…and this is a 
Ground your irony meters before reading
Category: Humor
Posted on: April 23, 2008 2:16 PM, by PZ Myers
Paul Verhoeven is making a movie that claims Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raped by a Roman soldier. There is no historical evidence for Jesus, let alone the nature of his conception, so this is pure fictional speculation, from a director known more for over-the-top, superficial flamboyance than historical accuracy — expect a crotch shot of Mary, and lots of silicon breasts in the shower scene.
But of course Bill Donohue is outraged.
"Here we go again with idle speculation grounded in absolutely nothing," Donohue told FOXNews.com. "He has no empirical evidence to support his claim, which is why they say 'may have.'"
Hmmm. A lack of empirical evidence and a grounding in mere speculation has never stopped the Catholic church before…
Comments
Posted by: Jonathan Martin | April 23, 2008 2:19 PM
Oooh... love that concluding burn! :)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 23, 2008 2:21 PM
Sorry to break it to Donohue, but God told me Verhoeven is, in fact, right.
Therefore, ipso facto, QED and all that, we're on even intellectual footing.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 23, 2008 2:21 PM
If Donohue was ever not outraged, that would deserve a headline.
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 23, 2008 2:23 PM
Wasn't there already a film that claimed this? Was also protested by Catholics too. It even had the soldier's name: Naughtius Maximus.
(Yes, I know, Terry Jones wasn't Mary.)
Posted by: dave | April 23, 2008 2:24 PM
There is no historical evidence for Jesus,
Slight correction: there is no indisuptable historical evidence for Jesus. Josphephus, etc...
Posted by: Emmanuel_Goldstein | April 23, 2008 2:26 PM
While it is all bunk, historically speaking, it may be that Verhoeven is really making a sly comment on the Church itself. The official Catholic version of church history talks much about the Christianization of Rome, but very little about the Romanization of Christianity.
Maybe that is what he's getting at. Though I'd prefer to see him stick to the pagan splendors of Showgirls.
Posted by: Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 2:27 PM
I am a Christian who is evaluating the veracity of evolution. I was wondering if there are any Christians here I'd like to ask a few theological/evolution questions?
Are there any here, or does this sort of mockery tend to drive them all off?
Posted by: me | April 23, 2008 2:27 PM
I thought the whole Josephus thing was a cryptic allusion to an individual who, with the incredible focusing hindsight of history, might possibly could've been someone who, if not Jesus, might have been someone like we'd expect Jesus to have been if, in fact, biblical accounts have any veracity.
Posted by: DBE | April 23, 2008 2:28 PM
Kevin @ #4: But we all know that the offspring from that union wasn't the messiah -- he was just a very naughty boy.
Posted by: BoxerShorts | April 23, 2008 2:28 PM
Religious controversy aside, that sounds like a really bad movie.
Not that we should expect any less from Mr. Verhoeven.
Posted by: garth | April 23, 2008 2:29 PM
I'm stoked that an article I emailed the prof made it in the blog. Of course, I'm probably (as tom and ray would put it) among the huge pile of others that sent it in, but I can dream, can't I?
Posted by: J | April 23, 2008 2:30 PM
This is going to make The Golden Compass look like Going My Way.
Posted by: MarkW | April 23, 2008 2:30 PM
The 'Jesus was the son of a Roman' meme goes back a lot further than Life Of Brian, Celsus in 178 CE in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Jesus_Connection.3F
Posted by: BGT | April 23, 2008 2:31 PM
E&A @ #7,
See if Scott Hatfield shows up, or you could look up his blog.
Posted by: Graham | April 23, 2008 2:33 PM
Jebus was a bastard and his mom lied to him and told him he was the son of God to cover it up... Boy did that get out of hand.
Posted by: Deepsix | April 23, 2008 2:33 PM
"Wasn't there already a film that claimed this? Was also protested by Catholics too. It even had the soldier's name: Naughtius Maximus."
I thought it was "Bigus Dickus".
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 23, 2008 2:33 PM
Are there any here, or does this sort of mockery tend to drive them all off?
Well it drives off the intellectually fragile and stupid ones, to be sure.
Ironic, really. Jesus died for their sins, yet they can't stand a little deserved ribbing. They just don't make martyrs like they used to.
Posted by: jetmags73 | April 23, 2008 2:33 PM
PZ...it appears based on the article you linked to, that Verhoeven is writing a book on the subject, not making a movie:
The book, which also states that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 original apostles of Jesus, as the New Testament states, will be published in the Netherlands by Amsterdam-based Meulenhoff in September, according to the Reporter.
Not that I regard Verhoeven as any more of a brilliant author than director. His flicks are revolting, pieces of garbage. But at least he can hold his head up high and proclaim, "I made Hollow Man, but.....I'm not Dembski!"
Posted by: MarkW | April 23, 2008 2:34 PM
#13: Correct that 'in' to 'around' sorry.
Posted by: another | April 23, 2008 2:34 PM
garth @#11
Yes, garth, you can dream. Dream on. Dream until your dreams come true.
- Wayne
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 23, 2008 2:34 PM
@ DBE # 9 - So is Paul Verhoeven or anyone else who watches Life of Brian and confuses it with a documentary. :^p
Here's the relevant scene lifted from some webpage... eerily similarities.
MANDY: Well, you know you were asking me about your, uh...
BRIAN: My nose?
MANDY: Yes. Well, there's a reason it's... like it is, Brian.
BRIAN: What is it?
MANDY: Well, I suppose I should have told you a long time ago, but...
BRIAN: What?
MANDY: Well, Brian,... your father isn't Mr. Cohen.
BRIAN: I never thought he was.
MANDY: Now, none of your cheek! He was a Roman, Brian. He was a centurion in the Roman army.
BRIAN: You mean... you were raped?
MANDY: Well, at first, yes.
BRIAN: Who was it?
MANDY: Nortius Maximus his name was. Hmm. Promised me the known world he did. I was to be taken to Rome, House by the Forum. Slaves. Asses' milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me had... voom! Like a rat out of an aqueduct.
Posted by: Emmanuel_Goldstein | April 23, 2008 2:35 PM
E&A,
You would do well to keep in mind the words of the famous Christian writer, G. K. Chesterton: "It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it."
It may also be the test of a good Christian whether you can handle the challenge to your beliefs that the joking implies.
Posted by: Unspeakabley Violent Jane | April 23, 2008 2:40 PM
Laugh it up guys! It's all funny 'til they start questioning the lineage of Santa!
Posted by: Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 2:41 PM
BGT,
Thanks!
Posted by: Brutus Finesses | April 23, 2008 2:41 PM
Harken to me now! You can't say anything about catholicism without that fat bald christ-puncher Phil Donohue crying havok and letting loose the jowls of indignation.
It amuses me that ol' Phil, being a catholic skull-cracker, wanted to throw such a hissy fit about lack of evidence. I mean that's too obvious but still, lovely.
I wish I had caught this post earlier so I could have made the naughtius maximus joke!
Posted by: Mike P | April 23, 2008 2:42 PM
#7,
Eh, this sort of mockery first tends to piss them off, make 'em stay a while and defend their beliefs, and THEN drives them off.
If you're looking to evaluate the veracity of evolution, this probably isn't a good first step for you. If I can give you some advice, you're going about it backwards by looking for other Christians to discuss evolution with. You seem to be trying to decide if you can fit evolution into your Christianity. It doesn't work that way. Evolution either is or isn't (hint: it is), and theological considerations shouldn't be weighed against the scientific evidence.
If you look at all the evidence, accept the validity of evolution and still believe you're a Christian, then is the time to discuss theological implications.
Posted by: BicycleRepairMan | April 23, 2008 2:42 PM
Damn it!, I ignored the advice in the headline and now I need a new meter. I thought the five extra ones I had stacked up before Expelled's release would be plenty.
Posted by: ennui | April 23, 2008 2:43 PM
xkcd shows exactly how Mary got preggers...
Posted by: James McGrath | April 23, 2008 2:43 PM
No historical evidence for Jesus? I beg to differ. Although one can certainly question whether he was anything remotely like what the later Church depicted him to be, his existence is as certain as that of any figure from whom we have no first-hand writings of their own. If the earliest Christians had invented a Messiah from scratch, they wouldn't have invented a figure who was automatically disqualified by having been executed by the Romans. And so the existence of an actual man named Jesus who was crucified is pretty certain.
As for the movie, I hope it will include the lines found here: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/darth-pantera.html
Posted by: heddle | April 23, 2008 2:43 PM
Emmanuel_Goldstein
Now c'mon, you guys do a helluva lot of--something on here, but most decidedly you do not present a challenge to one's beliefs.
Posted by: horrobin | April 23, 2008 2:43 PM
Hah... I yawn at Verhoven's dime-store blasphemy...let me know when someone films Michael Moorcock's
Behold the Man
Retarded, hunchback baby Jesus. Then we'll see some outrage.
Posted by: longstreet63 | April 23, 2008 2:44 PM
I can see where Crazy Bill might be offended. AFter all, he knows perfectly well that Mary was raped by God.
Steve "What? You think He asked?" James
Posted by: James F | April 23, 2008 2:44 PM
#7 Earth and All Stars,
I strongly recommend the Clergy Letter Project - you can find local Christian clergy who support evolution and affirm that science and religion need not be at odds:
http://www.evolutionsunday.com/
I second the recommendation of Scott Hatfield (monkeytrials.blogspot.com), I also recommend Christopher Heard (higgaion.heardworld.com) and the list of statements by major religions on evolution at the NCSE's page.
Posted by: Mike P | April 23, 2008 2:45 PM
Which isn't to say that Christians can't discuss evolution--they can, and many do quite well--but justifying your beliefs first then science second is a bit out of order if truth* is what you're after.
*with a small "t"
Posted by: Quaeror | April 23, 2008 2:45 PM
Strictly speaking, we have no empirical evidence for anybody's existence from 2000+ years ago. We have as much reason to believe that Jesus existed as we have to believe that Alexander the Great existed: we have chronicles from those who knew him and wrote long after his death, and we have giant groups of people who were affected by what he did, made inscriptions about him, claimed their power from him etc.
Posted by: LP | April 23, 2008 2:47 PM
Wasn't this the thing in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian's mother was supposed to have been raped by a Roman soldier but Brian denies and goes on about how he's Jewish?
Posted by: marco sch. | April 23, 2008 2:47 PM
His flicks are revolting, pieces of garbage
I disagree! I like Soldier of Orange and RoboCop and some older movies are worth seeing. Starship Trooper was brilliant, like a satire of the yet to come Bush's USA, Iraq invasion, and Fox news. In addition to the obvious I remember seeing newsimages from 2003, like Bush inspecting troops or Condi in a long black leather coat that could have been lifted from that movie.
Posted by: allkom | April 23, 2008 2:51 PM
"James McGrath"
"his existence is as certain as that of any figure from whom we have no first-hand writings of their own."
So is Santa, and any other myth you can think about
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan | April 23, 2008 2:51 PM
SiliconE
Still, computerized boobies would make woot happy.
Posted by: Alex | April 23, 2008 2:52 PM
"I am a Christian who is evaluating the veracity of evolution"
You don't need to be a xtian for that. You do need the ability to think critically, which your religion has probably stripped you of. And definitely more than a casual background in biology, anthropology, geology, and astronomy (to name a few) would be more than helpful. If you truly understand the scientific method (go google it, it is not trivial to know it and know how to apply it), and an ability to search and read vetted scientific literature, then you have about all it takes to learn about the general claims made by evolutionary biology. As far as "evaluating the veracity", I would hope you would be a scientist before thinking you are equipped to do that. Underestimating the sheer volume of extremely detailed knowledge required to "determine the veracity" is one of the most common and arrogant acts committed by religionists trying to understand evolution. In reality, they only want to defend their beliefs, not learn new information that might confound them.
Posted by: Emmanuel_Goldstein | April 23, 2008 2:52 PM
Heddle,
No, the challenges are there, but the fact that you do not find them persuasive is really more about your response than it is about the challenges which are, admittedly, of varying quality. Still, the ones that are good, are very good.
But there is no way to use reason to overcome a belief that is based in faith, not reason, because accepting faith as a premise is really a way of stating at the outset that certain facts, however arrived at, will not be admissible in any discussion. This is certainly a problem for anyone claiming knowledge of universal truth.
Posted by: Dutch Cartoonist | April 23, 2008 2:52 PM
This movie is so wrong. Everyone knows Mary was raped by Mohammed while Budda held her down.
Posted by: Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 2:52 PM
I can take a joke. Making fun of the Evangelicals is easy, and I do it all the time even though I'm an Evangelical. BTW, I like Life of Brian, but Holy Grail was much better.
Posted by: Geoff | April 23, 2008 2:55 PM
He's been talking about this for a long time. I had no idea he was challenging the premise of the bearded one but why not? I love to see wingnuts pissed off and it's been too long since DaVinci code.
It could be an okay film if Verhoeven stays as far away from Hollywood as possible. His record in his home country is far, far superior. The only exception is Robocop (maybe Flesh+Blood too) which was pretty cool.
Posted by: James McGrath | April 23, 2008 2:57 PM
If anyone happens to be interested in a more detailed historical discussion of the question of Jesus' legitimacy, Mary's rape, etc., I wrote an article on the subject, which is published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Unfortunately it requires a subscription, but I presume at least some readers will be at universities that have one.
Posted by: Atomicmutant | April 23, 2008 2:57 PM
If memory serves, Verhoeven was a member of The Jesus Seminar, for what that's worth.
And, yeah, I had heard about that "Roman Soldier" theory before, so that's not new.
He sure does like to stir things up . . .
Early Paul Verhoeven goodness includes "The Fourth Man" and "Flesh and Blood". Recommended. If you like his sort of thing, that is. :)
Posted by: Jason W | April 23, 2008 2:58 PM
#36:
Wouldn't he still be Jewish, in that scenario? I was always under the impression that being Jewish was inherited from the mother's side not the father's.
Posted by: True Bob | April 23, 2008 2:58 PM
As I recall Josephus' writings about christers, he described a group of people who would suffer death rather than denounce their messiah. He did not get into their dogmas.
Realize that the "name" "Jesus Christ" is about equal to Joe Messiah. Besides, he was supposed to be named Immanuel. I swear, that is the most generic religion. A god named God, a man named Man (Adam = man), a messiah named Joe Messiah, etc etc.
Posted by: Paul D | April 23, 2008 2:59 PM
Starship Trooper was brilliant
You wouldn't be saying that if you'd ever read the book.
That movie was shite.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | April 23, 2008 2:59 PM
E&A @ #7
Ask your questions. If you ask intelligently and respectfully you will be answered (mostly) in the same. Many of the regulars here are ex-Christians and some of those are mature enough to answer objectively. But understand that many are ex-Christians for very powerful reasons and are understandably bitter. Also, as with any blog you will find a far amount of joking and rudeness, take it in stride.
If you are interested in the facts about evolution there are a number of online resources.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010
Posted by: Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 2:59 PM
Alex,
Your automatic assumption that my "religion" has stripped me of my ability to think critically makes even discussing evolution as it relates to Christianity tough online.
How can there ever be a dialog if the assumption that religious people are too stupid to think? If we are really that dumb then it is pointless to even try.
Posted by: James McGrath | April 23, 2008 3:00 PM
Reply to #36: Nowadays Jewish descent is reckoned on the mother's side, but that wasn't the case in the first century. That's why Matthew and Luke both include (incompatible) genealogies of Joseph (whom they both claim wasn't Jesus' father anyway).
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | April 23, 2008 3:00 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera
Um ... at the risk of sounding like Rudyard Kipling, this is how Pantera got their name.
Posted by: jetmags73 | April 23, 2008 3:02 PM
#37 Marco -
The movies he makes are pretty gross; both in terms of violence and sexuality. I don't really think I would look to his work for political satire though. Even it was there, I would just be too repulsed to get too it. Although as I stated above, I don't think he's doing a movie based on Mary getting raped; the article suggested he wrote a book. Plenty of opportunity for piggishness there, to be sure.
Posted by: Michelle | April 23, 2008 3:03 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm. Somehow, I think Verhoeven's hypothesis makes much more sense than Donohue's.
...but I have a feeling the movie will still suck. But here, I give the guy a nickel for making that idea a movie.
Posted by: ekted | April 23, 2008 3:05 PM
Teach the controversy!
Posted by: Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 3:06 PM
For the people being polite, I appreciate it. For the people who are bitter, I understand. The average Evangelical church has done more harm to its own believers than any atheist or scientist could hope to do. The recent Barna book unChristian can attest to that.
The people here who are bitter and angry at their parents/church/Christians probably have so very good reasons--mainly they went to church when younger and now would rather be swarmed by ants than to step foot in one again due to their treatment.
Anyway, I came here to get answers for myself. Not disprove any scientific theory or convince anyone of believing something.
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 23, 2008 3:06 PM
We have as much reason to believe that Jesus existed as we have to believe that Alexander the Great existed: we have chronicles from those who knew him and wrote long after his death...
Sorry, but this is BS, an old zombie bit of BS. Here's a thread at IIDB on the subject. For instance:
...whenever historians write about Persia and Macedonia of 4 BCE, they mention Alexander the Great. However, when historians, contemporary or not, write about 1st century Judaea, they never mention Jesus, the ascended one. And there are contemporaries' reports of Alexander, while there aren't for Jesus (the earliest reports were written well after anyone who could have known him -- assuming he existed -- would have been dead).
Also, from here:
Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. We have buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Agustus Caesar, we have the Res gestae divi augusti, the emperor's own account of his works and deeds, a letter to his son (Epistula ad Gaium filium), Virgil's eyewitness accounts, and much more. Napoleon left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters. We can establish some historicity to these people because we have evidence that occurred during their life times.
Posted by: SplendidMonkey | April 23, 2008 3:07 PM
I have no problem accepting that Jesus was a real person in history. Stories of what he did must have been greatly exaggerated or even fabricated, but I bet many of the quotations attributed to him are as close to accurate as 2000 years of oral and written history can get.
Posted by: Vic | April 23, 2008 3:08 PM
@ Paul D (#49) - hear hear! I'm a longtime Heinlein fan, and I have to say that Verhoeven's "Starship troopers" will forever be a bigger blight to its written counterpart than this fiction about jeebus could ever be...
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 23, 2008 3:08 PM
Of course there's evidence for Jesus, from Paul's writings, to the Gospels (I mention Paul first, because he wrote earlier, even though he did not personally meet Jesus, that we know of).
Most historians accept that someone near the beginning of the first millenium AD a man existed who gave rise to the stories about Jesus. In all probability, he was named Yeshua or some other variant of "Joshua".
Early Jews claimed that Jesus was the product of rape by a Roman soldier, so there's at least some evidence of that, as well. Indeed, the fact that Jews accepted the existence of Jesus is further evidence that he did exist, for they likely had stories, and possibly even writings, from those times, about the various "messiahs" that arose in that time of turmoil. I don't think the evidence that Jesus was the product of rape is especially good, coming from such hostile critics (by that time they were typically hostile, anyhow), but such evidence ought not to be discounted out of hand, either.
A great many non-fundie Bible scholars think that some sort of illegitimate birth factors into the "virgin birth" claims, at the very least. A bit of fun before marriage is perhaps the best bet, but surely Jesus could have been due to rape by a Roman soldier. This is exactly where the evidence allows for varying interpretations, unlike biological evidence, so I think that there is nothing at all wrong with exploring this interpretation, so long as people are aware that it is just one of many possibilities allowed by the evidence, and especially the lack of good evidence regarding the details of Jesus' life.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Greg Peterson | April 23, 2008 3:08 PM
Dude has doctorates in physics and math, though? That's kind of cool.
Posted by: Alex | April 23, 2008 3:10 PM
Earth and All Stars @ #51
I would think that carefully reading and not being defensive would be a requirement for discussing your explorations on a blog. I try to choose my words carefully, not for dishonest reasons, but to make sure I am not too presumptive. Here's what I typed:
"which your religion has probably stripped you of."
Here is what I think you are implying I said:
"which your religion has stripped you of."
Furthermore, there is a huge difference between being stupid and espousing a dogmatic world-view. I never even used the word "stupid". Dogmatic thinking tends to develop people with bounded ideas. This keeps the dogma safe from scrutiny. Science goes the other way. Every new idea, and many many old ones, are constantly being assailed by new perspectives. The ideas that stick around are the ones that survive critical, methodical, scrutiny.
Posted by: rlrr | April 23, 2008 3:11 PM
Hah... I yawn at Verhoven's dime-store blasphemy...let me know when someone films Michael Moorcock's
Behold the Man
I'd pay money to see a competent adaption of that book to film.
Posted by: Brian Tani | April 23, 2008 3:11 PM
Isn't there a story in the Talmud about a fellow named Yeshu who was conceived after his mother was raped by someone?
Wikipedia has something on this. Maybe the guy is exploring this alternative, and disregarding any of the criticism to identifying Jesus with Yeshu. I wouldn't know, of course... and wouldn't trust the fellow Paul Verhoeven being thorough in his research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 23, 2008 3:12 PM
we have giant groups of people who were affected by what he did, made inscriptions about him, claimed their power from him etc
Oh, forgot to include this, which is also one of those silly zombies. The problem (which should've been apparent to anyone who thought about it) is that same can be said about any number of gods. We have entire temples and statues, plays, tales, societies, based on non-Abrahamic gods. The old saw about atheism applies here: when you realise why you reject those gods, you'll know why I reject yours.
Posted by: jetmags73 | April 23, 2008 3:12 PM
Earth # 51
How can there ever be a dialog if the assumption that religious people are too stupid to think? If we are really that dumb then it is pointless to even try.
Is this Dembski? Stop whining and ask something, unless you really are not interested in the answer.
Posted by: Michelle | April 23, 2008 3:12 PM
Well you gotta admit. Back in those times, if you were to ever get laid with some other guy and get pregnant by accident... Your best bet would be to say to your naive (and most likely incredibly unsexy) husband it was God's will.
Works for rape too.
Posted by: SteveM | April 23, 2008 3:13 PM
Realize that the "name" "Jesus Christ" is about equal to Joe Messiah.
As I understand it, his name was not Jesus Christ, it was just Jesus (with maybe "son of Joseph" added). "Christ" was the title bestowed upon him by his followers. Thus Mel Gibson's movie title "The Passion of the Christ".
Posted by: Raynfala | April 23, 2008 3:13 PM
RE: #49
Indeed, Starship Troopers, the book, offered up novel views of the purposes of war, violence, government, and citizenship. Even if you didn't agree with the ideologies it espoused, it still managed to provide some talking points on nationalism/patriotism without sounding shrill.
Starship Troopers, the movie, made a mountainous strawman out of one extreme interpretation of the book, and ran with it. (Some might say it ran it into the ground)
Oh yeah, and the book popularized the concept of power armor, which, one must admit, is pretty frickin' cool idea.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 23, 2008 3:16 PM
OT, but well worth it:
Maybe people will finally like her.
May she win big, and drag the IDiots through the mud because of their dishonesty.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Brian Tani | April 23, 2008 3:20 PM
Oh, I searched for Yeshu and it didn't find the #13 post. I just saw it now. Sorry for the repost... :P
Posted by: bill | April 23, 2008 3:21 PM
The evidence for the existence of Jesus is much stronger than the evidence for the existence of either Pythagoras or Euclid, and about as strong as the evidence for the existence of Archimedes.
Posted by: True Bob | April 23, 2008 3:22 PM
Arrgh, I hate when I forget to put nombre de plume and email in - I lost so much.
Starship Troopers - movie wasn't fit to line the birdcage of a parrot reciting the book.
James McGrath, you MUST know how unoriginal the cheeses story is. Start here if you are actually ignorant but not on purpose:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Earth and All Stars, your first post set you up. You should have asked for a discussion on evolution and possibly theology (there are some extraordinarily knowledgable folks around here), instead of asking for same from christers.
Posted by: alex | April 23, 2008 3:22 PM
(to Earth and Stars:)
Are there any here, or does this sort of mockery tend to drive them all off?
i'm sure the non-christians here will be happy to answer your questions provided they're intelligent. you do seem a jolly reasonable person, so ask away.
(to the folks talking about the subject of the historicity of Jesus):
i find it interesting to think that if a hypothetical ancient Roman General in the early 1stC, who was generally known to be cruel, and mentioned a couple of times in writings as being a terrible, fearsome chap - if writings were found written by a small and obsessive cult surrounding him that said he could fly, breathe fire and was the Devil incarnate - historians would spend little time even trying to disprove this.
Posted by: Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 3:24 PM
Is this Dembski? Stop whining and ask something, unless you really are not interested in the answer.
Posted by: jetmags73 | April 23, 2008 3:12 PM
I did ask something. Did you miss it?
Posted by: True Bob | April 23, 2008 3:24 PM
bill, thanks for showing your ignorance. I meant to point James McGrath here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm
Krishna = cheeses Mk1
Posted by: SplendidMonkey | April 23, 2008 3:24 PM
(Yoko Rocks!) Does anyone know if the line "no religion too" was part of the clip they used?
Posted by: wrpd | April 23, 2008 3:24 PM
#25: It's Bill Donohue, not Phil.
Posted by: me | April 23, 2008 3:26 PM
Starship Trooper was brilliant
You wouldn't be saying that if you'd ever read the book.
That movie was shite.
But the Yes song was much better.
Posted by: Earth and All Stars | April 23, 2008 3:29 PM
I'll ask some questions:
First off, I want to get my terminology correct: What is the correct term or abbreviation for evolution that is accepted here and isn't considered a "loaded" word? I'll use it.
Second: How does this theory impact you if you are a spiritual person at all?
Posted by: SC | April 23, 2008 3:30 PM
"The goal is to question the divinity of Christ -- to say he was nothing but a happy carpenter who worked at Lowe's or Home Depot."
Not sure why I find this so amusing, but I do.
Posted by: jetmags73 | April 23, 2008 3:32 PM
Earth # 76
Le sigh.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | April 23, 2008 3:32 PM
"He has no empirical evidence to support his claim..."
Do you ever feel lost regarding which side of the mirror you're on? Is it possible to be on both sides at the same time? Are there only two sides of the mirror? Until Darwinism can answer these questions....[/snarcasm]
Posted by: The Dude | April 23, 2008 3:32 PM
Earth and All Stars,
Francis Collins, a Christian, writes about evolution in his book "The Language of God." He provides evidence for evolution that is readily understandable. He also provides explanations for why he rejects creationism and intelligent design.
Also, google Ken Miller, a Christian biology professor and supporter of evolution.
Posted by: Alex | April 23, 2008 3:37 PM
#81
1. Evolution
2. It may cause you to think that the idea of "spirit" doesn't have a lot of veracity. It may cause you to think the this thing - spirit - just may be a fabrication to help one feel more comfortable with the unknown. The literal translation means "breath" - you can google that. There certainly isn't any empirical data supporting the concept of spirit that I am aware of. There is plenty of empirical data however, that makes the idea of spirit unnecessary. It certainly is quite impotent for explanatory purposes of testable phenomena.
Posted by: jetmags73 | April 23, 2008 3:37 PM
Earth #81:
First off, I want to get my terminology correct: What is the correct term or abbreviation for evolution that is accepted here and isn't considered a "loaded" word? I'll use it.
I think it is preferable to just use the correct terms. It has nothing to do with offending people, or using loaded terminology. "Darwinism" or "Mindless Darwinianism" etc is just incorrect, and has no scientific meaning per se. Natural selection would most closely approximate what you are referring to.
Second: How does this theory impact you if you are a spiritual person at all?
That's entirely up to the person. Some people, like Ken Miller or Frances Collins, feel a greater affinity toward their faith, because they feel like an explanatory framework has been provided for their role in "God's creation." Others, like most of the people on here, have no need for spirituality in the first place so the net effect is to raise one's consciousness about life and it's history on our planet.
Posted by: Slaughter | April 23, 2008 3:37 PM
"from a director known more for over-the-top, superficial flamboyance than historical accuracy."
"Robocop" wasn't real?
Posted by: Todd | April 23, 2008 3:38 PM
Paul Verhoeven is a genius for making that turgid piece of shit of a book watchable. Heinlein was a hack.
Posted by: Tulse | April 23, 2008 3:39 PM
I read the book, and I much prefer the movie.
(C'mon, Doogie Howser as a leather-coated Nazi? What's not to like?)
Posted by: Todd | April 23, 2008 3:39 PM
(just kidding)
Seriously, the book is overrated.
Posted by: bill | April 23, 2008 3:41 PM
in reply to 77:
(a) My comment was about the *evidence* for the existence of historical characters. You believe Jesus never existed, apparently. I pointed out that the *evidence* for the existence of Jesus is stronger that that of the *evidence* for the existence of either Pythagoras or Euclid; do you not believe in the existence of either Pythagoras or Euclid? If you do believe they exist, upon what evidence do you ground that belief?
(b) I read the website to which you pointed me. Here's a quote: `A few skeptics claim that Yeshua of Nazareth was a purely mythical character. A few others believe that he was a real individual who lived in perhaps the 2nd or 3rd century BCE. But there is a near consensus that Yeshua of Nazareth was born in Palestine circa 4 to 7 BCE.' The very website you choose to support your argument for the non-existence of Jesus SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
(c) And in any case, that's all you got? A webpage written by some guy named Bruc