It cracks me up, amazes, and saddens me all at the same time when unbelievers quote scripture as with authority.   See 10 other replies

I had to stop watching because I found the religious mythology as fact horrifyingly offensive.And supremely disappointing.   See 10 other replies

Good point Guido001, the problem I have with this argument as a whole is that people tend to be history (and a lot of other topics) as a Christian version and a Non-Christian version (actually the same can be said for any religion or cause). Mick Smitherson exemplifies my point... Although history is undoubtedly bias, the goal of any good historian should be to look at the facts and the evidence presented to them and religion in and of itself is not factual. Anything that involves faith cannot be taken as fact. So, take out what you read in the Bible since that is not a historically accurate document, it's been edited and re-edited a number of times by people with a clear agenda. Look at the unedited documents from that era and maybe King is right, maybe Jesus was a criminal as far as the majority of the world have seen him. Who knows, if I had a time-machine I bet I could settle this once and fore-all.   See 10 other replies

I'm a born again Christian. I have absolutely no idea why poeticlargess is so fired up. King is barely in this and doesn't say anything disagreeable. Non-Christian programs that survey Biblical history can be kind of irritating but this PBS series is extremely tame and I thought agreeable.   See 10 other replies

Ahh, what a tangled web we weave when religion is involved...Firstly, to address poeticlargess' original point, from a purely political viewpoint, the Romans did indeed have the right to crucify Jesus. Jesus was a citizen in a land that was considered at the time legally occupied by the Romans. He was found, under the Roman legal system, to have broken Roman law. Crucifixion was the punishment proscribed by the law for the violation he was found guilty of. Thereby the Romans had the political right to do what they did.Did it help that the only major power that was needed to recognize an occupation as legal was Rome? Yes.
Would the Roman legal system be considered biased and deficient in our day? Absolutely.Another point to consider is that if you prescribe to the school of Pre-destination, it was also right for the Romans to crucify Jesus. The thought being that it was God's will that Jesus should die in such a manner, so that he could be resurrected and cleanse us all of our sins. I shall withhold my personal thoughts on this matter.Secondly, to address the response to poeticlargess' comments. While all analysis of communication over the internet is wide open to misinterpretation, poeticlargess' tone and word choice does seem to show a large amount of anger and disgust, particularly towards feminists, and towards Prof. King whom he assumes is one. Beyond that is the implication that Prof. King's supposed feminism has a direct link to her scholarly views, which poeticlargess obviously disapproves of. (I think we can all agree he disapproves, can't we?)Much of the heated response to this seems to come from the assumption that every person who dislikes feminists is also anti-woman. This is, of course, not true despite the many examples of it that the world has seen.That's stereotyping, and stereotyping is bad. I've tried to avoid it here.   See 10 other replies