New Series on SCI channel (US): Biblical Conspiracies

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Now Now Buzzy, let's not judge. If Jesus wants to embrace alternate lifestyles and be a demosexual, who are we to judge?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Careful, don't want any Christian heads imploding around here.

a reply to: Boadicea

Several authors have equated the Holy Grail with the blood of Christ, and suggested it refers to a child of Christ carried by Mary Magdalene... maybe.

Yes, the Holy Grail is a very loose translation of "SangReal". "The kingly blood." Or "king's blood".
Thanks for bringing up the other stories, and Glastonbury.
I'm glad to know people are aware of that stuff.

a reply to: Boadicea

I would love to see them look at the migration of the Lost Tribes of Israel

Mmm. So would I!

And this is airing right when "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is coming out - looking JUST Like a Hobbit epic CGI tale. (Which it is. People don't realize how much the Hobbit, and Star Wars, and hell, even The Wizard of Oz are ALL the same story.)

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yep, just like the Matrix, Superman, Robocop, and the New Testament are all the same stories.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The morals that can be derived from it

You mean like subjugating women, and killing entire populations because they are not 'behaving right'?

The BIBLE is not necessary for morals. We are born with morals. Truly. BABIES are able to tell right from wrong. But they don't believe in 'God' and haven't read 'The Bible.'

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Careful, don't want any Christian heads imploding around here.

Are you kidding? I think we just struck sitcom gold, "One's an evil entity from the underworld looking to rend your flesh, the other is the son of god. You'll laugh and cry as these two try to make their marriage work. This Fall on CBS Holy Hellfire." Sounds like a winner.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The morals that can be derived from it

You mean like subjugating women, and killing entire populations because they are not 'behaving right'?

The BIBLE is not necessary for morals. We are born with morals. Truly. BABIES are able to tell right from wrong. But they don't believe in 'God' and haven't read 'The Bible.'

I agree that the Bible is not necessary for the development of morals (much of it demonstrates appalling morals, anyway) but it's not true that babies are born with morals. Babies are essentially self-interested sociopaths who have to develop an awareness of how their behavior affects others. For example, babies aren't aware that when they clunk another baby over the head with a toy truck that it hurts the other baby. Over time, they develop awareness and empathy for others. However, if they don't bond with a parenting figure by the age of two or so they stay sociopaths for life (at least that's the theory). Morals are learned.

a reply to: Tangerine

it's not true that babies are born with morals. Babies are essentially self-interested sociopaths who have to develop an awareness of how their behavior affects others.

Yes, it IS true. I'm not talking about 'newborns' (although they also have individual temperaments, sensitivities, affects, etc.)....But older babies - a few months old, definitely DO show a preference for kindness rather than cruelty.

But even NEWBORNS learn that their behavior affects others - if they cry, mom comes. If they smile, mom smiles. If they coo, mom coos. If mom looks a certain direction, they look that direction too. Have you raised kids? Paid attention to their patterns of response - to their growing recognition of signals and voice?


There have been numerous scientific, controlled studies of how babies' brains respond - for example when watching bully puppets vs helpful puppets - I know this because that was my profession - baby brains. Brain-training.

A baby will learn whatever his environmental experience stimulates his brain to learn. it has NOTHING to do with "God."

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

For some, (not all mind you), the bible has become a moral compass. They take the teachings Jesus to heart and strive to do good. Your primary gripe is with the fundamentals, I think. Some people take what is written in the bible as 100% fact and use that to further their agenda of oppressing anyone who doesn't think the way they do. A great majority of Christians are people just like you me, who genuinely want to do good in the world and love thy neighbor, as Jesus intended.

(Disclaimer, the above post is from an atheist. I know, an atheist defending christians?! I'm crazy.)

Favorite bible "conspiracies"

Chrestians vs Christians in early Christianity
Tacitus/Josephus forgeries
Marcions gospel
Sermon on mount/dead sea scroll origin
Hymn to Aten/Psalm 104
Tower of Babels Assyrian account
Noah and Gilgamesh
Difference in today's bible vs earliest manuscripts
Enuma Elish and biblIcal creation story
Sheol/Hades/hell
Stauros/stavros upright stake

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I wish I could applaud you. Yes, you are right. Regarding both my 'gripe' and the 'majority' of Christians. Still, if there are enough Bible-thumpers (ESPECIALLY IN LEGISLATURES!) that their high-and-mighty proclamations drown out the populace's wishes and concerns -

We are headed for a THEOCRACY.

To which suggestion I say: No. Thanks very much. You people are nuts. (to the theocrats, that is).

a reply to: KidOK

There you go! There is your line-up!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Scene 7: Enter Jesus, stage left. He approaches the fridge in a sleepy stupor and pulls open the door, reaching for the carton of orange juice. Upon opening the carton and trying to drink he discovers it's empty.

Jesus: "Again? Dad Damnit! MAGDALENE!"

Off screen, devilish cackling is heard.

(Pause for laughter)

It will just be confirmation bias on both sides and everywhere in between.Trying to “decipher/expose” the Truth about the bible is as futile as peeling an onion ...you always end up with nothing in the middle.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

For some, (not all mind you), the bible has become a moral compass. They take the teachings Jesus to heart and strive to do good. Your primary gripe is with the fundamentals, I think. Some people take what is written in the bible as 100% fact and use that to further their agenda of oppressing anyone who doesn't think the way they do. A great majority of Christians are people just like you me, who genuinely want to do good in the world and love thy neighbor, as Jesus intended.

(Disclaimer, the above post is from an atheist. I know, an atheist defending christians?! I'm crazy.)

Except it wasn't Jesus who wrote those words (and not all of them were good -- you're forgetting the threats of Hell). All the words attributed to Jesus were written by men who never heard Jesus say anything and were written multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Tangerine

Of course they'll avoid fundamental questions like the existence of jesus and god, those aren't questions that be empirically answered. They're discussing the BIBLE, it looks like. The book. The morals that can be derived from it, and the spiritual questions that someone may find answers to within it are irrelevant when discussing the text itself, and the conspiracies surrounding it.

The Bible claims that Jesus lived and God exists. They should address those claims. It can be empirically answered that there is no evidence proving those claims. Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative but most people don't even know there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. I'll bet right now that they'll feature Bart Erhman glossing over that and making his evidence-less argument that Jesus did live.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Tangerine

it's not true that babies are born with morals. Babies are essentially self-interested sociopaths who have to develop an awareness of how their behavior affects others.

Yes, it IS true. I'm not talking about 'newborns' (although they also have individual temperaments, sensitivities, affects, etc.)....But older babies - a few months old, definitely DO show a preference for kindness rather than cruelty.

But even NEWBORNS learn that their behavior affects others - if they cry, mom comes. If they smile, mom smiles. If they coo, mom coos. If mom looks a certain direction, they look that direction too. Have you raised kids? Paid attention to their patterns of response - to their growing recognition of signals and voice?


There have been numerous scientific, controlled studies of how babies' brains respond - for example when watching bully puppets vs helpful puppets - I know this because that was my profession - baby brains. Brain-training.

A baby will learn whatever his environmental experience stimulates his brain to learn. it has NOTHING to do with "God."

That contradicts everything I learned regarding the development of empathy. Learning to manipulate the behavior of others and to watch others and respond to signals isn't the same as empathy. I am referring to babies, not two-year-olds. I already agreed with you about it having nothing to do with God. Did you read my posts?

originally posted by: KidOK
Favorite bible "conspiracies"

Chrestians vs Christians in early Christianity
Tacitus/Josephus forgeries
Marcions gospel
Sermon on mount/dead sea scroll origin
Hymn to Aten/Psalm 104
Tower of Babels Assyrian account
Noah and Gilgamesh
Difference in today's bible vs earliest manuscripts
Enuma Elish and biblIcal creation story
Sheol/Hades/hell
Stauros/stavros upright stake

If the program seriously investigated any of that, Christians would boycott their sponsors. No chance they're going to risk that.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Tangerine

it's not true that babies are born with morals. Babies are essentially self-interested sociopaths who have to develop an awareness of how their behavior affects others.

Yes, it IS true. I'm not talking about 'newborns' (although they also have individual temperaments, sensitivities, affects, etc.)....But older babies - a few months old, definitely DO show a preference for kindness rather than cruelty.

But even NEWBORNS learn that their behavior affects others - if they cry, mom comes. If they smile, mom smiles. If they coo, mom coos. If mom looks a certain direction, they look that direction too. Have you raised kids? Paid attention to their patterns of response - to their growing recognition of signals and voice?


There have been numerous scientific, controlled studies of how babies' brains respond - for example when watching bully puppets vs helpful puppets - I know this because that was my profession - baby brains. Brain-training.

A baby will learn whatever his environmental experience stimulates his brain to learn. it has NOTHING to do with "God."

That contradicts everything I learned regarding the development of empathy. Learning to manipulate the behavior of others and to watch others and respond to signals isn't the same as empathy. I am referring to babies, not two-year-olds. Has it occurred to you that babies watching puppets are thinking about how the action affects themselves not others? I already agreed with you about it having nothing to do with God. Did you read my posts?