Christian Dilemmas

2012, Religion  -   265 Comments
464
7.12
12345678910
Ratings: 7.12/10from 167 users.
Storyline

The authentic beliefs, customs and concepts of Christianity were immensely different from what they're today. The Christian Dilemmas, a three part series, discerns the changes and analyzes the disagreements that have caused anxiety among religious scholars and advocates of the faith.

The dictionary says that faith is a belief without any evidence to support it. And blind faith is a belief not only without evidence but in spite of evidence to the contrary. "God made men but, men made religions. And all religions are mythology, except mine which is history." - this arrogance caused so much human misery from recorded history to present.

It seems there is no good definition of a biblical scholar because they come in one of two forms. One is the apologist and the other is neutral scholar, one without an agenda. The apologist is the one who can take almost anything that comes up in any aspect of life and turn it into such a way that suits his agenda, his beliefs.

A critical scholar without an institutional axe to grind very likely began as an apologist. That happened with many people. You get interested in the Bible because you're an avid Christian and you just can't know that Bible well enough. But the further you delve into it you begin to realize that it would make a lot more sense without the creed behind it. Because the more you understand the Bible more of a clash you see and you may have to make a choice. Eventually you follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The neutral scholar is somebody without any axe to grind, somebody without an agenda, somebody that can painstakingly rid himself of the previous biases and prejudices and just try to get out the truth for what it is.

More great documentaries

265 Comments / User Reviews

  1. The following is a critique of the exegetical work presented in the videos concerning Paul's alleged personal gospel vis-à-vis that of Jesus.
    The presentation of Paul against Jesus in terms of the significance of the Torah does not hold if we are to include other parts the Bible. When Prof. Price and Payn both say that Paul's ideas about the significance of Jesus' live, death and resurrection stand in contradiction to what Jesus himself taught they are extremely selective and do not give enough contextual evidence. Payn may be excused but a liberal scholar of the level of Price should have been more careful.
    They do two things: First, they point out that Jesus wanted to fulfill the Jewish law not break it and not even a small dot of the law shall ever be altered. Second, they observe that Peter should be regarded as more important than Paul as if Peter's views did not change concerning the Law and its extent and application after the resurrection of Jesus.

    1. First the citation they give of Jesus' words about fulfilling the law, which as they say is in Matthew 5:17 appears in what is known as the Sermon on the Mount. Interestingly that someone like Price with an expert knowledge of the gospels he should interpret a verse so out of context when one of the principles of critical exegesis is precisely to first of all take into consideration the context of the verse. If we look at the entire contents of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is dispelling and some instances doing away with what the law had allowed the Jewish people before him to do. The lex talionis or eye for an eye law was done away by Jesus by not only telling people to be merciful but to Jesus even called upon people to not resist evil. This is what Jesus would have had replacing that law for the Jews: 39 but I -- I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;

    40 and whoever is willing to take thee to law, and thy coat to take -- suffer to him also the cloak.

    41 `And whoever shall impress thee one mile, go with him two,

    42 to him who is asking of thee be giving, and him who is willing to borrow from thee thou mayest not turn away.

    I dont know how anyone can read those commands of Jesus and dont see how they contradict the law of retaliation.

    A lot more could be said about the meaning of Matthew 5:17 in reference to the context of the entire Sermon on the Mount. I only want to make one final observation. The whole idea with the insistence that Jesus said would not be broken and how that made Jesus a person that completely respected Jewish traditions contradicts the point Payn makes when he talks about the identity of the Messiah according to Jewish traditions. He says that the Jewish people were expecting a warrior king, and then says that Jesus said that he did called people to love their enemies which is not in accordance with Jewish tradition concerning the coming messiah. Interestingly the command of Jesus for people to love their enemies appears also in the Sermon on the Mountain. Haha, so Payn and Price and the other professors making this video failed to see the incoherence in an argument that says that Jesus was not against Jewish Law while calling people to do the opposite to what the law requires and even proclaiming a messiah that goes against the dominant expectation of the Jewish people.

    Wow, I guess we can talk about blind faith being very bad, but definitely Payn and the people making this video are blind as to the context and meaning of Matthew 5:17. Jesus said something about the blind leading the blind.

    2. According to their argument Peter should be regarded as of more value in terms of a relationship with Jesus for Peter met Jesus whereas Paul only met the resurrected Jesus he should also add that the book of Acts contains a special episode in which Peter has a vision on top of a house. If we take that episode as historical then we have to conclude that even Peter should have understood that after Jesus' resurrection things concerning upholding the law had changed.
    In chapter 10 of Acts Peter had a vision of big sheet being lowered from heaven descending upon him full of animals (Acts 10:11). A voice from heaven told Peter to kill and eat, but since the sheet contained unclean animals according to Jewish law, Peter declined.
    Right before the vision Acts says that Peter was desiring to eat, but at first Peter refused. Then the voice tells Peter thatb“What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Peter must have been very reluctant since the narrative tells us that the scene happened three times. Peter was left perplexed as to the meaning of such a vision. In other words, he was still holding to the idea that he must not eat those animals that he saw in the vision. He could not accept what the voice clearly told him that he should not consider those animals unholy. Later Peter realizes that more than simply he being more free as to his dietary choices he must understand that God has embraced people of other nations who have been righteous in terms of giving charity to the people and have been prayerful. This is important but Peter then was of the understanding that he should not have personal dealings with people of other nations, as he says in verse 10:28 `Ye know how it is unlawful for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race, but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean;" Because of this vision Peter did not hesitate to go meet with Cornelius, a centurion of the Roman army, yet one who had been prayerful and giving alms to the people. Peter was so surprised that God had sent him to speak to this gentile that he begins to share the gospel with Cornelius and his family with these words: "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons,
    but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him;"
    This story means that after Jesus' resurrection there is a new dispensation in which just as one may be able to enjoy other foods, anyone can go to witness to the gentiles without worries. For Paul this was not a problem but for Peter it seems that he needed a special vision to understand it.
    The idea that Paul was some type of anti-Christ who somehow managed to impose his ideas upon the early Christians through some type of deception does not consider another important incident that we find in Acts 21, but I live those interested to read it on their own.

  2. "What is the proof for God?", asks the atheist, putting often a tone of superior intelligence. First of all according to science no person perceives all of that is available to be perceived through the senses. Billions of bits of information enter our senses yet our brain only processes about 2,000. Our peripheral vision is not as great as each of us think it is, if you dont believe me just watch episode 1 of season 2 of Brain Games, "Focus Pocus". Our limited capacity of perception does not restrain itself to the realm of sensory data. When we read any document we also get from it different ideas based on many factors as varied as socio-economic class, level of education, emotional state and many others.

    In this regard, perhaps those who believe in a God may be perceiving something that those who don't believe in a God and are somewhat belligerent in their atheism may be indisposed to perceive. All the arguments that have been brought against the existence of God remain in the realm of arguments and have not proved that God is just a creation of human beings. Yet atheist insist that the believers demonstrate God's existence.

    That is an impossible task!

    There cannot be a proof of His existence that comes through the scientific method since that would limit God to being simply another being within this universe. Asking for such a proof may indicate that atheists do not understand what the definition of at least the God worshiped by the Jews, Christians and Muslims means.

    I guess for that reason Michio Kaku once said that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved through science.

    The best religion has to offer is its own methodology. What is that? Prayer, and all the other elements that constitute a religious way of life. Sadly many atheists include in that list all the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion and do not want to hear what many millions of religious people say about those things not being the practicing of the principles of their faith. Once again the principle of limited perception comes into play since we only see what we want to see. The practitioners of the faith say that in examining a religion we have to look at the actual teachings of the faith and not necessarily at how people lived their lives since we are all humans or sinners. Those who only look at science for guidance insist in including the atrocities as some inevitable aspect of holding a belief in God.

    In conclusion believers do not have to proof that God exist through arguments for the most they will get to be is great orators experts in the art of rhetorical presentation of ideas. Strong arguments in favor of the existence of a Superior Intelligence exist but they of necessity cannot demonstrate or proof God's existence. The proof demanded by atheist is practically that we have God materialize so that they can see Him or that we pray and have God end all human suffering instantaneously, and that peace and blessings is part of the lives of each individual. The first is impossible since by definition God is infinitesimal and God is a Spirit beyond any physical limitations. The second would transform God into precisely that which the atheist criticize: a despotic, tyrannical ruler. For were God to create the ultimate utopia for mankind that would mean that he would have to make people be good towards one another. He would have to control them as a Puppet Master. Human responsibility would be gone and we would be diminished to be less than we can be. Holding to the Epicurean Paradox, many atheist ridicule the idea of the existence of a good and loving God while there is cruel atrocities occurring in our the world on a daily basis. They don't stop to consider for one moment that God could exist but that he placed us in this universe, or at least in this earth to be the ones in control not Him. God may be hoping that we use our freedom and our conscience to act in the best interest of others and not back-stab others to get what we want. He may be respecting the freedom he endowed us with in order for us to be more than mere animals driven just by instincts. When I see atheist spending time putting pictures of starving children for the sole purpose of ridiculing the idea of the existence of God I question is the person who placed the photo is not actually misusing the photo. Using the suffering of graphic depiction of children dying of hunger for the sole purpose of ridiculing a belief in a superior being? Sorry but for me that does not make sense. I have written where I see those photos that perhaps God placed us in here to be in charge of things so it is up to us. I add that there are many religious organizations doing a lot of work to feed those children as well as do a lot of other service projects that benefit people. I have not gotten one single response from anyone "oh ok let's do something" Mostly I get silence. (I am not saying that there are no atheist organizations that may be doing that kind of work.)

    Another thing I haven't gotten response from is a challenge I made once. Since the methodology of religious practices is not that of science then those who want to proof if God exists should submit themselves its methodology. Prayer, fasting, meditation, church attendance (any church that they choose: but remember do not go there to judge people, even believers do that, but all religious book condemn that behavior. Each and every church has people with emotional problems, and different levels of maturity). How much of it. I think if the person is serious he/she has to invest time seriously. Each person can decide what that means.

    That approach is like using the scientific method to proof if God exists. Still for many that type of investment will not proof God's existence if what they are looking for is to see God in human form.

    Now some atheists have said that to presume that God will listen to one's very personal concerns and demonstrate his presence to a person simply because of a short time of prayer and religious discipline is arrogant when there are so many worse problems in the world. But what if God wants you to do your part in resolving those problems. It is amazing the power that one individual can have, the reach of an individual's influence and how much one person can contribute to the betterment of society if one is motivated strongly.

    For me if no one is willing to undergo such a test then they should understand that their importunate demand for a proof of God only demonstrates their lack of perception and failure to grasp what the idea of God entails.

  3. never argue with a fool.
    those watching may have trouble deciding which is which

  4. this is an example of wrong identification... the catholic church and their belief, tho they are big and have been there for almost 2000 years old, is not the same and true Christians that existed in the time the new testament was written... as it is clearly tackled on this documentary, we can see the evidence on how they changed what is written into what they claim to teach which is the opposite of what the Bible and Jesus is teaching... this contradiction by catholic teachings and true Christian teaching means that the catholic church is the ANTI-CHRIST written in revelation, because it is ANTI or against Christ, it is the representation of the devil himself, dressed as white as if innocent but in truth, it teaches the devil's teaching... get it?

  5. I just found a great show on Hulu that took 6 episodes before introducing a fantastic loving homosexual couple and then introduced Christians as hateful. With Hollywood setting the modern compass of societies, it is amazing that anyone is still a Christian because Hollywood hates them - not to mention colleges filled with anti-God rhetoric. It turns out that God has never proven himself to someone without faith.....instead, He rewards faithfulness with supernatural events. So while the world confuses the media with science, several of us are seeing supernatural intervention that our pragmatism cannot write-off as coincidence.

  6. what is god..simple god is what created all this(read the cause of the big bang).. what is religion..also simple ..mans feeble attempt to find some way to understand the first event or in other words mans interpretation of god ..is that interpretation correct or witch one is right.. you geuse is as good as mine.. find the one you are comfortable with and live and let live guys it is not up to you..me or anyone to judge the thoughts and actions or motivations of anyone but ourselfs.. peace and light to you all may your path be just and your actions noble

  7. Book is far from perfect. As for "angels" lol please, don't insult my intelligence. You can't prove anything in the bible happened by pointing to these scripts and saying " see! You're a liar-it happened for the bible tells me so!' Excuse me but I have a very nice bridge to sell you

  8. Lol so dudes nam was "messiah of Nazareth ' lol first , Nazareth didn't exist at the supposed times of Jesus birth. Which the bible dates all over the place, so god the father who wrote this rediculous piece of literary nonsense , couldn't get date and place right! The Constantine makes up the phony story about a census. They didn't have that-period. The list goes on people . The perfect b

  9. Here are a few contradicting descriptions of events by the Apostles directly from the Bible :

    Did Jesus bear his own cross?
    Yes (John 19:17)
    No (Matthew 27:31-32)

    How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
    By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
    His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

    Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?
    Yes (Mark 6:8)
    No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

    When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?
    Yes (Matthew 8:5)
    No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)

    Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?
    Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
    No (John 1:32,33)

    Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?
    Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
    No. (John 12:27)

    These men were chosen by Jesus to bear witness of him to mankind yet he couldn't pick men that would report the same events???

    1. Ha lol that list is 900 long btw. Errancies

  10. Please provide the tiniest bit of proof of that . Anything at all. Anytimg . The earth is 4.56 billion years old . Example. Gold, silver etc can only be made inside of stars, that's it. A pile of dirt can't create heavy metals. You can sit there forever and it won't happen. Heavy metals exists in stars like the one that exploded that created our sun, the planets and life. Your body has the same composition as a star. Same elements . Although your breath is prob only worse

  11. False on all levels, faith is not religion and religion is not belief without evidence.. God made man, and God made religion as a path to man. All religions are not mythology. Different religions have different level of truth and history in them.

    The reality is the religion hating secularist are actually the religious one who worship themself and false idols like sex, drugs and money.

    1. What is your evidence that God made man and God made religion?

  12. That's the point. There is no debate at all. And no one "knows " theology because it doesn't exist . Show me one. It starts and end between your ears and doesn't exists in the natural world. You can discuss interpretations but again , unless the 200 or so authors of the bible s that have existed were to materialize , both sides are wrong . The whole thing is conjecture at best. That's it

  13. I understand where this documentary is coming from but my question is this. If Christianity is a forgery, falsehood, and a hoax then why did the disciples continue to spread the message unto persecution and death?

    1. My guess is same reason anyone fighting the establishment is willing to put their safety at risk. Any revolution either armed or peaceful comes from an ideology. If the power in place is corrupt, violent and abusive, it's a fertile ground for rebellion based on any idea in contradiction with the ruling ideology or religion. The Romans were an invading force so resistance was a given by any mean possible.

    2. Fair enough. It just seems odd that a completely baseless faith would spread so widely and quickly. Not to mention it sticking around for over 200 years before any real impact (the edict of Milan) occurred. Something about the sect had to have been convincing early on for it to last that long.

    3. There are much older religions still around, Christianism is not utterly special in lasting compared to Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism. Also, The Roman empire was vast at the time so the same conditions were present over a large area for a new religion to take roots. Any religion needs a critical mass to become recognized by the authorities so it's not really surprising it took 200 years for it to become accepted by the ruling power. The Mormons took a while to get accepted too yet it's an accepted religion nowadays. Being convincing doesn't give any credential to the truth of the faith. A true believer in any religion is convinced his god(s) is/are the true god(s).
      Based on your logic, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrianism are legitimate true faiths since they have the current fastest growth rate in percentage of all faiths.

    4. perhaps look at it in the historical context of social evolution.

      when Constantine (the first christian emperor) took the throne, Rome was divided into four equal parts, ruled over by four emperors.

      Constantine didn't like this much, he wanted all of it, after a prolonged period of war he managed to capture all of it. Soon after he installed christianity as the official state religion over the pantheon.

      in one swift move the Romans were forced to abandon their many gods in favour of one, which made the transaction from many emperors to one much less a cause for concern.

      then the persecutions started and paganism was wiped out.
      Christianity is more often than not installed by the sword, anyone who does criticize it up until now has found their head on a spike.

      it's hard to argue with reasoning like that.

  14. Actually Jesus never said that. Apparently written by an illiterate fisherman from a dream. Hmm. And eternity is what? And measured by what ? 5,000 trillion years? A septillion trillion trillion years! No-much longer. The Universe in 13.7billion. Drop in the bucket. So, to even start to believe that consciousness can exists that long and for what reason? The human mind and the neo cortex that has evolved makes sense of abstract notions that don't exist. Love, envy. sloth, are manifestations of the mind and given a name and nothing more. They don't exist in the real world. So to assume a Roman made up literary figure who never mentioned the human genome, why abiogenesis came about, bacteria, and knew no more than anybody else at the time is the creator of the universe is absurd. Insulting to a rational person that has somewhat realistic world views. Even the guys name Jesus=Messiah Christ=Savior. Who would name their kid that? All savior gods are clearly works of fiction. Even the early church knew this. That's why Constantine "created" the myth into history. And his friend/bishop Leonard actually made up the trinity! Look it up-the church even knows it. People! It's all a myth-1st century turned to 4th century theocracy. For a church state and money! If anyone has any proof to the contrary-the world is waiting. And please don't tell me you can feel Jesus in your heart. That story about cardiac tissue having neurons has worn thin! All in all when your dissect the Bible and its 900 contradictions, there's nothing there. Except what you interpret said god to mean and believe in, which coincidently, believes the exact same things as you. Which, is no coincidence.

    1. thank you thank you thank you for words of what is.. A quote that haunts me continuously..."if I made a million tiny robots and programmed them to worship me and to fear me and to weep at the thought of my perfection.you would call me at least twisted.. However, if I made a million tiny robots and gave them free will and then threaten them with eternal damnation if they refused to worship me fear me and weep at the thought of my perfection...you would call me..."God"
      this world is so long lived and vast that it boggles my mind to think that some can find themselves as chosen and or blessed with regards to stories written and rewritten overt time. all being 2nd 3rd 4th hand to something that is not even proven as a fact..? I was raised Lutheran... But also came to know the teachings and dogma of other religions in a "Christian doctrine" class..it was most informative.. The teachings of Buddha. Hinduism. Taoism. Judaism. Catholicism and other thoughts of "all things divine".it seems to me they are all relative to a time and place.? What was happening across the earth at the time of Jesus, or Muhammad, or Buddha, not to mention the cultures of the Far East the cultures of North and South America those off the aboriginals in Australia...? and what of the cultures before" recorded "history? they didn't count??did they not have souls?? Do not animals have souls?? Remember, the bumper sticker, animals are people too..? How about a new bumper sticker... "people are animals too!"
      my point is..how is it that we have become so disconnected from what we are? Millions of organisms on the 3rd planet from our sun. Trillions of suns to the universe. "God" will be happy when we accept our place in what is..

    2. Great metaphor ! And if god knows everything, he"d already know the destiny of the robots before he made them right? Like people. And if our free will is a mystery to him, that negates the possibility of him being a "god" right there! And if he knows but can't control out free will, busted again ! Not all powerful and again negates the definition ofa god. It's so simple yet over so many heads.

    3. I am sure you will get a reply saying he knows everything but chose not to control us. That would still be like writing the code of a program and watching it run as he knows already what the routine and the outcome will be. So no real free will.

    4. Would like to live your thought experiment of eternal conciesness. .. lets say there is an afterlife. .? to live in one's own consciousness for eternity really must be hell...how long can anybody be happy if the they know they will live for eternity? eternally trapped in one's own mind???but not just you..quadrillion s of people, animal's and plants?? All experiencing internal bliss. .???sounds like some bad drug. Sooner or later your mind will rot and you will become insane.! What is wrong with just living and dying??. We may know the science. We can NEVER know the end meaning. That said.. I refuse to be a pawn of dogma, religion, and any politics
      that supports knowing what a unknowable God wants!! All I have is... the scientific method...it is
      what is as of today..? And if tomorrow changes
      what is "knowledge"..I will reevaluate what was to
      what is.................

    5. I don't pretend to think there is any chance of piercing your indisputable command of theology and the history of the church and the process of myth making... But your waxing on and building your arguments beginning with fractionalizing eternity and clicking off the math of finding the "half-life of a photon" is by itself ridiculous. His name wasn't Jesus Christ... your arguments around "assumptions" regarding the genome... are absurd, and the idea of Constantine so effectively creating a multi-thousand year myth that has been studied beyond any topic in human history... is equally revealing of your lack of depth in these topics. Just as a hip thought piece on topic I recommend watching The WaySeer Manifesto (YouTube) as just another example of some of what you reject as all of that is incompatible with your expression. And by the way, maybe mentioning the over 40,000 acknowledged "sects" or denominations of the reformation, the Catholic Church, and the different branches of Orthodoxy might be enough to render your last sentences as pretty close to meaningless. "Believe exactly the same things..."? Thanks for sharing - a topic you have strong feelings about.

      Seems strange to me that you and those that click off their "thumbs up" approval so quickly on this and other related topics to "the spiritual" have so much depth in so many topics but don't even have a basic command of the language of this topic... Easy to spin off of bad documentaries on the topic and commentary within the comment sections... Jump in the deep end sometime and take up some of what is considered thoughtful work on these topics sometime - there's no shortage of material. (And Discovery Channel doesn't count).

    6. Photon don't have a 1/2 life. But materials that emit radiation do and can be measured to degrade and specific, measurable levels. As for 40,000 sects? I thinks there is 220 denominations of Christianity. Is that what you mean? But even the church agrees that Constantine was the driving force behind the whole thing. 4th grade religion class taught me that, who, was a nun, and married to Jesus btw. So she so would know. :)

    7. Yes, photons don't have a half-life, genius - that is the point and might now be more coherent for you. Now, go back and calculate eternity again.

      "As there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations..." Wikipedia, and it takes .00045 seconds to find this...

      And your sentence, "church agrees that Constantine was the driving force" is equally ridiculous and reveals the 4th grade religious training origination. I was going to suggest something to the effect of 4th grade understanding but thought that might be taken as demeaning. Thanks for the clarification.

    8. The idea is you cant calculate eternity, I'm glad you figured out how to use Wikipedia, if not for that you couldn't figure much else for yourself it seems. As for the 41,000, its different organizations, not beliefs. #35 down the list is the Salvation Army at 25,000 members. So, I guess I could be my own denomination. So, why is a real historical figure(which Jesus is not) like Constantine discounted by you as ridiculous?

    9. 40,000, 220... the number doesn't really matter does it? Heard of Ireland? One example among countless of some of what might be considered manifestations of "us all believing exactly the same thing?" I go back to my first sentence - "I don't pretend to think there is any chance of piercing your indisputable command of theology..."

      And argue the historicity of Jesus with Richard Dawkins - intelligentsia extraordinaire of atheism and Oxford Professor... (just to be clear that is to say that even Dawkins accepts the historical Jesus). I had little idea of how far out of your subject you actually are...

    10. Thoughtful work on something that cannot be proved with verifiable scientific evidence remains a thought and an opinion no matter how many decades you work on it.

    11. Wow... aren't we just waisting syllables now? Listen in on some of the Bohm dialogues, heard of "friendship"?... the paradoxical nature of light (beyond rationality - and still what might be considered very much under review...), thought, feeling - all gibberish molecular transactions without meaning I know (sarcasm) - but take a page from Achems_Razor and just say it - there is nothing of value and meaning and why you are typing is beyond your own comprehension because you are little more than the sum total of the molecules that make you up and of no more value than those same molecules once you stop breathing - which of course reduces me to the same plane and makes my own interaction with you incomprehensible - and therefore...good time to stop. :)

    12. All I said is, Theology is a thought experiment that can never be proven with tangible facts no matter how many scriptures are cited, dissected or interpreted.

      Affirming God is a way or another is merely an opinion. Trying to convince people God is the way you think it is has more to do with giving yourself the power of knowledge of what God is rather than actually displaying any scientific evidence of his existence.

    13. never? or not yet?

    14. Never with scriptures.

    15. Well you are a prolific liar, there is not an ounce of truth to anything you said. IF YOU READ the BiBLE YOU'd know that angel came to the virgin mary and jospeh told her before the child was born the child was going to be the Messiah. Christ means the anoited one not the saviour. And despite being called Jesus Christ his name was Jesus of Nazareth not Jesus Christ. If you think love doesn't exist, you are a severally deluded man

    16. 'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth" ...'
      – Gospel of Philip, 47.

      Looks like another interpretation where the Apostles can't even agree on the name of the son of God...

    17. No, that is your poor interpretation.
      Philip is not in the bible. The original text had been lost for some time and is very damaged and much of it has been filled in.

      Mike Tyson was called the baddest man on the planet, iron mike, and kid dynamite, by your logic, if someone said the people who came before us called mike tyson kid dynamite then by your logic historians can't even agree on the name of Mike tyson.

      The apostles spoke several different languages, Jesus had several titles throughout the bible from King of the jews to jesus to jsus of nazareth

    18. What was his name then if Jesus was merely a title?

    19. I told you, Jesus of Nazareth, he has more than one title.

    20. I think Yeshua or Yehoshua would make much more sense for a real name from that period and era.

    21. Yes that is a very common name as well for Jesus.

    22. hmm...one Gospel says the angel came before conception, another says the angel came after, and the earliest Gospel doesn't mention a virgin birth at all.

      If you READ YOUR BIBLE you might know that, and realise that such contradictions mean that such an event couldn't possibly have happened.

      He also couldn't have been called Jesus of Nazareth because Nazareth didn't actually exist at that time...He's called that because an anonymous author of one of the gospels writing MUCH later when nazareth DID exist wanted to fulfill a prophecy.

      you really need to read your bible mate, you don't seem to much of a clue as to what's actually in it.

    23. I would need to see direct quote before responding to any such allegations, but if it were true it is not really material and doesn't disprove an event. Major news media organizations of today often misreport known historical events order all thet time, does't disprove these events occured.

      Nasareth did exist at the time. Pre-pottery neolithic b shows human habitation since 9000 bce in nasareth.

      You seem to have a delude view of the bible, probably to justify you christian hatred and athiesm.

    24. You are probably talking about the dig at
      Kfar HaHoresh about 3 km from current Nazareth where the remains of some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge
      horizontal headstone structures. Human remains from 9000 BC doesn't prove there was a settlement named Nazareth there 2014 years ago.

    25. Nazareth was not a particular large nor relevent town prior to jesus that being said it existence is known by the writers of the bible and roman writers like sextus julius africanus.

      Anyhow very few records have survived from that period so the fact that it was settled 9000 bc is proof enough it had human settlement and therefore existed. You have offered no proof it doesn't exist. Which is your onus as it is common knowledge to 2 billion plus christian and muslims that it did exist.

    26. From Nazareth on Wikipedia :

      "The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti,
      "Director of Christian Archaeology", carried out extensive excavation
      of this "Venerated Area" from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered
      pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age
      (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth
      basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence for
      Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman
      times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows
      that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when
      the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area."

      If the Director of Christian Archaeology didn't find anything from the era, I would say it's an unbiased source

    27. You are only disproving your own arguments. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence, it is evidence of lack of evidence. You have produced no evidence that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus. One can live in an area, that is small and leave behind no trace findable to modern archaeology.

    28. The "venerated area" is supposed to be where Mary received the Annunciation. It is very peculiar that no human artifact that can be dated to the epoch was found in that area covering 328 ft × 492 ft when several were found for the bronze and iron age. The scripture says : "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth"

    29. Matthew 1:20 suggests that Joseph is told about Jesus after conception

      Luke 1:26 suggests that the Angel came to Mary before the conception,

      Mark (the oldest Gospel and the only one written whilst witnesses might still have been alive) doesn't mention it at all.

      If the three main source materials for an event can't agree on how it happened how can you honestly think that it did?

      I didn't say people weren't living in the area, i'm telling you it wasn't known as Nazareth at the time of Jesus. There are more than enough Roman records and maps from the time to confirm this.

      Also since we're speaking of Roman records, there are none whatsoever suggesting that a cencus took place...and there are no records around displaying the information found by said cences, which means that didn't happen either. The Romans were meticulous about their records, and none contain any mention of Jesus.

      I don't have a deluded view of the bible, i just don't share your view. I also don't hate christians, i live with one.

      Please try answering my questions before throwing all of your teddy bears out of your pram and insulting me.

  15. Jesus himself said that scriptures (the bible, with or without apocryphas included) is not what gives eternal life, and so evidentely not such an important thing when it comes to the big questions of life and death. Instead He is the one who is vital to understand, and there won't be any wisdom to find, no matter if any of you become old and grey and have studied all the books that these theologians have, if the wisdom is not gained by faith it is not about Christianity at all.

    John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
    40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
    41I do not receive glory from people.

    1. Yes. Words of wisdom Alv! Thought you may have froze… have missed your inputs.

      I am a firm believer in the supernatural “unity” of Christ, Trinity, and the “simple” nature of what it means to participate in the gift of grace, the near universal nature of the “failure of man” to understand and participate in God’s plan (much of the story of scripture)… I’m reminded of the many examples of Christ’s gift of “living water” and life being as simple as the faith to reach out and touch His garment… And we are “at the root” engaged in the “mystery” which requires natural and supernatural revelation.

      St. Thomas Aquinas: ”Supernatural revelation (faith) and natural revelation (reason) are complementary rather than contradictory in nature, for they pertain to the same unity: truth.”

      It is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that the vast majority of human history has been set out within a context as a movement of God through human history and shared personally and verbally, messaging in art, simple stained glass murals, songs, etc… it hasn’t been until very recently that we all are able to pick up a “book” and own a copy of “Holy Scripture.” And, I’m reminded that while the Bible is clearly critical to capturing, sharing, and protecting that story and history, it is indeed secondary to the living reality of the Spirit of God - and this is demonstrated through the observation that the “reality” of Christ and the movement of God through history without an accompanying story in script (Holy Scripture), is entirely different than a reality of a world with a book of script (Holy Scripture) without an accompanying reality of a Messiah and accompanying God moving through history. The reality of God is clearly primary to the “script” of that reality.

      This point is intended as more subtle than it probably comes across as a note… but is intended to amplify the primacy of God’s mysterious movement in our lives, world, and times… and there is no dynamic that has caught Him by surprise, or threatens to undermine His plan. And, our salvation is secured in these dynamics of God and His gift - this all goes to the primacy of “journey” in “hope of salvation,” trust in His “cosmic” resolution of “end-game” strategy and sovereignty, and our desire to participate in some small way within this comic plan (battle).

      This is in the context that there is also a differentiation of forces existing just beyond a veil that has been self-constructed for the purposes of deceit and strategic counter-movement to the forces of Light… to which we have to not only be vigilant and bring to light, but to be as “wise as serpents.” This “counter movement of darkness” and deceit is significantly different than scriptural content that works to deal in meaningful truth and pursuit of life and love - even if it is rooted in what might be considered a theological dogma within a particular Christian theology.

    2. "and our desire to participate in some small way within this comic plan (battle)." I think you made a typo in writing comic in that sentence.

    3. Ha ha, right on.

    4. Ha - yes... thanks..."cosmic." Cosmic/comic... sometimes hard to tell the difference :).

    5. You are a firm believer indeed. Thanks for sharing, I understood your point. Now, did you expect anybody to get enlightened by your comment?
      No, seriously. Don't you think you were just having an ego-wank there?
      Please elaborate or omit.
      Sorry if I sound harsh.

    6. Ego wank I guess..tried to say something Diego and if you read some of the commentary on this topic here and elsewhere this is difficult territory to write any notes without stepping on every toe in the room. So probably tried too hard to be precise in meaning... thanks for the insight.

    7. Beautifully expressed, Brother! Thank you!

    8. How do you know what Jesus said? You cite John in your post. Maybe you should write "John wrote that Jesus said that scriptures is not what gives eternal life" instead.

    9. Fabien questions that Alv V believes what John wrote that Jesus said was horses**t. Sound about right?

      Edited.

    10. I wouldn't go as far as that. I simply doubt a 3rd person account in a book that was rewritten and translated on numerous occasions.

    11. Fabien doubts that jaberwokky knew what Fabien questions that Alv V believes what John ...

      Hmmmm ... yes I see the problem now.

    12. funny

  16. This was a terrific documentary that asks some tough questions that most Christian fundamentalists refuse to address. The notion of a documentary of this nature existing even 50 years ago for public consumption, would not have been tolerated, with very little air time even today.
    Not surprisingly, reading many of the comments below exposes the stupidity of any extreme nature. (no thought of action, just thoughtless reaction) Those who have 'blind faith', without critical thinking, equally to those who have none at all. (devoid of spirit - faithless) Those who fall in the latter category, need to ask themselves how they can accept the notion of universal creation from nothingness without intent, as much as those they chastise for not questioning that which they are being told.
    This epitomizes the nature of ignorance for those who think only in terms of black and white, (extremes) closing their minds to the possibilities of potentiality. (the truth of everything) Since I am no better or worse than those around me, I can only be thankful that I have been privileged to live a life where I can ponder the 'truth of existence' without the need to imply disparity where none exists! Take care, and best wishes everyone.

  17. In their own spelling, this is a 'completly' weak attempt to have watchers dismiss biblical Christianity.

  18. Its funny to read all the comments and debates going on here, c'mon guys don't take it all so literally! Its as if we haven't changed from thousands of years before us, when all they might of done is debated there knowledge. I think it was a well put together docu, by a small but relevant group of scholars, giving us something we haven't always had before - The other side of Religion-What might 'not' have been the truth handed down! Since we've always had the other version while growing up in the west. Today we are almost at dead odds, 'for' and 'against' religion. I love this saying and I try to always live by this, 'Man know yourself, then you will know the universe and all it's truths'. I forget whom said it and where it comes from, Sorry..Maybe knowing ourselves could always start with spending 40 days alone in the desert!

    1. I was curious so googled your sentence
      Closest google returned is :
      “Know thyself and all will be revealed.”

      Pamela Theresa Loertscher

    2. “Know Thyself” or Gnothi Seauton in Greek was the maxim
      inscribed at the entrance to the Temple of Apollo. It’s often attributed to Thales but could be from many other ancient sources. There’s lots of deep meaning behind these simple words but be aware of your faults is one my favourites.

    3. My current favorite is that morally outraged philosopher (who shall here remain nameless) I like to imagine roaming the dark streets of the town looking for an honest man. ;)

    4. Lol ;) Perhaps not morally outraged but surely possessing an evil eye, his want to cast. Not down dark streets nor dimly lit passages but out in the open, one breathes freer when away from the stifling atmosphere of Christianity. Those oh so honest and honourable men.

  19. Watched the first 10 minutes.... error after error after error... this doco is rubbish. First it starts off with the idea of "neutral schollar" as if there is a human being out there that has no position to take but "reports the facts as they are" and then not reveal that all facts require interpretation. Then it misquotes the bible time and time again... its not the tree of knowledge!!!.... its the tree of "good and evil" it misquotes and misrepresent jesus's use of the word sword... SWORD in the bible can mean TRUTH and WISDOM....

    1. I am always amazed how words can have totally different meanings in the bible. Isn't that an interpretation you are yourself decrying in the exact post you just wrote?

  20. : Just Two Trees

    Two trees of created time when awareness began as human prime time

    in the simple timeless symbol of two trees

    One you receive with open arms and go hand in hand for a down to earth walk with the creator of time

    The other standing tall in arrogance and pride using time to create beliefs of all kinds

    "Be still and know" or a tempest of human means to squeeze our time in created time

    A broken blessing filled with hope or control with a painful dreadful curse

    Waiting to be redeemed in the fullness of time already clear in the ancient story of created time

    When discernment was given like daily bread in the simple timeless symbol of two powerful trees

    Despite the great fact that we are ruled by a believing dark side in human prime time at the present time.

  21. All had to do was read some of the crazy comments to change my mind. By the way could someone just tell me if its good or not.

    1. It's not the best nor the worst I have seen. Mostly theologists talking about judeochristian religions myths and contradictions.

    2. Thanks for your comment. I did finally watch. And your review is spot on.

  22. There is no "dilemma". Faith is choosing to believe something that empirical evidence does not indicate to us. Believe whatever you choose to believe but don't expect others to make the same choices. Science and religion are not in conflict with each other. They are by definition two separate things that cannot prove or disprove the validity of the other.

    1. Your understanding of faith appears to be your dilemma because which definition do you choose.

      Like many, you are defining "faith" as "myth", whereas the basis of faith is trust, which can be placed in falsehoods as well as what is real. The outcomes are the proof of faith, as to whether your faith is based on truth or falsehood.

      Faith that does not have evidence in the present is false because it cannot be proven. Hence, faith without works (demonstrable evidence) is dead (not faith).

    2. You might want to revisit your own definitions, because what you are saying is not making much sense; faith is a belief that has no proof nor evidence to substantiate it. Now, when a believe gets proven is not a believe any more.
      'Faith that does not have evidence in the present' is not false nor true, it is faith. It is pretty much alive if you choose to believe it.
      It is crear to me that you do not have a good grasp of the theory of evolution, and it is peculiar how you ask for proof for it, and remain perfectly happy with the resurrection of a man that you never witnessed.
      Hope we get to understand each other.

    3. Diego_Garrido, just because I only accept reality and even though I have never seen a animal change into another animal, this does not mean I do not have a good grasp of the theory of evolution. When I see evidence of one kind of animal or insect or anything change into another kind, and I emphasis "kind" I will accept the truth of it.

      I have never seen a viron. I am told they exist. When I have had the flu in the past, I never saw it, but I felt it.

      When I had my encounter with the resurrected Jesus Christ, a definite change took place. I can tell you about it. If I were deceived, then the change in my life and attitude and disposition, as well as the joy that entered my being, which before I did not have, convinces me that what I feel is real.

      This came about after I met Jesus Christ. The change in my lifestyle was evidence to other people that something had changed.

      Like the viron that causes the flu, they could not see what was causing the change but the evidence was there and still remains.

      Nobody can see emotions or words that are spoken, but we are affected by them. In my case, I feel the joy and have the assurance within. Regardless, of what people say, I have got it.

      Like money in the bank, others want it, but are not prepared always to do what I may have done to get it. Instead, they scoff and dismiss the means that produces the results.

      So do you think I care. Not really. However, if we are walking the same path and doing the same things, then we obviously have the same interest.

      I have the joy!!!! And it has come to stay!!!!

    4. That is interesting, can you describe that encounter with Jesus Christ? When and where did it happen?

    5. I'm sorry, I haven't got the energy to argue with you, I've encountered exactly the same logical fallacies before, and I'm pretty sure no amount of reasoning will make us understand each other. Enjoy your life and good luck, honestly.

    6. Logical fallacies? No fallacy in death. No point in living to just to die. Luck, only necessary for gamblers.

    7. could you please define "kind" in scientific detail and i will attempt to address your request

    8. you know...the way a bat is a kind of bird... lol.

    9. because evolution takes place over generations.

      If you want evidence of evolution and you're a man, touch your nipples. If you're not, then have a think about your appendix. That used to be something else,.
      Stick your finger at the very base of your spine until you can feel the bone that used to be the base of a tail.

      The evidence is there, find a mirror and it'll be staring you in the face. you can only choose to ignore that evidence, you can't deny it's there.

    10. You have met Jesus Christ.....Really?

      What do you mean by "kind" as it seems that the meaning can play a big part in the response I give.!!!!

  23. This documentary is shoddy. The scholarship is poor. The problem with historical facts is they cannot be verified, just interpreted.

    Religion is "the quest for the truth". True religion is true science.

    Science can be tested. For instance, if the evolution of the peppered moth is real, then the moth would not lay eggs that produce caterpillars that morph into chrysalises to emerge as a peppered moth. If the moth becomes a bird then we have proven evolution. Since it is yet to happen, there is no evidence!!!

    For instance, the Bible states, Jesus said that the scriptures do not impart life, but He will give life to those who come to Him.

    If you do not genuinely apply a genuine test and makes claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then you are false to yourself and a liar.

    If Jesus rose rode from the dead, then He is alive! If Jesus is alive and you give Him opportunity to prove Himself and He doesn't then, you know that there is not resurrection from the dead. Do what ever you like, there is no judgment for what you do with your life on Earth. Eat, drink, root, loot, shoot, and executive whatever you like and have no fear, you put God to the test and He did prove Himself.

    If God proves Himself and Jesus really did rise from the dead, you have found out the truth about the resurrection of the dead.

    You are not promoting a belief.You are a true scientist!!!

    1. Sorry, with all due respect, I hope you don't get me wrong:
      What?

    2. You do not understand that true religion is the quest for the truth?

    3. I am not sure what your point is as this just doesn't make sense. No offense intended, I like to read all points of view.

    4. That is okay. If you are scientific in your approach to life, you will investigate to find out how you can genuinely prove God is false, and not be a mere opinionated fool who makes statements without exercising due diligence.

    5. OoooooK! Well.....THAT certainly cleared things up for me!

    6. Religion and Science are 2 completely different things.
      True religion is not true science. A moth not becoming a bird is definitely not evidence that evolution doesn't exist. If you use that reasoning for religion, you can say because no one observed anyone come back from the dead recently, Jesus never resurrected.

    7. Are you claiming a peppered moth is evidence of the theory of evolution? You show me some proof of evolution where a creature becomes another creature. Nobody has to date, they all talk about adaptions and millions of years ago....so what...mere imagination...no truth.

      True religion is the quest for the truth. It is scientific and not a myth that presupposes that something happened millions of years ago, like evolution, for example.

      Now if Jesus rose from the dead and you did not set out to prove this wrong, then you are opinionated and not truly scientific.

      If you do not want to find out whether the only man in history of whom it has been said rose from the dead, then that is your choice. However, not to have tested the validity of the claim with a genuine test and then mouth off like so many do, means you are unscientific and are not truly seeking to find the truth.

    8. I am waiting for your scientific proof Jesus resurrected since I am too unscientific to prove it.

    9. That is okay. If you are scientific in your approach to life, you will investigate to find out how you can genuinely prove God is false, and not be a mere opinionated fool who makes statements without exercising due diligence.

    10. My stance is no one can scientifically prove or disprove the existence of any god. If there is a god, he is outside the realm of science and the universe. No one can produce a proof of something outside the universe no matter how scientific or religious they are.

    11. Your stance. Your belief. You, the most knowledgeable of all, who can see into men's hearts, who can count the stars in the universe and number grains of sand on the Earth. So you place faith in your stance.

      Now faith that has no works or outworking or evidence that produces a result is not faith. It is merely an opinion. An opinion is an assumption based on..(?)..whatever you want. What you have to do is prove it for yourself.

      But if you only want to be hot air, mouth off as much as you want. See how much money it gets you, and tell us how to do it. Or, argue the toss with the mirror, you will always win.

    12. Take it easy, we are having a courteous discussion here. Why has it become my burden to prove the existence of god all of a sudden? I just told you no one can produce physical verifiable evidence of it. For something to be considered scientific, you must have tangible proof. That is why dinosaurs are a scientific discovery, they have fossils and bones to display. By definition, god is intangible so no one can produce a physical proof of his existence. Anyone is free to believe whatever they like, claiming their belief is truly scientific is the error if they can't produce scientific evidence.

    13. Create a butterfly. Create something that is living. You say there is no evidence of the Creator of the Universe. Open your eyes. There is evidence. If God does not exist, then falsify this by demonstrating that there was not Creator.

      As for dinosaurs, there is evidence that such creatures existed. As for civilizations existing in the Americas before even the Mayas, there is evidence. There is evidence of whales having been stranded on a mountain range and instantly fossilized,with their baleen intact. Now this is an impossibility if there was not catastrophic event taking place, because whale baleen completely disintegrates within a day or two of death.

      Only forget all that. When the wind blows, do you see it. No you feel it. Except that you will claim you see it blowing in the trees or hear the sound of it. But you do not see the wind, you only see evidence of it. If you are inside a house or office or ship or airplane and protected from the wind, you will only see the evidence of it blowing in the wind.

      Look around the Earth and into the sky and you will see evidence of a Creator.

    14. The composition of the air and its movement is verifiable with several scientific instruments. I am sorry to disagree but their is no scientific way to identify god in nature no matter how long you stare at the sky or earth. There is an interaction of many explainable scientific facts but no one can prove their is a godly force having an effect on it. You can suppose it, believe it but without measurable evidence, it is not science, it's religious belief.

    15. Are these the instruments which indicated that a living animal had been dead for millions of years? So much for the instruments.

      You look at the sky and see it is blue. But if I told you that it was a mirage, you would not believe me. This is because your instruments tell you it is blue.

      You look into the night sky and you see stars, but because of your scientific belief, you say that they do not exist, they are only a figment of imagination, for they are suns that no longer exist. But can you really prove it?

      You claim your instruments are proof. Yet I suggest that they could be faulty. They only measure what you have declared...an assumption made by you.

      Reproduce the universe with your instruments. You cannot. You can only measure them according to your beliefs.

      You claim you are correct, but about what?

      You will die. What then? Who cares?

      Hopefully, for you there is a Creator who cares. Otherwise, you are mere waste. Coming in one end, and going out the other end.

      However, if there is a Creator who cares, this suggests that there might be One who is responsible. Now responsibility implies accountability, but to whom?

      No accountability, no responsibility, nothing, for everything is a waste of time and effort; everything is done in vain.

      Why do you waste your time writing on this board? Surely, there is something more meaningful to do in life. Why watch shoddy scholarship only to hear the executive producer 140 mins later declare that as a scientist he cannot accept that there a big bang came out of nothing. There had to be a Creator.

      But you believe everything occurred by chance. Yet any mathematician worth his salt will tell that this is an impossibility. Einstein was an agnostic, but he did not deny the possibility of a Creator. He only did not believe that it was possible to know the Creator.

      I suppose Einstein's theory, like every agnostics, would have gone something like this: I believe I have a father, but because I do not know my father, being a bastard born of a prostitute, it is therefore impossible for me to know my father.

      A thirteen year old boy woke up and thought he had a dream about the girl next door during the night. Only he was not sure.

      That evening, his mother said, "Son did you have a dream last night?"

      The boy answered, "I think so. Why do you ask?"

      His mother said, "I thought I found evidence of it in your pajama pants."

      She did not have an instrument. The son was not sure. How can we know something happened?

      Create a universe by chance and tell me, how it is done? Should be easy, just a toss of the dice.

      Every year the Earth travels around the Sun and the Moon travels around the Earth thirteen times, as it travels around the Sun. All by chance?

    16. can you give me link to the study/paper that shows "a living animal had been dead for millions of years?" i suspect that the study you refer to concerns the reservoir effect (something that science has known for a while). any paper i have seen that indicated this was done to let others know that under certain very specific conditions some dating methods give false dates. but as it is your claim you can provide the link right? or at least the title, authors and date of study and i will find it myself. or are you parroting the claims of others without actually knowing for yourself? everything else you have written is either deliberate misrepresentation or an example of your scientific illiteracy. then you wrap all that up in nonsense and burden shifting.

    17. The way to the truth is to discover eternal life, if you have not got that then you are a loser, so why do want proof of nonsense.

    18. so can you provide a link or paper to back up YOUR claim? or is evasion the only arrow in your quiver? let me know if you wish to debate facts or am i wasting my time?

    19. So what are you going to debate....how a peppered moth is evidence of evolution when it is evidence of creation because it still remains a moth that lays eggs and becomes a caterpillar that forms a chrysalis and emerges as a moth and the species does repeatedly. Now if that were to become a bird rather than demonstrate some environmental adaption, then you are on a winner. Since, I doubt that you can, as there has been no news of such...you are wasting time.

      Get a life, and one that is eternal for your own good, for then you will have discovered something meaningful; otherwise, you are merely a fool who says I am omniscient because my opinion and guess is better than yours.

      As I do not have an opinion, yours will always be better than mine by default.

      As one wise man said, "Fools are only interested in expressing their opinions and not in understanding."

      Another wise man said, "A fool says in his heart that there is no Creator."

    20. you ask "So what are you going to debate" i figured i could possibly inform you on a claim you made and maybe one or both of us would learn something. but i am quickly reaching the conclusion that you do not wish to back up a claim you made. if you wish to debate my beliefs or lack of i am willing to. but one discussion at a time. i have learned to focus my debates in order to avoid red herrings. so please provide the link or admit you made a claim you heard from someone else without understanding it. then and only then will i move to another topic.

    21. That guy doesn't want a discussion, he wants to hammer that Religion is Science and anyone that doesn't agree with him is a loudmouth, a fool and whatever other insult he can come up with.

      With such a behavior, I am glad I am not a Christian. It's a religion that preaches to love your fellow men but I think he skipped church the day that was preached.

    22. Dogma breeds arrogance.

    23. i think it is worse than that. i suspect he/she knows that the arguments put forth fall apart under scrutiny. so he/she avoids the scrutiny at all costs.

    24. I couldn't bother to read all you wrote, I will answer you first question. No, the instruments to measure the composition of the air and its movement are not carbon dating instruments.

    25. So what have you done with the movement of air? Anything other than notice that it is air. Could have been some oxygen in there or helium or hydrogen or carbon dioxide--a necessity for plants to grow, so I am told. Only I have never seen carbon dioxide, if only it was blue like the sky.

    26. I have done nothing with the movement of air, you were the one saying the wind was like god and I explained how the wind can be physically proven to exist. I have no idea what you are trying to say here with you enumeration of 3 atoms and a molecule. Are you saying god is made of helium, hydrogen and carbon dioxide?

    27. I am saying why don't you actually go outside and tell God that if He exists you will not eat or drink until He proves Himself to you. Then if He does not prove Himself to you, you have nothing to fear, as you were merely born to die.

      Now if that is beyond you, so be it. You are not prepared to find out whether God exists or not. So you can wait until you die.

      Bad luck for you if God is waiting for you to give account of your life. That is the risk you are prepared to take.

    28. You are telling me to commit suicide to prove myself god exists. Death by suicide is considered a grave sin by both Catholicism and Protestantism. What exactly is your religion in which you can recommend to people to commit suicide???

    29. No I am saying you are really genuine. If you were you would have found Jesus Christ already. But since you are afraid of death and are going to die, what you should fear is the judgment that comes after death in this temporal world.

    30. You might want to read what you wrote again :

      "Why don't you actually go outside and tell God that if He exists you will
      not eat or drink until He proves Himself to you. Then if He does not
      prove Himself to you, you have nothing to fear, as you were merely born
      to die."

      So far you insulted several people on this board calling them fool, loser, loudmouth and now you are telling me to go outside and put my life at risk and commit a grave sin.

      I am starting to question if your faith is real with such a behavior and if you are not damning yourself in the eye of your god.

    31. Not a problem, question as much as you like. But in your case, it might be more profitable if you question God. If you are a genuine person, someone who really wants to know the truth. It would a do or die issue.

    32. As far as I know, everybody will die. Questioning God will not change anything to that fact hence it is not a do or die issue.

    33. You are so confident in your status before the Creator of the Universe. You amaze me. How can you be so certain?

    34. If there is an almighty god, no amount of questioning, praying, idolizing or whichever ritual men can invent will change what he decides, he is almighty.

    35. Are you confusing almighty with omniscience?

      Almighty means that the Creator has the power to love someone like you whom no one else might want to love.

    36. If those were not fighting words, they are almost funny.

      I take it you have never read a book almost as old as the bible, "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie.

    37. God is love. People are corrupt. Death reigns.

      Only those who are after something that somebody else has seek to make friends and influence other people's behavior.

      I am happy with my own riches. It is a wonderful life. Enjoy the now, it never ends.

    38. (YOUR) God is a 'Ho'. Again, quit proselytizing. And trying to convert by fear.

      Warning #2, no more warnings after this.

    39. Making friends is exclusively to get what they have?

    40. So you and other posters do not waste your time trying to reply to (happy riches) he is banned from TDF

    41. Ok, thanks for the information.
      It was getting tedious, I was about to give up anyway. :)

    42. If he exists, he has power over all creation and all creation is his to do whatever he decides to do with. He could arbitrarily decide a deluge is necessary in 2 minutes. No one has any influence on an omniscient all powerful creator.

    43. lol...the irony is just too much.

      First of all, the sky being blue IS actually because it's a mirage...it's the ozone reflecting back the water...our instruments show us how it does this.

      As for saying scientists don't believe in the stars...might i suggest you google Astronomy before you repeat that silly assertion anywhere else and risk looking foolish again.

      the instruments might be faulty? That statement would look much less stupid if it weren't typed on a computer and sent wirelessly over the internet to show everyone just how stupid it is.

      Personally i think the existence of a creator makes life utterly pointless. What is the point in life if some cosmic dunce has already plotted everything out in the cruelest most senseless way possible.

      If God exists then all of life is his joke at our expense...When you look at it like that Oblivion seems quite inviting.

    44. life is about going in one end and coming out the other! this is the beauty of nature. Things live because others die.. The dead replenish the living. What is wrong with just living and dying? eternal life is nothing but eternal torture .to live in one's own consciousness for eternity is surely an exercise of madness.!!

    45. I smell with your cookin...but smell this... You can acknowledge history archaeology geology etc....but why...??? Is Christianity special?.., how about Mohammed, how about Hinduism, taoism, buddism, greek, roman..., ,peruvian, ,aztecian, ,aboriginal....so many explanations, so many faiths. I personally would like to see them all left as they are..! there is an exception.. Christianity sees fit to conquer all and convert all...a self righteous faith..on to which all others are dammed...you seek eternal life.. But, who would like to live eternally? To be self conscience in one's own mind forever seems at best a eternal torture. ? what is wrong with just living and dying???please try and live this thought experiment.. You are alive forever for eternity with the mind you have today...? How long before you cannot deal with family, friends and YOURSELF! if there is a God, he certainly wouldn't be so cruel as to "torture" us for eternity for our obedience. A quote: if I were to create a million tiny robots and program them to worship me, love me ,sing songs about me, you would call me at least twisted.. But if I gave those 1,000,000 robots free will and then demanded that they worship me, love me sing songs about me, and then threaten them with eternal damnation if they refused..., you would call me God!

    46. Odin is displeased that he didn't get a mention!

    47. my apologies to the Norse gods..! No disrespect.!Valhalla has room for us all!except perhaps for the pussies.

    48. awesome response...that should wind the Christians up a treat.

      Hundreds of posts trying to get some shred of respect for their God and no results.

      one mention of Odin's displeasure and it's a full apology with honours...Made me lol at least.
      XD

    49. if we were created, then the designer was a m*ron with a very poor understanding in engineering principles...what kind of i8iot puts a recreational facility in the same place as a waste disposal unit?

      What kind of idiotic engineer do you have to be to make your creations out of a substance that just about every aspect of the planet can hurt?

      What kind of a cowboy builder do you have to be to build something that has a one in three chance of developing a fatal tumor that it has no indication of until it's too late?

      If you're arguing a creator, then my argument is that that creator is a m*ron!

    50. What is the Cambrian explosion?

    51. Were you there to see it? If not, then you are talking from...(let me see?) ....assumption?

      Is having confidence in an assumption or a belief based on certain artifacts or interpretations the same as faith....more like superstition to me, something that cannot be proven in the now.

    52. What are you rambling about? I just asked you what it is.

      What is the cambrian explosion?

    53. If you do not know, consult any encyclopedia, because you are obviously short on experience.

    54. Is there a reason you dont want to tell me what the cambrian explosion is?

      okay what is Tiktaalik?

    55. He got banned, he won't answer.

    56. "True religion is the quest for the truth. It is scientific and not a myth that presupposes that something happened millions of years ago, like evolution, for example." This is ridiculous, you have no idea what science is or does. Christianity is all myth and conjecture, all from one single book. Memorize the book and claim it's all from a god that has no evidence except for the 'feelings' inside you that you enjoy apparently. The evolutionary progressions from Bonobo/Chimp to present humans is there for you to see, open your eyes.....

  24. Yes it is perhaps worth watching but documentary has errors in it. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in or teach the trinity. Jews and Christians were not to drink blood. The Kingdom of God is a government by God. Jesus is the King of that government. Constantine was not a good example of a Christian he was more interested in keeping the Roman Empire unified and he used religion to do it. The Bible does not teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, so it is not anti scientific. The loving God did not create evil. All Christians should read the Bible to make sure they adhere to its teachings.

    1. "The loving God did not create evil." I question that affirmation. God is supposed to have created everything.

    2. Yes fine you have the right to question that. I would like to site 2 scriptures to support that view first. Deuteronomy 32:4." the Rock perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust.Righteous and upright is he."
      The second scripture is James 1:13. "When under trail, let no man say:'I am being tried by God." for with evil things God can not be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
      These 2 scriptures only answer half your question! The second half of your question is where did evil come from, correct?
      Yes God Jehovah/Yahweh created everything with the aid of his son Jesus. As the Bible says let us ( plural ) make man in our ( plural ) image.
      All intelligent creatures created by God had free will. One such creature challenged Gods authority to rule and said God was a liar! Genesis 6:3. This spirit creature became known at Satan the Devil. Which means adversary and opposer. Jesus called this one the father of the lie. John 8:44. So in a sense evil created itself, in that spirit creature angel who rebelled against God. Adam and Eve also rebelled against God by disobedience. There is a great deal of evil and suffering in this world. This of course is a very condensed brief explanation. I would encourage you to look deeper into this subject and ask the next Jehovah Witnesses who knocks on your door about this topic. I hope this is of some assistance to you.

    3. Here is something I don't understand really, maybe you can explain where my logic fails. God created everything, is perfection and is all knowing. Why did he create a creature that would challenge him, call him a liar and turn to evil in the first place? A God without fault wouldn't commit such a mistake, no? If as you say evil can create itself, wouldn't that be a second creation? Doesn't that invalidate the one creator proposition?

    4. I think I understand what you are saying. The problem is the problem of 'free will.' With out free will surely God's intelligent creatures would be little more then robots? So I do not see 'free will' in his creatures as a mistake. Where as you might!? Yes in a sense evil is a second creation as Satan the Devil became a rival god, since he challenged Gods sovereignty right to rule.
      Unknown to Adam and Eve and the rest of mankind we have all come under the influence of Satan the Devil as the Bible states he is the ruler of this system of things. 1 John 5:19. One needs to look at the motives and reasons for why Satan and Adam and Eve did what they did. The Bible clearly states that Eve was deceived Adam was not. There is no forgiveness of sins for Adam Eve and Satan. Why? Since they were all created perfect. It is how God Jehovah is dealing with this matter that is of importance to the rest of intelligent creation.

    5. So if I understand correctly, Christian based religions are not monotheist but bitheist religions where God and Satan are both deities with powers of creation?

    6. I would say no, that is incorrect. Christianity is monotheist in that there is only one God Creator. But Satan the Devil has certainly set himself up as a rival god and he is not alone. What Satan has created!? I would say a lot of misery and suffering for mankind. Therefore I do not blame the creator for the mess mankind is in.

    7. If I understand what you wrote, God did not create evil. Evil either created itself or was created by a force that is not God. That implies more than one creator in my mind.

    8. Yes that is correct understanding. You are asking the right questions. Talking over the internet is not really a deep conversation. It is better to talk face to face with some one. Next Jehovah Witness that knocks on your door ask them these questions they would love to talk about this spiritual topic, with you.

    9. I am simply trying to understand your point of view, I am agnostic. My belief is no one can claim to know or have proof if god exists or not.
      Since I can't claim to know, I can't adhere to any religion. Thanks for the discussion though, always interesting to learn what others think. Take care.

    10. Satan of course being the only one who didn't lie to Adam and Eve in the garden, and also the one with the far lower bodycount.

      God slaughters people in their thousands whilst Satan barely makes it into double figures.

      Of course that's mostly because satan is a medieval invention. what isn't stolen directly from the old testament was put in place when the church was trying to convert the Pagans of the west and needed to literally demonise the old Gods, hence why the modern interpretation of Satan has such Pagan characteristics

      personally I blame Gos (actually i don't because I don't believe he exists but for the sake of argument).

      you can't claim God is the all powerful creator of the universe and then absolve him of all responsibility for the things that happened.

      From what i can see most of the old testament is God trying to cover up his cock ups, he makes mistake after mistake, fails to take responsibility for any of them and takes out his frustration on the people he made a big song and dance about being the protector of.

      He strikes me as something of a spoiled child and is by far the most unpleasant creature in all of literature..

    11. Your response does not make much sense. The first lie told to humans was by Satan the Devil in that he said to Eve if she ate from the tree that she would not die. Genesis 3:4.This is why Jesus Christ identified this one as the Father of the lie. John 6:44. Human beings have been growing old getting sick and dieing every since.

      If you don't believe in God or Satan why is this of any importance to you? You seem to be a person full of hate. Hatred for Christians!? Please don't respond to this. I have no desire to talk to you. Thank you have a nice day.

    12. Coming from someone touting quotations from the new testament it seems a bit rich implying that my comments don't make sense...the new testament doesn't make any sense whatsoever yet you believe every word of that?

      anyway correct me if i'm wrong but she didn't die, and wouldn't have died later if God hadn't had a childish tantrum an thrown them out the garden.

      Like i say, God is a spoiled child.

      It's of importance to me because it's being forced into my life.

      What's the matter, don't have enough faith to deal with a challenger?

      Can your allmighty God not withstand a little bit of criticism from a pleb?

      What's the point of coming on a forum and trying to make a stand for your God if all your going to do is shy away with your tail between your legs at the first sign of rational thought?

    13. Also i don't hate christians at all (i cohabit with a catholic and i certainly don't hate her)...what's the old saying, hate the sin not the sinner?
      lol if you don't want me to respond then it's probably a good idea to not cast assertions on my character first. All that tells me is that you can't argue, so you're resorting to insults and aspersions instead...quite sad really, you're lot have had 2000 years to come up with answers to these basic criticisms...odd that you haven't.

    14. I wish just once one of you fundy happy clappy religee's would prove me wrong by not resorting to 'ad hominem' and insults just because a poster would like some answers concerning your religion.

  25. This documentary primarily provides the views of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations not mainline fundamental protestant views. I agree that most Christians are biblically illiterate; this documentary only uses the views of the illiterate Christians from all denominations as their premise without clarifying the true Christian position. The experts in this film ignore the time texts, cultural, and traditional views to pretext their views. Scripture is taken out of context and used as a pretext. This is just another documentary to sway skeptics and biblically illiterate Christians away from really reading and studying the Holy Scriptures for all their worth and the truth claims within it's pages. In the end each human being is accountable for their sins and disbelief and each one better be 100% accurate (no room for error) on the day of judgment or there will be hell to pay (literally).

    1. you say that...but i have never read the bible more than since i began identifying as an athieist.

      I reckon most athieism is caused by christians actually reading the damned thing for the first time and realising it's full of sh1t.

      Most skeptics and christians i know fully endorse reading the bible, because it's lack of sense is the most convincing argument against God that there is.

    2. It is written so that fools do not bother to seek God. Evidently, God only seeks those who have honest hearts.

      This does not mean that those who use and abuse it for their own ends are wise. Just the hypocrites that Jesus said are going to suffer for their deceit like the angel who thought he was greater than the infinite one.

      However, if you want to know why you were born just to die, I suggest you start crying out for the truth. If you are genuine, you will find it. If not, you are just like the rest of the hypocrites: all mouth and no substance.

    3. Seek god? which god? are you referring to the Hebrew god purchance, for one thing since you are banding YOUR God and YOUR Jesus around so much, show some proof that they are real, and what do you know 'about the truth' the truth of what, that some invisible entity spoke the words and all came into existence! Give me a break!

    4. So you are going to live forever and your life is not a waste of time, because you have a purpose in being born only to die.

      Good luck. You are omniscient.

      Like the ant. You are smarter than the anteater.

      All power to you, omnipotent one!

      You will get a break, it will be the sound of insects eating your body if you are buried, or the sound of flames consuming you if you are cremated. Take your pick.

      And I make those predictions without being omniscient...and if you happen to be eaten by a wild beast, you can enjoy the sound of its teeth crunching your bones!!!

      Enjoy what life you have left. Get off this board and go and live, create mayhem or something. You are going to die anyway. So make a name for yourself while you have the chance.

      Only if you are wrong, and you have to give account of yourself when you die, what then???

    5. Ah! there you go, back to the favorite default system of most religee's, if they can not prove their claims resort to 'AD HOMINEM' insults, and veiled threats!

      funny religee's

    6. No offence intended. But like all offence, it is only taken, and since I gave you no permission to take it, and you took it, then you must have stolen it!

      What threat am I to you?

      I have no gun at your head.

      I simply told you the truth. And you were offended.

      Omniscience, if only we possessed it. How much more anguish we might enjoy, knowing that the creatures we created were rejecting us, only to destroy themselves.

      By the way did you feel something, before you saw it, like the offence that came your way. There is a fence, it sits on the boundary of my habitation. Only you cannot see it. But I know it is there. It is called death.

    7. You do not hold a gun to Achem's head, but your god does. The mandate, love and worship me or be forever damned, is the moral and ethical equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head.

    8. Whatever, but since you possess omniscience, and so I assume the rest of you who know how the universe was formed, I suppose you don't have to get your information second hand from....books probably written by another person who is a....liar?...most probably.

      In a court of law, eyewitness accounts are the preferred evidence. I wonder why that is?

      Have such guts and challenge God to prove Himself in your own life, and genuinely mean it.

    9. By the way, since you are so fixated on DEATH at your doorstep, I can only conclude you are scared of 'Thanatophobia', that is why most turn religious to alleviate their fears of oblivion.

      Why are you talking about a court of law, eyewitness account of your gods, I will tell you again the only gods ever, are the gods that are only in your own mind, you cannot take that to a court of law.

    10. You obviously have a problem. I have no fear. Take the simple road, the easiest way. Be brave. You are obviously a giant among men, a brilliant philosopher and have all the answers. Is spewing the same as regurgitating?

      Be original.

      Get some joy in your life and find out why you have the ability to conceive of eternity.

    11. I never claimed omniscience.

      We do, in fact, explain how the universe expanded through the big bang model. It's our current, best explanation of how the universe and subsequent galaxies, stars, planets, etc. formed. It does not speak about origins and we do not pretend to know what caused the expansion, we only attempt to explain what happened afterward based on the evidence we have now.

      Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence. If you go to court as a prosecutor with only testimony from witnesses and no physical evidence, be prepared to lose the case. I have a friend who went to Embry Riddle for aviation safety. He told me that they were taught in class that with every airline crash, someone will report smoke or fire, whether there was any or not. This is because some people associate planes crashing with engine failures due to fire or bombs. Your mind processes tons of information, most of which it filters out as irrelevant. When you recall the event later, your mind tries to fill in gaps, often erroneously.

      I will challenge any god, here and now, to prove itself. We'd all love the evidence. However, since it hasn't happened yet, I think it's rather unlikely to happen in the future. I'll happily change my position, given the evidence.

      Thanks for playing, but your troll skills need work.

    12. Interpretation is a problem in this unreliable world of uncertainty.

      Your problem Jonathan is you have yet to get hold of the hotline. Until that time, your superficiality is like the mask of Greeks.

    13. Interpretation is unnecessary in the presence of evidence, which is where the realm of science operates.

      Religion, however, needs constant interpretation, explanation, apologetics, mental gymnastics and after all that, you get "well it's all about faith and you just haven't found it yet."

    14. I can tell by this post that you are 'off the chain' by your nonsensical meanderings. I suggest you get professional help!

      Loony religee

    15. Take the simplest way to the truth. Why wait until fate cuts you down. Be brave and confront the reality of life now.

      Almighty God has the ability to lift you gently from the mire of your ineptitude, like an elephant could with its trunk.

      Courage...not found among people who live in the darkness.

    16. amazing, i've never seen anyone justify obnoxiousness in such a way.

      "Offence is only taken"

      That isn't true literally, figuratively, grammatically or technically.

      Offence can indeed be given, though it's interesting how you attempt to use this line of 'reasoning' to try and absolve yourself from responsibility of what you say...a pity it doesn't work.

    17. lol, so if i believe hard enough i'll find the truth and if i don't find it it's because i didn't believe hard enough.

      Does it not strike you as odd that that's exactly what every quack and con artist says as well?

    18. yes, Christianity is very good at covering it's own tracks. LEt's disect those words of wisdom shall we?
      "Fools do not bother to seek God." I would love an explaination for this...because history is full to the rafters with fools who went looking for God.

      God only seeks those who have honest hearts? Is that why a man who tried to cover up the churches paedophile scandal is now a saint?

      Those who use it for their own ends aren't wise? really, because they've managed to con their way to the top of a charity, sounds pretty smart to me...a lot smarter than the God who set up the church to be abused in the first place.

      I love the way that the guy arguing for blind faith feels justified in chastising me for having no substance...it's almost as if you have no concept of irony whatsoever.

    19. But did you notice the final conclusion by Payn: he cannot accept that there is no Creator and the big bang happened from nothing.

  26. OMG i love the 3D animated stuff... i want to play this docu like a game. Achievement unlocked: Reason and logic! XDc

  27. religion... so ridiculous.. every one of them.

    they should all be forced to pay their back taxes.

  28. Neutral scholars? Any fundamentalist will assure you there are none. If you don't agree with them, you are hostile, and persecuting them.

  29. I happened to watch this just a few days ago on YouTube and it is pretty good, IMO. I'll let the rest of you battle about its content. :)

  30. it was interesting until the end. that comment that it had to be intelligence? can you say argument from ignorance?