More Anti-Christian Propaganda From ‘Law & Order’
by S.T. KarnickLaw and Order: Criminal Intent, the long-running spinoff of the recently canceled TV crime drama mainstay Law and Order, has on fairly regular occasions manifested the overt progressivist and anti-Christian bias of its forebear This week’s episode is one of the most blatant instances yet.
It’s a pity because the show, now broadcast on the USA Network, has interesting story lines and the central characters, NYC police detectives played by Jeff Goldblum and Saffron Burrows, are intelligent and fairly likable.
Unfortunately, this week’s story line is neither. In “Palimpsest,” detectives Nichols and Stevens investigate a case involving two wealthy Manhattan antiquarians who apparently killed each other in a sword-fighting duel. (That kind of insanely bizarre situation is common for the show.) Also involved in the story is the schizophrenic adult daughter of one of the dead men, whom Nichols used to date before her illness became manifest.
The story centers around the search for an ancient book purported to be a contemporary Roman account of the trial of Jesus Christ, which we are told is believed to contradict the Gospel narrative by absolving the Jewish religious hierarchy of any responsibility and suggesting the trial was entirely political in intent. All of this, we are further given to believe, will destroy the case for belief in the divinity of Christ and bring down the Christian church.
Powerful stuff, though of course merely a fever dream on the part of the show’s writers and producers. And as if this sub-Da Vinci Code conceit were not sufficiently hostile toward Christianity, (note: plot spoiler follows) the murderer turns out to be a disguised Catholic priest intent on possessing the book so that he can destroy it and prevent the world from knowing that Christianity is all a big, horrible lie.
The incorporation of a premise intended to cast doubt on the foundations of Christianity is entirely unnecessary as a means of generating interest or suspense: anything that any character might find important could have motivated the murder. Consequently it’s obvious that the producers chose this story element because they liked the idea of imagining that some long-hidden document will prove Christianity a myth.
Of course they have every right to follow their imaginations down whatever path they wish—and we have the right to judge them for the messages they choose to send thereby.
The producers of Law and Order: Criminal Intent can do better, and they have done so in the past. Let’s hope they choose to stop the anti-Christian propaganda and concentrate instead on the important business of creating interesting mysteries.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
115 Comments
Political porn for the left. Law and Order has always done that well.
Wow … how original…, but, anyway …, so “to love your neighbor as yourself,” is part of that big horrible lie, too? How secular!
Law and Order, which is, in my opinion, one of the worst shows on television, is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the DNC and liberal group think. The show lifts their plots directly from the news and media, and provides a convenient leftist twist as needed – I have yet to figure out what the fuss was all about regarding the writer's strike a couple years back
Law and Order (orig., CSI, SVU) is one of those I hate that I love. But it does serve a purpose, it is demonstrative of the contempt that the Progressive/Socialist hold the law and the Constituiton. I find it interesting, and educational, to see how the progressive/socialist (especially Jack McCoy) characters on the show will use, circumvent, or ignore the law and Constitution to acheive their ideological goals. Sad to say, too similar to real life (especially in NYC).
Do these idiots not get it? No one watches the show except people who are still stuck on stupid.
Someone wise – not me, obviously – once said, "The Bible is an anvil that has worn out countless hammers."
Just another rip off plot. They rarely have original ideas on any of the law and order shows, usually it's a case "ripped from the headlines" or, as in this case, ripped off from a book.
I enjoyed the original Law and Order, even with the obvious plots, but it's been a long time since I've watched any of the shows due to the bias they exhibit.
"It’s a pity because the show, now broadcast on the USA Network, has interesting story lines and the central characters, NYC police detectives played by Jeff Goldblum and Saffron Burrows, are intelligent and fairly likable."
Yeah, maybe so, but L&O insisted on insulting me nearly every week via one or more of it's spin-offs, so I quit watching the show altogether. I can only take so much gratuitous Christian-bashing and ridiculous warpage of "the headlines" to fit a PC narrative. My time is much better spent reading some of the books recommended by a certain news organization's 5 PM EST host.
Makes me wonder about Jeff Goldblum. As I recall didn't the studio have to edit his scenes out of Independence Day when they marketed it to Muslim countries, because its against the law for a Jewish character to be a hero in any movie?
Wonder if the writers could find a story in there to rip from the head lines? Oh wait, that's right, it didn't make the head lines.
Its just kinda sad that they would inject this really quite fantastical (and stupid) concept into a show which is apparently supposed to reflect some sort of realism. I mean, outlandish concepts is another thing, but this would be like injecting a sub plot about a love affair into lord of the rings. In a word: RETARDED!
Well, L&O jumped the shark eons ago. Now it seems it has gone the Evil Kenivel route for bigger jumps. Was this a whale shark, or multiple sharks head to tail?
Idiocy. And folks wonder why their shows are not watched.
I like that one. I'm going to borrow it.
A couple of years ago I stumbled across Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible. The forward alone was worth the price of admission. Whether or not one believes in Christianity, no one can doubt it is the most influential book ever written.
It is the most published, read, translated book in the history of the world. Up until about 100 years or so ago, if anyone even saw, much less read a book, chances are it was the Bible. The evolution of the book is the history of Western civilization.
The political parts of the arrest and execution of Christ are in the Bible anyhow. It just wouldn't be shocking. Christ wasn't popular with the religious leaders but he also represented a focal point for resistance against the occupying nation of Rome. No matter how often he said "my kingdom is not of this world" the fact is that he had to say it. All the religious leaders really did was fail to take up the offer of pardon and asked for someone else to be set free.
But the bigger picture here is… someone still watches this show?
I haven't been terribly interested in watching Criminal Intent because of Vincent D'Onofrio. Especially after his mild nervous breakdown resulting from GWB winning a second term in '04.
It's not a TV show. It's meant to arouse the liberal watchers and give them some sort of fictitional satisfaction.
I think you just wrote the new intro to the show:
"In the criminal justice system, progressives work to circumvent the law and ignore the Constitution to achieve their ideological goals. These are their stories."
(Dahhh dahhh)
This compulsive Christianity bashing is becoming full blown dementia in show business.
It's not even edgy, it's predictable, boring and been done to death. It's not like they'll have to worry about suffering the same fate as Theo van Gogh either.
One would think that they would put ideology aside, but they cannot resist. It's like putting out the statement "Robin Hood was a Republican" and not expecting a cavalcade of leftist twits to [ignorantly] take exception to it.
They can't stop themselves. What this means for me, the viewer – ideology aside – is that the shows (all of them, L&O, L&O SVU, and L&O CI) are 100% predictable. This greatly diminishes the product.
It is to the point, now, where I watch the show with my wife and we spot the same stuff over and over again. Probably could make a decent drinking game out of it. Just some examples:
– If somebody is "anti-homosexual" (for any reason…to any degree up to and including not 100% supporting the entire leftist homosexual agenda), they turn out to be gay or have a gay spouse or child.
– If somebody is religious to any degree, that turns out to be a handicap or a sham of some sort. They are leading some "double life" or they become violent because of their religious beliefs. They are always put into the role of the "hypocrite" (…through misapplication of the term, of course. If you've got standards for how to live and you violate them, you are a "sinner" or are "flawed", not a "hypocrite". If you've got no standards for how to live and you ridicule people who have standards, but have fallen off the path, you are the "hypocrite" – "anything [supposedly] goes", right?).
– If you are an illegal immigrant, you are never a perpetrator of crime, you are always a witness or a victim. You are always a hard-working person. You are never at risk of deportation no matter how many times you encounter law enforcement unless the Evil Guys from ICE make a cameo to attempt to make the audience feel bad.
It all gets very tiresome. One would think the draw of making a buck would lead them to diversify their writing staff. Hah, never mind. Fat chance.
"I enjoyed the original Law and Order, even with the obvious plots, but it's been a long time since I've watched any of the shows due to the bias they exhibit."
Likewise here, same for SVU – well actually that one turned me off from the start -the rest have fallen off our regular watch list too. Just can't stand them anymore.
Besides 'the first 48', 'cops', 'the shift' , 'DA' , 'Jail' and shows like that, are what we enjoy now.
I watched this and what struclk me more than the obvious Christian bashing was how drugged-out Goldblum looked.
There is very little originality in these series (due to 20 year run, no doubt) and they recoup the lack of originality by paralleling stories in the news. Pretty obvious from the start.
This series is also very much against conservative values.
Overall, it is quite trite.
As I said in my posting, the predictability is the saddest part. You see it in songwriting, comedy, movies, TV, news…everywhere.
As an example, the greatest thing a big fat black woman comedian can do when she grabs the microphone is start belting out material that has very little or nothing to do with being fat, black, or female. Surprise me. Make me think. That is art. The rest is nothing but "phoning it in".
Well, that's not all the religious leaders did. They orchestrated the entire arrest and condemned Him to death first, before the Romans were involved. The only reason they came into play at all is because the Sanhedrin was unable to carry out the sentence themselves, and needed Roman approval and complicity. When the Romans were unable to find reason to have Christ killed, the members of the Sanhedrin and their followers whipped up the crowd and demanded that it be done, even after the Romans tried to swap Him out for somebody else.
The entire thing was very political, but not really on the side of the Romans. The Sanhedrin used the Roman fear of Christ to have their bidding done, because they feared the power and influence He had over the people. It didn't suit their wishes, so they got rid of Him. Many on the Sanhedrin were not religious at all, they just claimed to be in order to have power. That's why the Savior used to call them hypocrites and vipers.They played on the religious beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees to get what they wanted, just like they used the Romans to carry it out.
One wonders how Fred Thompson survived on the show as long as he did.
dick wolf's empire is annoying
Wife "hates" Jeff Goldbum and expected a terrible result from bringing him onto the show – after losing Chris Noth and D'Onofrio, both, especially.
But he's okay. Good character. Last episode was a little trippy for my tastes – resembled a parody of the Clue movie which, itself, was a parody.
I have never liked Jeff Goldblum, I thought he ruined the Jurrasic Park movies, and I figured that he would make L&O CI even more unwatchable than it was with D'Onofrio. He's actually pretty good though. Not to say that I am a huge fan of the show, I don't make a concerted effort to watch. The plots are a bit too outlandish and the constant background music makes it tiresome. At least now I can stand to watch an episode now and then.
Can you imagine if they made it about a copy of the Qur'an that proved that Mohammed wasn't a divine messenger?
No, sorry, I can't either.
He should really go back to chasing dinosaurs.
Has anyone noticed that Jeff Goldblum is actually morphing into "Brundlefly?"
LOL … copywrited 2010 …. ;0)
>>>Can you imagine if they made it about a copy of the Qur'an that proved that Mohammed wasn't a divine messenger?
If they had that one on, the studios might be burnt to the ground.
Oh yea, we get so much fictitious satisfaction watching a show about two men who killed each other in a sword duel. You know, with all those sword duels out there, it makes me feel better to know there is a liberal slant to their prosecution.
My girlfriends uncle by marriage is an atheist and thinks he's really, really smart because of it. This guy is a typical lefty; uninformed yet thinks he knows everything.
We were discussing Christianity and he made the assertion that you would have to be stupid to believe in God. He said the Gospel contradicts itself repeatedly. "For example?," I asked. He repeated that it contradicts itself. "For example?," I asked again. He had nothing. At that point I knew I had won the table over.
I told him that I recognize that organized religion isn't the end-all be-all but that the faults of religion shouldn't get in between a person's relationship with their creator. (BTW, he doesn't believe that anything created the Universe. It just "is." How stupid is that?)
When I told him to forget about Christianity per se and to focus on the message of Christ which is essentially, take good care of yourself, take care of each other and know that when you screw up, your God loves you beyond your comprehension and wants to forgive you. I asked what his problem was with that, the essence of Christianity. He had nothing.
After dinner one of my girl's favorite uncles (there were 10 kids in the family) told me that this other uncle is notoriously insecure and is always trying to sound smarter than he is. I was not surprised. My girl's grandfather is very Catholic (mass every day) and is a former seminarian. I'm sure I gained points with him.
I'm waiting for the show that has Tea Partiers standing with "don't tread on me" flags trying to impede African Americans for voting in elections. Obviously, these miscreants will be found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, Right?
Exactly. Not only is the study appealing to hate, its doing it out of cowardice.
The bums will always lose!
That episode will air in the week the election is held in November.
Hey when did the fly join the show? I thought the guy that played the Bug in Men In Black was on the show? From what I remember he was a crazed Marxist too.
No, they can't resist, even when it costs them viewers and money. Just goes to show how deep-seated their hatred towards Christianity is.
I take offense. I watch the show, LAO:CI only, and I like it. Why am I stupid for watching the show? I didn't watch this particular episode, but if I were to have watched it, I would have seen through their anti-Christian bias. Or for that matter, any anti-conservative bias too. I don't watch it for the messages they want to espouse, I watch it for the mystery. Maybe you're just assuming that only liberal/leftists watch it, and that's not the case.
By the way, there was one episode of LAO:CI in which during the whole episode they tracked a killer who believed God was telling him to kill. But in the end, Goren gave the killer a speech where he said the voice was not God telling him to kill, but the devil.
My thoughts exacta-mundo. Liberals and atheists are too cowardly to say anything against Islam.
I think I have to agree with you. Unlike Mr Karnik, I don't find the story lines to be interesting. It seems that usually it can be determined who the culprit was in the first 10 minutes. You have to wait until 15-20 minutes into the programming to determine which conservative issue they are going to attack or which liberal agenda to promote. These shows are a waste of time.
Another reason I don't watch television at all. You can expect the assaults on Christianity to increase until Christians start speaking up with their dollars. For progressivism, collectivism, and/or socialism to proceed, Christianity must be dismantled. It is the anathema to tyranny and the single strongest and most influential factor in the liberty of America. Attacking Christianity is necessary to their ends. Christians have much to live for but aren't afraid to die either…impossible to subjugate. That is the problem with it.
Best regards,
Gail S. http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com
L&O always likes to do parallel versions of current events … I'm waiting for the episode where they investigate an attempted murder of a child actress by her father and brother because she was dating someone who wasn't a Christian. Wait, did I say Christian? I meant Muslim. Guess I'll be waiting a long time.
Pay attention. There will be a quiz later.
Turns out the dudes didn't kill each other in a sword fight – they were both killed in attempt to find and destroy a rare book one of them possessed. The book, as mentioned in the article, would (according to the show) "debunk" all of Christianity in one fell swoop.
So, given that "plot" and given "flappdoodle"'s point, it would pretty much be porno for you and people like you. The fantasy of all Christians and all of Christianity kicked in their collective junk? Total spank material for you, eh?
Real simple folks………trun off the show and quit going to the movies…Hollywood is a red state always has been.
Read the article.
A plot line that involves slapping down all Christians and all of Christianity? That's pretty much pr0n for guys like you, right?
Chesterton akbar!
"If there were no God, there would be no atheists." – Where All Roads Lead, 1922
"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." – ILN, 1/13/06
When a Man stops believing in God he doesn¹t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.
I used to watch, fairly faithfully, Law and Order SVU. I just liked the cops characters.
Until I just got insulted once too often.
Good grief. Why would I sit for an hour to be told Rush Limbaugh, whom I LOVE is a cancer.
They're idiots. Too much money. Who insults their viewers?
I watch Bill/Hannity/Greta instead.
True, true.
But the idea that an account of events that centered around the political aspects or even that made it all out as politically motivated would destroy anyone's faith is pretty silly. As you said, most people consider the Sanhedrin to have been primarily political. It's also unlikely that religious and political leadership was separated in any meaningful way (other than the separation between Israel's leadership and the Roman occupiers.)
D'Onofrio is gone, the only detectives left are Goldblum and Saffron Burrows,who is hot.
What does make you feel better?
Or better still, tape Glenn and watch him during one of those time slots.
Here's a tip: before you blatantly steal material from a book, remember to make sure it isn't one of the most widely-read and successful books ever published.
The next episode will focus on Jeff Goldblum's character finding a lightning bolt-shaped mark on his forehead, and then being whisked away to enroll in Magic Police School.
I hear next week's story involves a shark and water skis.
I only ever watched a few minutes here and there of Law and Order. I always happened to drop in during courtroom testimony where the witness was droning on about Bush or Sadaam or "the whole weapons of mass destruction thingy", etc. Is that supposed to be realistic? While examining a witness during, say, a murder trial, is the witness allowed to ramble on about politics? Doesn't the other counsel object? Would the judge permit such speechifying? At that point it seemed that the show was just liberal propaganda.
The main problem with this idea is Judea was just a back water region on the out skirts of the Roman Empire. Jerusalem was one of the last stops of of the old Silk Road. Rome's only concern with it was as a buffer zone between them and the Persians.
There is no historical record of Jesus in any of the 5 star ancient historians. John the Baptist shows up in one, but that's it. Rome could care less about what Pilate did to keep the peace. Up until 20 years or so ago there wasn't even sufficient proof that Pilate even existed. When refurbishing a Roman era amphitheater, the workers came across a stone with his name on it that had been recycled as part of a walk way.
They make like the idea of proving Christianity a myth, but we HAVE proof that liberalism as a means of spuring growth and fostering liberty is a myth.
I don't remember where, but I read an interesting theory on why the Gospels exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews. One theory was that as a new religious sect who were already at odds with the Jews, the authors of the Gospel had no desire to pick a fight with the Romans.
Just a theory. But I find it interesting.
You know that is coming down the line.
For the last 60 years or so the Bible has been run through the historical academic grinder. By that I mean historians, archeologists and other academic disciplines have been combing through the historical record.
At some point that will happen with the Koran too. And when that happens it is not going to be pretty. But it will happen. Humans are just too curious to leave anything alone.
"When a Man stops believing in God he doesn¹t then believe in nothing, he believes anything."
You must be describing many of my friends here in LA. Thank you, Kevin.
Amen.
I've opted out of Hollywood's content.
That's what the group "Starve Hollywood" is all about.
Saw it. Not one of their better episodes. Yes, they're capable of doing better.
Memo to writers and producer: Stay away from the fanciful,anti-Christian, rubbish. It's done, and continues to be done by hacks in movies. You have stepped into a plot sink-hole. Now step out of it, get back on track…..or I won't be watching.
BTW: Why did 'Goren and Eames' leave. I enjoyed watching them. I like the new team (Burrows and Goldblum).
The actress in the picture( Ms. Nicholson) is not Ms. Burrows, but I enjoyed her appearances, too, with Mike Logan (Chris Noth) when he was in the series.
Chesterton had a lot of pearls he could cast before swine. L.
I'm not sure there was any explicit, anti-Christian intent here – just a complete, jaw-dropping lack of originality. Or else it was an intentional, tongue-in-cheek homage to The DaVinci Code, National Treasure, and other stupid conspiracy movies. If it's the latter, it just reflects something that's floating around in our culture right now, waiting to be capitalized on by writers having a slow week.
Except technology has passed me by and I no longer know how to tape off the television.
He was and still is a crazed Marxist. I remember reading a story that he thought he was going to have a nervouse breakdown because President Bush was destroying the country.
I get a laugh out of his character on L&O. Smatest guy ever, speaks about every language, has Phd level knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology, etc and is a NYC detective.
Cool! You can write the intro for the movie we're shooting in August (Zombie Apocalypse II). The intro for the first one (Zombie Apocalypse) was:
Warning, the following film contains graphic scenes of violence, gore and B movie acting.
Nothing new to see here. They've been bashing Christianity and conservatives on this show for years. Just another reason to keep the TV turned off and read a good book.
If it had happened once or twice, I might agree with you. But over and over again Christians are made out to be the bad guys, the hateful, venom-spewing, intolerant hypocrites the lefties really are. I used to enjoy L&O CI an awful lot, but I've grown tired of being slapped around when I tune in. Trust me, the anti-Christian intent is there because it's in their hearts, not just their show.
The problem is that Christianity will always be lampooned because it stands for something these people disagree with; sanctity of life. If life is sacred its hard to legislate using it like a tool.
Radical Islam is everything these people respect; un-American, rebellious, fighting the power, anti-military, total control. Even if there was a document related to deposing the Koran it would never be released because of…
-Fear of retaliation.
-And because the people in charge of the media see nothing wrong with terrorism.
As for the Bible being 'historically disproven' that's another discussion but it relates to people making statements that sound great but with a little investigation prove false.
Such originality! So novel a plot construct! (I've got these letters tattoed on my knuckles, one hand says "hate" and the other "love").
Right on! Excellent post.
When academia starts combing through the historical records of the Koran, the problem isn't going to come from Hollywood. Its going to come from the Muslim world. I'm pretty sure they're not going to be happy with the results.
The Koran is viewed vastly different by Muslims than the Bible is by Christians. In all the years I've been reading about religion, as far as I understand it, all religions have at least one thing in common, manifestation. That's some sort of tangible proof that the faith is true. Proof what they believe is real.
For Jews it was the existence of the Temple, that building was where God was. For Christians its the death and resurrection of Jesus. For Muslims its the existence of the Koran. For Christians the Bible is a book. For Muslims the Koran is proof of God.
Don't worry about the Bible being disproved. It's an article of faith. You can't disprove faith with science. You can bash the crap out of it, but you can't disprove it. Faith is subjective, and you can't use objective science to disprove a subjective statement.
When I say academia has been combing the historical record of the Bible, what I mean is they have been identifying origins, historical records, what were various changes, when did the occur, who made them. Why can never be figured out.
It's really a fascinating subject. Some Catholic logician came up with a formula in the early 1100's that estimated there were already over 50,000 different translations in existence. That's what the historians are going through. They are even trying to disprove anything. Just figuring out it's historical DNA.
Sorry folks, I have to disagree. I am a regular viewer of L&O:CI and watched the episode in question. There was never any insinuation that this "group" was in any way representative of the Church hierarchy or the Church in general. There are nut-job organizations within, and without the Church who are just as fanatical as this group was portrayed. Some are new, but some have existed for a millenia. We have got to stop seeing the "boogeyman" around every corner and coming off with the typical "knee-jerk" reaction. Of all of the L&O shows, CI actually has always been pretty fair to both religion and religous folks and conservatives.
BTW…… Before anyone says anything about me being a troll, or anything like that……. I am actually a Traditional Catholic Priest……. "Introibo ad Altare Dei"
Hi Hucbald!
That is spot on…yes indeedy
This quote could be attributed to nineteenth century writer H.L. Hastings…
I believe I understand all this atheism crap that's so prevelent nowadays. Everyone feels like the end is near and they don't want to face the creator so they pretend like there isn't one. If Heaven exists then that means there's a hell, and if there's a hell then there's a big chance that The Holy Bible is correct and there's consequences to sin. Atheists are cowards. People want to have their cake and eat it too. Humans want to do what comes natural and sin and sin and sin some more, have all the fun they can have and not have to worry about all their fun being interrupted by a repentance and turning from wicked ways. That would spoil the party. The Bible says God turns people over to reprobate, and that a fool tells himself that there is no God, and after the great falling away the end will come. I believe the end will come sooner for those Hollywood residents because if the fires in the canyons don't get them the Big One will!
As usual good old Andy and his dysfunctional website can't get anything right. The picture associated with this story is from last year with the wrong actress pictured. But then this place can't get anything right.
stopped watching the L and O shows because of idiotic rantings either against anyone displaying ethics, morality, principles, values, or against our military….every dog has its day, and theirs is coming….Remember November and vote wisely….
I watched every Law and Order show for three year and then STOP. I couldn't take it anymore. Perhaps it was when O was elected and became the pitch man for socialism that I woke up to what Law and Order was doing.
I hate it when shows that I pay to watch promote ideology that I am opposed to and can't support. I hope Hollywood liberals fall into the Pacific Ocean when the big one hits California. All the normal thinking people should have moved east by then.
Yeah, could be. Sort of a combination of bias and laziness.
Historical note:
As indicated in the Gospel texts, Pontius Pilate was desperate not to draw any attention to himself from Rome at the time of the Passion.
Earlier in his juristiction, he had not been so squeamish. This was because his powerful patron in Rome had been Lucius Aelius Sejanus, head of the Praetorian Guard and the de facto ruler of the Empire in the name of the degenerate Tiberius. Sejanus was a virulent anti-Semite, and Pilate acted as his willing deputy.
By the time of Jesus' arrest, however, Sejanus had been deposed and executed in Rome (31 AD), and his adherents hounded out and destroyed. Pilate would have wanted nothing more than to remain ignored at the fringe of the empire.
Christian teaching is that Jesus died for all of our sins. That would cover both the sins of the Temple authorities who sought his death, and the weak Roman Procurator who bought his way out of trouble with the blood of an man he knew to be innocent.
Most of these perverts live in sin, shack up and whatever, with either sex, or with any stray animals that come their way. The Bible mentions people like this – they have had their consciences seared so that they can continue to sin without feeling guilty. Their deathstyle is their punishment on Earth, their final resting place is in a deep pit with their Father, Satan.
I no longer watch these shows on TV. For a while I thought Newton Minnow was wrong about TV being the vast wasteland, but I was wrong.
Once CBS produced and ran that classic series, "Victory at Sea"
Today CBS, NBC, ABC and the other alphabet channels despise America and loathe straight white men because the perverts have taken over the networks. You can smell the fish.
It is an interesting idea, but I don't agree with it personally. The Christians were already being persecuted by the Romans by the time the Gospels were written. The fight was already taking place.
I also don't believe that the Gospels completely exonerate the Romans, either. The Bible does say that the "washing of the hands" doesn't work, and they still carried out an unjustified execution. They were not taught the way the members of the local religion were, so there was a difference in accountability, and the Roman soldiers were only following orders. Besides the poor treatment of Christ in their care, they had no choice but to execute Him, which is why He asked for their forgiveness – i.e., they knew not what they did. But Pilate knew He was innocent, and had been warned against carrying out the execution by his wife, but he did it anyway because of political pressure. He wanted to keep the peace in an uneasy region and save his own neck, after he'd already embarrassed the Roman Empire with the debacle at the temple several years earlier, so he bowed down and gave the Sanhedrin exactly what they wanted. Simply saying you're not at fault doesn't actually make it true. The Roman government is still implicit in the crucifixion, though the soldiers that actually carried it out are not.
And my apologies if this goes through twice, my first post was being moderated because I named the local religion.
Oh, I agree, it's ridiculous. That wouldn't even dent the faith of somebody that believed in Christ's divinity unless that belief was completely superficial. The vast majority of us would just shrug and say, "So what? What does that change?"
I'm still undecided on the new direction the show has taken. This particular episode I kept expecting some huge twist and now I don't even recall how it ended. Raines goes to Ingsoc and confesses this case to a pretty brunette and…I have no idea why. I kept expecting her to be behind it somehow.
I used to enjoy that crazy, Bush-hating actor. Especially when he was up against that blond Moriarty.
"Hypocrisy" in the usual context is someone who, say, lectures against drinking alcohol and goes off to the local bar and gets plastered after the lecture.
"Hypocrisy" to progs means someone who, say, lectures against drinking alcohol, tries very hard to avoid alcohol but in one instance fails and gets drunk and then after recovering keeps trying to abstain; but only if that person is a political opponent. Or they'll claim someone who's an alcoholic who used to get plastered everyday in the past but is now trying to abstain is a hypocrite simply because they used to be an alcoholic in the first place… though again usually if the person is a political opponent.
"Hypocrisy" is just another word progs fling about to try to demean people they've designated as a target to destroy.
I miss Jerry Orbach.
I would be happy to boycott the show, but I've never watched it in the first place. Aside from the ham-handed left-wing propaganda, I still haven't forgiven Jeff Goldblum for his role in "Cats and Dogs".
The first Gospel to make it into the historical record was Mark's around the early 80's AD. At that time, persecution against Christians wasn't really in high gear. There wasn't really any persecution against Jews over religion either, but there was a lot of animosity at them for refusing to just knuckle under and accept Roman rule, hence the destruction of the second Temple and pretty much all of Jerusalem around 65 AD.
There's no escaping the fact that it was a Roman decree to do what the Pharisees and Sanhedrin wanted, execution. And it was the Roman guard who carried it out. There's also a slight back hand at Pilate's wife's warning in a dream to have nothing to do with Jesus. But in my opinion the early Christians (at that time they referred to themselves as 'People of the Way') wanted no trouble with Rome. Rome had a growing Christian population.
The earliest persecution of Christians actually helped the cause. I've read a few accounts where the Roman judges were awe struck that some one would rather die for their principles than simply make a token sacrifice to a statue. It caused more than a few to convert themselves. What really wowed them about the early Christians was that while most temples charged admission to keep out the riffraff, the Christians sought out the most destitute, invited to services, then asked them to stay, fed them, tended to their aliments, and gave them clothes a place to sleep. The concept completely stunned them.
The real persecution kicked up about a hundred years later when some emperor (don't remember the name) decided that a grand new festival was to be held through out the empire in order to divert attention from civic problems. It would be funded personally by the provincial rulers, not Rome.
It was so much cheaper and easier to rent a couple of lions and round up some Christians than it was to secure top notch gladiators (sports heroes of the day). They brought down some major bucks for the time.
And no need to apologize for anything. I love discussing history. One of my favorite past times. Thank you for the pleasant debate!
"Consequently it’s obvious that the producers chose this story element because they liked the idea of imagining that some long-hidden document will prove Christianity a myth."
Or they could just be aping the broad strokes of one of the bestselling book series of the decadefor profit. That could happen, too…
Occam's Razor is your friend.
Sounds like the TV equivalent of album filler . . .
I'm enjoying the discussion too, thank you. =)
Actually, the Gospel of Mark is dated around 65-70 AD, followed by Matthew, somewhere between 70-110 AD, then Luke, 80-90 AD, and then John, at 85-90 AD. The persecutions of the Christians by the Romans came in waves, with the first of them starting under the reign of Nero at around 64 AD. Two other waves followed before 110 AD, under Domitian in the 90s, and then under Trajan around 109 AD. Nero blamed the fire of Rome on them (some say to deflect suspicion from himself), and so badly persecuted the saints that the Christian movement was an underground society for decades. Peter and Paul are both said to have been executed in Rome under Nero's reign in the mid-to-late 60s. Peter's crucifixion date is said to be between 64-67 AD, depending on the source, and Paul's beheading is said to be between 65-67 AD. Accounts place his death at either exactly six months after Peter's, one year to the day, or three years later. Beyond the two of them, Andrew is said to have been crucified around 75 AD, Bartholomew was skinned alive sometime between 40-90 AD, and depending on which account you embrace, Matthias may have been crucified near a Roman fort in Adjara, Georgia. So there was at least some persecution of the early Christians by the Romans before and during the time when the Gospels were written.
I've read some of those same accounts, about the persecutions helping to convert followers, and I know that the worst of the persecutions didn't start until around the middle of the Second Century, but there was some of it going on prior to that, and it was pretty severe at times.
But on the whole, in my opinion, none of that had anything to do with the slant of the Gospels against that local religion that I can't seen to name without upsetting the censors. I think that they placed most of the blame on the Sanhedrin and its followers because, frankly, they were mostly to blame. They held more accountability for the entire situation, because they had been taught to look forward to a Savior, and not only did they hear His teaching, but they also witnessed His miracles, and they still turned a blind eye toward Him because He wasn't what they were looking for, and because He had too much power with the "common" people. They wanted a Savior to liberate them from the Romans, not one who came to liberate their souls from sin, and they didn't want anyone having more influence over the people than themselves.
For that, they plotted to kill Him, and they played on the fears of the Romans, and on the leaders of the two main sects of that dominant religion, in order to have Him executed. They had Him arrested, they charged Him with treason, something He clearly did not do, because that carried a greater sentence than the charge of blasphemy that they originally charged Him with, and then they demanded that He be executed, even after the local Roman governor found no reason to do so. For that, they deserve more of the blame than the Romans, even though the Romans weren't entirely innocent either. The soldiers treated the Savior poorly while He was in their charge, and for that, and for their obviously similar treatment of all of their prisoners, they were at fault. Pilate was at fault for having an innocent man whipped and crucified just to satisfy the local religious leaders' bloodlust, even after he'd been warned not to harm Him. But the Sanhedrin knew, or at least suspected, that He was a prophet at the very least and quite possibly the Savior of the World, and they murdered Him anyway. And that carries far more weight than anything the Romans did, in my opinion.
Wow. I suppose you actually think that Johnny Cash REALLY DID shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
It's not real. Relax.
Well stated!
It's been a few years since I started reading other subjects (economics), it's good to see my dates aren't that far off.
I can't disagree with anything you've said, this is just my opinion.
The original Gospels were written by persecuted people at a very precarious time. It was translated from Aramaic to Greek, and there's no doubt some changes had to be made because of the difference in languages. Jesus was translated from Joshua, because early Greek didn't account for the 'sh' sound. Same with Moses. It was something like Mosheah.
That got fixed for the most part when it got translated Latin in the Vulgate.
My point is conventional wisdom tells us the Catholic Church made most of the changes in Bible when in fact they did their best to put an end to it.
The four Gospels were written by small groups of persecuted groups through out the Roman empire. They were copied by hand, by the few who had the money and the time to do it (which was not easy by any means in those days, when only the elite even understood what literacy was).
When that happened, changes were made by mistake and on purpose. I believe mostly by mistake.
Ahhh….so you watch that show, too!
Ooh, I admire you for tackling economics, that's one subject that's completely over my head. But you've got a very good memory. I'm actually studying the First Century Christian church right now. One of my hobbies is writing, and I've wanted to do a story about Peter and Paul for ages, so I'm researching.
I didn't realize Moses was translated from something different, but I did know about Joshua/Yeshua. That's a very interesting tidbit, thank you.
I think that some people definitely changed parts of the narrative to fit what they thought the Gospel should be, particularly during the first few centuries when there were so many different apostasies and Greek philosophies creeping into the doctrine, but I do agree with your assessment. On the whole, the majority of errors were simply that: mistakes made by honest men doing their best.
For instance, there are several verses in the KJV Old Testament that reference unicorns. The animal in question is supposed to be a now-extinct wild ox that was common in Syria, and it was just mistranslated at one point and never corrected. I also sat in a lecture once by a Hebrew scholar who explained that use of the word "day" in the book of Genesis, where it deals with the creation, is not necessarily a 24-hour day, but rather an undetermined period of time. Each period of time could have been millions of years. The word was also used occasionally to mean a 24-hour day, so it's easy to see where the mistake could have happened. Traditionally, though, the word didn't mean an actual day.
Personally, I'm not Catholic, but I think the Catholic Church has done far more than any other religious group throughout history to bring the knowledge of the Savior to the world, and to make the scriptures widely accessible to all. The problem is that we're human, and we make mistakes. Since many of the old, original manuscripts no longer exist, we can't see for certain yet exactly how many mistakes were made.
Glad to hear you're expanding your knowledge. It's been of my passions since at least college.
For studying the early Christian Church, here's a few of the books I read. Have a look and see if they pique your interests.
http://www.amazon.com/Elaine-Pagels/e/B000AP9OSY/...
. http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Volumes...
. http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behi...
.
And for what is probably the most easily readable book on economics
. http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Econ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.