean atheist but the people that firmly believe in the ideology they are grown in - Materialsm, utilitarianism, scientific truth, etc.
I see religion as the last hope to a more human world.
The example of Christ as the ultimate example to have a guide stone to learn compassion and love.
I´m afraid the atheistic movements get more serious, there have been prossecutions in the past.
And the ideology of consumerism only has to gain with the dissapearence of religion.
There has never been a civilization wihtout religious beliefs.
And whenever that happened the civilization in question was in great decay. That tells something of the necessary elements to the existence of healthy human societies, where religion, philosophy and science work in harmony.
@Rodrigo Pereira
"I see a world of people alone, without kids, being 50 and living like 20, the materialism ideology is growing at a high speed. Divorces, abortions, wars, people full of stuff but when I look everyone is depressed deep down.
Stuck and chained to the Ideology these people proudly defend but that will ultimately destroy them.
(when i say these people i dont mean atheist but the people that firmly believe in the ideology they are grown in - Materialsm, utilitarianism, scientific truth, etc.
I see religion as the last hope to a more human world."
SO...religions have been around for ever and this is the world that came out of it. What if we got ride of religion?
Perhaps a much better world would come out of it! It is worth a try and that is what most anti-theist believe perhaps.
az
@Scoobsnheather
Making a private comment, directed at someone specific in a public forum is completely bizarre. Especially when you are insinuating generalizations. Either you take the stand and believe something or you don't ....If you are just fence sitting, why comment ? Then again, do you have any other words to put in my mouth? I definitely was not standing up for anyone or anything else. I found your comment lacking intellectual thought, and I said so. As for the rest of your response... WTF?? I am not even going to bother to try and respond. You are welcome to express yourself in whatever way you see fit... Have fun ....
The Irony of bible bashers is that you keep preaching intolerance of other systems and religions, yet when the other systems are intolerant of fiction you are the first to cry foul.
In my honest opinion, religion has done far more damage in the last two thousand years than it has done good. And worshiping some piece of stone which is more than likely far off to where it has supposed to be and appeared hundreds of years after the event, is clinically insane. Then to declare a fossil which is scientifically provable as nonsense... That IS the definition of clinically insane. This is 15th century reasoning, and has no place in the current time, or the future. If you want to have an argument in reasoning, you will have to start reasoning first. Pulling swords out of a stone is not reasoning.... Just because they found some stone with some chip marks on it, does not prove that Merlin or king Arthur's knights were real .. Or that it was chip marks from the tooth fairy. Word of mouth does not a fact make ..... The only real sad part is that by the time you have realized that it is all bullshit, you have wasted your whole life buying into the bullshit, all for someone else's benefit. Then it is to late, there is no afterlife. And if anyone wants to say that there is... then prove it ...cumon... one piece of evidence .. Anything.. *sigh*... yeah .. Nada, zilch, nothing, you are arguing with nothing on your side, just a vacuum .. Much like the popes faith, in his bullet proof glass ... The only statement that he is trying to make is that everyone is attacking religion. Where in reality... who really cares? Perhaps other than other religious fanatics. Who is really going to bother taking a shot at him. It reminds me of the mafia, the only ones that they really fear is the other mafia. And usually it is because they are going to be loosing revenue ... Hurting others does nothing more than hurt ourselves... Simunye [We definitely all come from the same place, Richard Dawkins tells us so, and yet the bible vehemently denies this...]
@CyberDog - First of all - I'm no fence sitter. I clearly state where I sit. I sit on the side that wants to do right by this world, regardless of a few "absurd" stories. My core belief system stems from many different view points from around the world. My knowledge base didn't start at this site.
Second of all - the comments I've left, unless directed toward you, have nothing to do with you. they're directed towards Azilda. If you're not cut from her "cloth" I would hardly expect you to understand what I was saying to her.
Thirdly - "The Irony of bible bashers is that you keep preaching intolerance of other systems and religions, yet when the other systems are intolerant of fiction you are the first to cry foul."
I am, by no means, a Bible Thumper. Or whatever you'd like to call it. I'm not a preacher, or even a Christain. Never have been, never will be. Maybe I just have a different perspective on life than you do. Maybe instead of trying to fight me you should listen to me and I should do the same? If you just want to sit there and bark, then feel free CyberDog...Bark. Seems to me that you're passing a whole lot of judgements on someone you know nothing about in responce to something you don't understand. I don't follow your logic at all.
Fourthly - You can say "Prove this!" Prove that!" all you want, but just remember, I've got dibs on those words as well. Until science (Which I hope one it will be) is 100% you're spitting the same amount of nonsense as the rest. Sorry love, but you can't claim Theories as Laws. Even in Science to which you so desperatly cling. If it states "The Theory of....X..." and you spout it as Fact/Law, then you're just as bad as the ones you are so greatly against. If you'd like a quick example "The Big Bang Theory" is an easy one. Science has said Theory, when we Read it as The Big Bang Law. We also teach it as such, do we not? Just sayin'.
Dear Rodrigo,
Perhaps, it is you that should spend some more time on the internet doing some research, you can start by looking up the meaning of the word illiterate ...
Then please, by all means, bring me some examples of the "mysteries" of human faith that have not already being debunked, you have piqued my curiosity .. And please do me the favor of bringing me something worth my time.
I have a mystery of human faith that has never been debunked. The Placebo Effect.
Darn, I believe you. You really sound like the guy who figured it all out. I have been looking for you up and down the internet for the past 10 years. I actually am one of those illiterate people you were talking about so I'm wirting this with all the sincerity I can muster.
Tell us Master Pereira, how does it all unfold? What is this whole existence for? Which of the countless myths and fairytales have you found to be true? Are you god or just a prophet - or maybe both? And how can we be happy? How can we learn to make statements that within a few sentences reveal the full extend of our ignorance and still be proud of it? How can we see other religious people who are obiviously embarassed that we speak for their cause and still be so convinced of our superiority?
Pease teach us Master Pereira
P.S.: I assume that by default our god has the biggest genitals otherwise I'm out
"after Nicea we know that Jesus Christ" ... that is such a bull....
sectarian hatred in UK "word away now" ... even bigger BS (been to Scotland for 3 year and seen quite a bit)
with all the facts bent to fit or untold in this movie the whole thing seems to be only a "grandma feel good" production
Curiously the films have etched on subtitles in brazilian portuguese.... which is because most probably this is used by reformed types and born agains to trash the catholics in that country. On a personal note.... to say that is a nation filled with blind uninformed bigot id**ts is to put it mildly.
Have watched some of this before, all man made fairy tales.
Agree that it's man made but the whole tale is about hair to the throne of Hyxos shepherd kings. This tale includes a sect of sun worshiping Egiptians who relocated themselves to current Palestine, that was not liked much in Egipt due to its diabolical convictions. One prince of egipt pulled them out through red sea. 'Amon, let it be!' (current 'amen')
Right, Sun god worship, that makes sense, Amon-Ra.
Watch "Zeitgeist" here on TDF, all that stuff is in there.
Always skeeves me out when I see hair on the throne. Sorry goofy mood again today. Play nice everyone.
I've seen this doc before, and it is AWESOME. Especially in early Christianity, it explores a lot of the history that westerners seem to forget or not care about. It's as if between Biblical times and the Council of Nicea, western civilization chose to exchange history for legend (which is kinda what happened), and the ignorance of eastern Christianity, in general, is kind of unforgivable, from a historical perspective.