|
Posts:
2
Registered:
2/6/07
|
|
(1 of 15)
Drive Through History Offensive
Feb 6, 2007 3:49 PM
|
There are many things I could be offended about concerning "Drive Through History", but I will not enumerate them here.
However, Stotts comments regarding religious practices other than Christianity are tantamount to racism, and that is extremely offensive.
History International is pandering to what they perceive as their audience by offering programming that shows little in the way of understanding for religion through history. It also walks a very thin line as it expounds the virtues of ONLY Christianity through the words of fundamentalist Stotts.
This program goes against every idea of open mindedness, understanding of history and tolerance.
It's time that people call it as they see it, and History International has recently begun offering programming which is solely Christian agenda.
I call this prejudicial, racist and fundamentalist agenda.
I for one will tune out until racist, intolerant Stotts and his agenda is removed from the program lineup.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
2/7/07
|
|
(2 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Feb 7, 2007 7:54 AM
|
How exactly did the host denegrade the "race" of anyone in the show? How does criticizing a dead religion (ancient Greek paganism) tantamount to racism? Only a person who doesn't understand racism (or who uses the term simply to slander someone) throws the word "racist" around so casually (and erroneously).
Neither the host nor the show is racist. Now..onto your charge of "fundamentalist". Another "bad word" these days. How has he shown himself to be that? The show is sympathetic to Christianity, no mystery there. Why does that make the host a "fundamentalist"? The real question is for you - why are you unwilling to admit the objectively GOOD contribution Christianity has made to the history of Western Civilization? That claim is not controversial. Sounds like you have some fundamentals of your own that make you anything but an objective, non-biased, tolerant thinker.
Perhaps it's best to stop watching though. You might be challenged to open your mind a little further than you're comfortable.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
2/6/07
|
|
(3 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Feb 7, 2007 11:16 AM
|
Using the word racism to define what Stotts does did exactly what I intended it to do, get reaction. No one has the right to publicly introduce ignorance - and that is what Stotts does in his program - especially when he makes comments about Delphi such as (paraphrased),
"Things were really weird in Delphi".
First of all, Delphi and the oracle did not engage in 'drug use' as Stotts suggests. The natural occurrences of gaseous mix which the oracles were subjected to were not known as mind altering substances. We now know them as such, and they are used today mostly as tools for surgeons. In the day of the oracle, it was a type of holy communion with the god of the temple. To undermine the importance of this temple, at the time it was in use, is to undermine the belief systems of numerous civilizations.
To some people, belief in miraculous conception (Catholicism), eurcharist, and resurrection is "really weird". Whatever MY beliefs are, I do not publicly declare anyone else's to be "weird". That is ignorant and intolerant, and irresponsible on the part of the network that would air such a program. In a time when understanding of each other is essential to gaining some peace, we have people like Stotts thumbing his nose at that which came before.
Also, paganism refers to someone who has "heard the word of Christ, but choses not to listen". A Heathen is one who practices a specific religion and has not yet "heard the word of Christ". Since the Oracle at Delphi existed long before Christianity was around, the practitioners would not be pagans, but heathens. (at least to Christians).
I have to laugh at the pervasive racism that exists in most religions - not just Christianity -
An example of that would be the flap over Mel Gibson's "Passion". Jewish people felt Gibson was taking a racist shot at them by producing this movie. Whether he was or wasn't is not my business. However, if it weren't for the Hebrews (Herod) condemning Jesus, there would be no sacrifice. In other words - no christianity. Yes, this is an example of racism.
What Stotts does is no better than any archaeologist placing modern values on objects found at an ancient site. We modern humans can not know the minds of the ancients - therefore we have no business trying to change prevailing perception about things we do not know about.
Stotts, like the rest of us, is entitled to his opinions. He should keep them to himself, or in the church which funded his education (and this program).
As far as my tolerance is concerned, I have tolerated listening to religious opinion and belief which is not mine, for as long as I have walked this earth. It is time for myself and others to say "Enough". We do not want, nor do we wish to pay for beliefs that have no respect for others, shoved down our throats time and again.
I have studied theology from one aspect to another, also anthropology. It makes me ill to hear Palestinians bashing Jews, Hindus bashing Muslims, Christians arguing among the other sects. If you all truly believe that stuff you spout as dogma, then you should know - we all come from the same place.... we are all brethren - and equal in the eyes of whatever name we call on god.
Any dogma which takes itself so literally, without respect for others, and decides that it is RIGHT while all else is wrong, is racist.
Here is the definition of the practice of Racism from Wikipedia:
Racism is a belief system or doctrine which states that inherent biological differences between human races determine cultural or individual achievement — with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.[1]
Some writers have used the term racism to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group (ethnocentrism), fear of foreigners (xenophobia), views against interracial relationships (miscegenation), and/or generalizations about a specific group of people (stereotype).[2][3]
Racism has been a motivating factor in social discrimination, racial segregation and violence, including genocide.
When racism is applied in practice, it takes forms such as prejudice, segregation or subordination. Racism can more narrowly refer to a system of oppression, such as institutional racism.
Historian Barbara Field argued in Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America that racism is a "historical phenomenon" that does not explain racial ideology at all.[4] She suggests that investigators should consider the term to be an American rhetorical device, with a historical explanation. She suggests that using race as a word with real meaning is a common error akin to superstition. However, other scholars say that races do exist, and that the concept has significant meaning."
Now, I could go on, but since you are using a name that signifies you have done some outside reading in your life, I will assume that if you want more information you are capable of looking it up yourself.
I suspect that I might have picked a better choice for a word to describe how Stotts and his program have offended me (and possibly other free thinkers). As I explained above, it brought you out of the woodwork and maybe it will make others think about forcing their beliefs on others, and disrespecting the things that are the building blocks of our civilization.
If you care to continue to debate me on this issue, that's fine. But I stand by my words and opinion.
And yes, I do have a problem with Christianity. Baptists, nice people that they can be, believe that any representation of deified iconography is sinful. A friend once said to me that it was right and good that the Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed because, after all, they were nothing but pagan icons which the world should be rid of. As I tried to explain to her that the Buddhas were constructed in an age when most people could not read, and if they could read, could not afford books, and the Buddhas served to remind pilgrims and populace of the teachings of the Buddha.
This purpose extends to church icons, stained glass windows in cathedrals, temple gods, and feasts of other deities. It is extremism, or if you will, fundamentalism which teaches that history is not sacred and should be destroyed to perpetuate one line of dogma.
Underlying Stotts' program, is this same rabid dogma - that only christianity is right, that all history is invalid (weird) outside of that narrow dogma.
BTW, I believe that function follows form.
--
Edited by 1jody at 02/07/2007 11:30 AM
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
2/19/07
|
|
(4 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Feb 19, 2007 3:37 PM
|
I've found the narratives of some History International shows, like "Africa: The Grand Safari" part of the World Tours series, do nothing more than instill racial and ethnic stereotypes of the age.
Hearing words like coolies and Dark Continent being casually tossed around in combination with words such as nobility, morality and colonial clearly indicates the institutional messages the producers wish to leave their audiences.
I get it! History International is a perfect example of how truth is purposefully distorted to support nationalist propoganda. After all, once is an occurance - twice is a pattern.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Texas
Registered:
5/8/07
|
|
(5 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
May 8, 2007 11:42 AM
|
> There are many things I could be offended about
> concerning "Drive Through History", but I will not
> enumerate them here.
> However, Stotts comments regarding religious
> practices other than Christianity are tantamount to
> racism, and that is extremely offensive.
> History International is pandering to what they
> perceive as their audience by offering programming
> that shows little in the way of understanding for
> religion through history. It also walks a very thin
> line as it expounds the virtues of ONLY Christianity
> through the words of fundamentalist Stotts.
> This program goes against every idea of open
> mindedness, understanding of history and tolerance.
> It's time that people call it as they see it, and
> History International has recently begun offering
> programming which is solely Christian agenda.
> I call this prejudicial, racist and fundamentalist
> agenda.
> I for one will tune out until racist, intolerant
> Stotts and his agenda is removed from the program
> lineup.
You don't sound very open minded or tolerant to me. You sound like someone who goes around looking for ways to slur others with a different perspective just because you don't like their beliefs.
|
|
|
Posts:
193
From:
Vorlon
Registered:
6/30/07
|
|
(6 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Jul 26, 2007 9:11 PM
|
Mrappe:
Recognizing and confronting intolerance certainly does NOT make one intolerant, as your accusation strongly implies. I too find "Drive Thru History" offensive for essentially the same reasons as "1jody", AND I have struck it off my watchlist too.
I suspect that the real burr under your saddle is that you LIKE DTH because it supports YOUR views. That would make your ad hominem attack on 1jody worse than what you are condemning in his post. IMHO, you sound like you are guilty of just what you are accusing 1jody of. Think not? Then perhaps 1judy's no more "intolerant" than you are. Thinkaboutit!
Just remember this: REAL intolerance has much more to do with refusing to accept that someone has THE RIGHT to a differing opinion than it has to do with accepting the value of that differing opinion. Else, one would NEVER have grounds for legitimate disagreement without being labeled "intolerant".
--
Edited by Kosh of Vorlon at 07/26/2007 9:15 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
193
From:
Vorlon
Registered:
6/30/07
|
|
(7 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Jul 26, 2007 9:37 PM
|
ImmanuelKant:
Your opening statement, "How exactly did the host denegrade the "race" of anyone in the show?" is not responsive to what 1jody asserted. Rather, it attempts to re-frame the argument to discredit 1jody. Perhaps you need to look up "tantamount" in order to understand what he said. In this context it means "the same as" and as I read his post I understand that he is comparing religious bigotry to racial bigotry, and if you didn't understand that, then you most certainly don't begin to live up to your nom de guerre.
I will not take the time to point out the other straw man arguments you created in order to make your point, but they are unpersuasive, nor do they support your closing condesension.
Immanuel Kant would be offended at your presumption to attach his good name to such sophmoric attempts at debate.
|
|
|
Posts:
193
From:
Vorlon
Registered:
6/30/07
|
|
(8 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Jul 26, 2007 10:19 PM
|
1jody,
Now that I have responded to your detractors, please allow me to take small issue with a couple of things in your second post to this thread.
You said, "Also, paganism refers to someone who has 'heard the word of Christ, but choses not to listen'..." That is not what paganism is (at least not what an anthropologist means when he uses the term). Pagan religions are identifiable by several commonalities. First, they are all polytheistic. Second, each of these deities has power over/is responsible for some natural phenomenon (storms, harvests, the movements of the heavens, et al) or some area of human endeavor (war, marriage, romance, death). Third, the gods do not demand a certain code of ethical conduct, and the primary purpose of worship is to appease the gods.
The monotheistic religions, especially Xtians and Jews, have specialized (and denegrated) the term to refer to any polytheistic (not like us) faith. But the Baptists are the only sect that I am aware of that has enhanced the term to include a rejection of Christianity.
So, your next statement, "Since the Oracle at Delphi existed long before Christianity was around, the practitioners would not be pagans, but heathens. (at least to Christians)." should have said that they were BOTH pagans AND heathens.
Finally, I agree with your statement, "I suspect that I might have picked a better choice for a word to describe how Stotts and his program have offended me." I would suggest the term 'bigotry' instead of racism as being more descriptively accurate, though not any less inflammatory (see my first post to this thread).
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Carmel
Registered:
7/27/07
|
|
(9 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Jul 27, 2007 8:20 AM
|
Hello - sorry about the delay and the quasi new name, but I had not been here for so long that I forgot my password and wasn't allowed to reset it via the links provided.
I'm still Jody, but now jody2.
As far as your comments about Pagans and Heathens, personally I find both labels a bit offensive in some form or another. However, if I tap a "Pagan" or Wiccan these days and ask them what makes them a pagan, they will tell me that it is a choice that is removed from 'usual' religions.
Most pagans prefer to be called wiccans - and many, when questioned will admit to being more Hedonistic than religious.
I am not saying that everyone who calls themselves a pagan or wiccan does not practice a religion, most do practice some sort of traditions. But there are many who in the interest of having a label to call themselves in todays label conscious society, will take "pagan" or "Wiccan" just to divorce themselves from the current monotheistic trend.
My choice of words as I made my original post had to do with what the majority of people would be able to recognize - What I would call the ancient Greeks who went to Delphi for Oracles would be religious - and true to the religion of their time. In their time, the words Pagan and Heathen meant nothing, if they even existed. Someone in that era who did not practice the accepted religious norms would probably have been called a Barbarian.
As far as anthropologists attempting to label religion, well, that is sticky... especially in light of the fact that none of us were there and we ALL tend (no matter how hard we try) to have a bit of our own values that sneak into our understanding of ancient religion, society, culture. We can't help ourselves, it is what we know.
Regarding your definition of Paganism from the point of view of an anthropologist: I do agree that polytheism allows for the spiritual presence in everything - perhaps it might be best to use the term "Deist". Although I am sure a monotheist Deist would take offense at that.
LOL
It seems that language, useful tool as it is, will always put someone on the edge -
In your second full paragraph, you say "But the Baptists are the only sect that I am aware of that has enhanced the term to include a rejection of Christianity."
In Ireland, the term Heathen came to mean anyone who was not christian - and this before Baptists (No. American variety Baptists) were around. From recorded historical time, the term Heathen came to denote anyone who was not Christian - and I believe the same term was used in Africa as it was first explored, then colonized by Caucasian Europeans (and Christians).
Personally, I am offended by the Us vs Them attitude of Christians, Muslims, Jews, - or if you will, the monotheists of this world. Condemnation of anyone, or any group, JUST because they have a different belief system than others is as inflammatory as one can get without uttering racial or ethnic or gender slurs. Here is my problem - those creationists who would love to see history (and pre-history) written to suit themselves, do a dis-service to everything and everyone who came before.
Anyone who has studied comparative religion, mythology, or literature can tell you that each consecutive new thing is built on the foundations of the last things - and it all goes back further and further.
It becomes more obvious as one studies our "holidays and traditions".
I appreciate your defense of my point of view - and also that you did a bit of smacking upside the head to those who suffer rectal cranial inversion syndrome.
The one joy I feel is that DTH is no longer being aired (at least not in my area) - and that it has been taken off the programming lists of History International.
Dave Stotts produced a program for his religions educational institute - and he is fully welcome to continue to do so - but History International also has some responsibility to air programs which are truly historical. I would hope they don't succumb to the "Creationist" hoopla and begin airing programs that are expeditious to the belief system of the Zoloft/Prozac induced self satisfied "I want it my way" neo cons that seem to think they are empowered to tell the rest of this nation (and world) how they believe things REALLY were.
Intolerant? Me? Years ago, I would have said "NEVER". Today, I say YES. I am growing intolerant of having someone else's religion shoved down my throat at every turn. I am sick of seeing the New Christians trying to rewrite history.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
9/28/07
|
|
(10 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Sep 28, 2007 4:00 PM
|
Ok, lets try this again...
I accidentally Xed out of my first attempt at a reply.
So, as i was saying before, I didnt read past your first post, 1jody. That was because it was too much information and i dont have the time to reply to all of it.
The part i am going to reply to is this:
"This program goes against every idea of open mindedness, understanding of history and tolerance"
Alexander Hamilton once said that "Those who stand for nothing will fall for ANYTHING". As one of our founding fathers, i think he knows what he's talking about.
When we talk about open mindedness we connect it with acceptance and we think it is a good thing. But as Alexander Hamilton said, when we open ourselves up to EVERYTING we get EVERYTING. The good stuff and the JUNK, the TRUTH and the LIES. So i'd rather be Narrow Minded if that means that i dont get lead astray. And just so you know, i always demand proof... we can debate about that later if you like.
Understanding of History: I cant believe that we all know as much about history as we should. I know that my education in that area was pretty lacking. So how can you say that the show's undersanding was flawed? I'm sure if you showed specific examples they would agree with you that it was wrong. BUT, if you were only upset because it went against YOUR own Beliefs, then maybe you should take a look at the show again. After all, none of us is perfect.
Ahhhh... tolerence: This has been a big topic of late, probably bigger than that phrase "open mindedness". Tolerence is important. It keeps us from beating up the opposers that dont agree with our beliefs or policys. It teaches us to hold our tounge when we'd like to be yelling. BUT toloerence was NEVER intended to be used as a sensor, a sign, or a blugeon. Especailly not towards Christ. If I tolerate EVERYTING, then EVERYTHING will be allowed. From child abuse (in the worst way) to mass killings. Many Christians dont agree with many of the agreed upon practices and policys in this world and they speak up against it. If you saw someone running headlong towards a huge cliff with rocks at the bottom, wouldnt you scream at the top of your lungs to get them to stop and turn around? I know i would. Many things that are accepted are not always benifical. Most are harmfull and deadly.
I'd rather be looked at as a Narrow Minded, stupid, intolerent person then follow that person over that cliff, which we should probably call acceptance.
If any of this is over your head, pleas feel free to respond and i'd be more than willing to discuss this some more with you.
And for the record, I really liked this show. I hope there is more like it on TV in the future. And i was hightly encouraged that there is more christian programming on the History channel. I was unaware of that.
be praying for you 
(screaming at the one on the cliff)
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Carmel
Registered:
7/27/07
|
|
(11 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Oct 1, 2007 11:06 AM
|
I began this post before, with anger. I hope I can post a response without offending everyone and making any other readers feel that my point of view is simply vindictive.
There are governments, and have been governments which are religious based. See how effective they are (Iraq, Iran to name two). The citizens (Women) of those nations are unequal, and suffer terribly by the hands of patriarchal leaders. These so called religious governments can not stay uncorrupted - and I am not defending the current state of war we are engaged in - I am drawing attention to the fact that whether the US was involved or not, there are people who live in those countries that have no freedom. You speak of the founding fathers of this nation in your post. Don't fall into hypocrisy yourself by calling forth patriotism. This nation was formed by individuals who believed that freedom of religion is a personal and god given right. That means that if citizens here do not wish to be Christian, or Pagan, or Buddhist, or any other thing, it is their RIGHT to not be beat about the head with the dogma of others who have chosen it for themselves.
As far as christian programming, isn't it enough that there are numerous christian channels available for you and others to watch whenever you like? Why must the rest of us have to suffer through someones skewed vision of how they wish the worlds history was? Leave the secular channels to those who wish to view them, alone - if you don't like the programming, like me, change the channel.
I complained about DRIVE THROUGH HISTORY because I believe that programming should be responsive to telling the truth.
Truth is of course, subjective - however one thing remains clear - before the Christ, there was no such thing as Christianity. SO leave the christian labels off everything that came before.
If you wish to learn more about history, I suggest going to a public university and taking some history courses.
It is not my job to teach you history - and you wouldn't listen anyways because your ears and head is full of someone else's INTERPRETATION of history.
It is your business what you chose to believe in. If belief in a system of dogma saves you from subscribing to "evil", then I'm thrilled for you. If your dogma is so strict, it is guaranteed that you will be intolerant and narrow minded.
The beauty of the constitution of this nation is it allows us to chose for ourselves the depth of our education, the level of our commitment to the values our forefathers laid the ground work for.
I have the right to NOT have to hear how immoral this country is because our constitution calls specific choices our inherent right. This country was created to allow freedom of expression - and yes, some of the expressions voiced in media are distasteful to me, as no doubt, they are to you and many others. But I will not call down censors to make sure only certain voices, or points of view, are heard. No, I will use my own form of censorship and not listen to the Don Imus' or the Howard Sterns or the FOX NEWS - and you may do the same.
Whether I would warn someone of their impending doom as they traversed a cliff edge: who knows? If a loved one were in this situation, it might help to try to understand the problem. But I would not think that my solution is redemption for that cliff jumper. I am not here to save the world, just live in it - and hopefully without having to hear DAILY why this nations constitution should be rewritten to MAKE people pray, or preach the gospel, or live YOUR values.
History channel owes its viewers REAL history. They could go off the air and create the CHRISTIAN or RELIGIOUS channel - and air any tripe they want, and I would not complain because they call themselves dedicated to RELIGION or Christianity. But while they call themselves The History Channel, it seems to me that they should be offering programming that is historic, not junk that fills peoples head with untruths or ambiguity.
I find that I can't think of anything I would wish to debate with you. I know many people from all walks of life who are not bent of making me see things from their own point of view. Their belief systems allow them to be open minded and not condemn anyone or anything - but to live their own lives with the best morals and values that they can.
In addition to studying history for decades, I also studied theology.
Imagine Jesus' thoughts as he heard the current trend of Christians in the USA ( and other places) who feel they must make the world christian. Being a christian means accepting the Christ as your personal savior and the bringer of your salvation. NO ONE is christian who has become one because there is no other choice.
And that too is something that should be said: you (Yes, YOU) can't be christian either if you don't CHOOSE between 'right' and 'wrong'. If there is only 'right', then you've made no choice.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
West TN
Registered:
6/28/08
|
|
(12 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Jun 28, 2008 2:23 PM
|
Jody,
You don't know me, but I registered today just to respond to this post. Please know that you are allowed to be offended by Drive Thru History, but I am sorry that you were.
As far as christian programming, isn't it enough that there are numerous christian channels available for you and others to watch whenever you like? Maybe, but the history channel is supposed to be about Truth, right?
Why must the rest of us have to suffer through someones skewed vision of how they wish the worlds history was?Um, turn-about is fair play?
Leave the secular channels to those who wish to view them, alone History is only secular?
...if you don't like the programming, like me, change the channel. Wise words
I complained about DRIVE THROUGH HISTORY because I believe that programming should be responsive to telling the truth. Truth is of course, subjective... Jody, there is a Truth that is True whether you believe it or not. A lack of belief is not enough to prove anything untrue. My Grandmother died still not believing that man had stepped foot on the moon. ~ insert rolled eyes here ~
...one thing remains clear - before the Christ, there was no such thing as Christianity. SO leave the christian labels off everything that came before. Is this true? How can you can make such a claim? You admit there is a Christ, but methinks you don't know much about Him. The Bible tells about Him and the gospel letter of John begins with lies, unless you are wrong.
John 1:1-3 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
The word "Word" here refers to Jesus, the Christ. These 3 verses reveal much about Jesus that makes secular historians and scientists (not to mention religious leaders of the day!) very upset.
Get this:
1) There was a beginning, and God was there.
2) Jesus is God. Whoa! That claim was blasphemous back then.
3) Through Jesus all things were made. *BANG*
4) Without Jesus, nothing was made that has been made. You're looking for the beginning of history? There it is!
My belief or lack of belief does not change what is Truth. Neither does yours.
If you wish to learn more about history, I suggest going to a public university and taking some history courses. I've done that, and I'm researching elementary and high school History Texts right now. You would not believe the lies that I've uncovered in current texts that tell a completely different story from the original sources. In the hearts and minds of MANY, you are correct - Truth is subjective. 
If your dogma is so strict, it is guaranteed that you will be intolerant and narrow minded. I've always been a bit leery of those who are so open-minded that it seems as if their brains may have fallen out along the way.
I have the right to NOT have to hear how immoral this country is because our constitution calls specific choices our inherent right. You also have the consequence of being affected by the results of specific choices. What the world has forgotten is that with rights, come responsibilities.
...I will not call down censors to make sure only certain voices, or points of view, are heard. Ah, then I thank you for allowing the History Channel to serve the rest of us a small course of something that does not sit well with you.
Bon Appétit!
--
Ack! How did I miss your last couple of paragraphs? Here you go:
In addition to studying history for decades, I also studied theology. Imagine Jesus' thoughts as he heard the current trend of Christians in the USA (and other places) who feel they must make the world christian. I don't have to imagine, Jody. I've only studied a little bit of history and theology, but I've read the greatest story ever written. Matthew 28:18-20 says, "...Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
So you see, those Christians {who, I am sure, annoy you to pieces} who don't mind talking about Jesus are just being obedient. Actually, there are really very few "real" Christians out there. If you seem to be surrounded by them, you might consider asking yourself why...
Being a christian means accepting the Christ as your personal savior and the bringer of your salvation. NO ONE is christian who has become one because there is no other choice. True ~ You've got part of it! Before the Savior can be chosen, you must first admit your need for a Savior.
And that too is something that should be said: you (Yes, YOU) can't be christian either if you don't CHOOSE between 'right' and 'wrong'. If there is only 'right', then you've made no choice. Jody, I've personalized part of Joshua 24:15 for you: "...if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourself this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the humanists, in whose land you are living."
--
Edited by tn_lizzie at 06/28/2008 10:58 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
8
Registered:
12/18/03
|
|
(13 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Jun 30, 2008 9:36 PM
|
Well the series was originally sponsored by a "Christian" group, and the History Channel et al bought the rights.
While my background in ancient history doesn't endear me to the Christian mythological slant of the show, I dunno if I would call it "offensive".
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
Georgia
Registered:
7/26/08
|
|
(14 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Jul 26, 2008 9:54 PM
|
|
It is interesting as this topic goes on that you changed your reasons for being offended. You now state that the history channel should show "truth" in history. Yet your first post clearly shows your being offended because of the spiritual tones of the show. I personally just saw this program. It was featuring Ephesus, a place my parents just visited on a recent cruise. They said it was amazing. And though they are Christians they found ALL the history of Ephesus interesting. Whether it was Artemis and the other Greek gods or the fact that Paul (Bible character) actually walked those same marble roads and preached about the Christ. You see we (Christians) are pretty tolerant of other religions in the sense of "history". Now whether we believe those things to be truth spiritually verses having historical value is another conversation all together. And I agree with another post here...turn the channel. I have been doing that for years when something comes on TV that I disagree with. But you cannot disagree with history - Jesus is a historical figure. He is much more to many people including me BUT he is a part of history. You don't have to believe that He is the Son of God, the only way of salvation and eternal life. The show does not ask that of you. That is something you will need to ask of yourself.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Lansing, Michigan
Registered:
12/25/08
|
|
(15 of 15)
Re: Drive Through History Offensive
Dec 25, 2008 10:57 AM
|
|
Jody2, instead of ranting and raving on a message board, just don't watch the show. It's a lot simpler and a more constructive use of your time. There are a lot more serious things in this world that offend me than a program with a Christian point of view. Everyone claims tolerance but no one supports it when it goes against their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
