Celeb big Brother

pH

Anyone watching this? An innocent (all-right maybe not) pleasure, has become the most relevant religious program on TV with hardcore evangelical Christian Stephen Baldwin leading daily 1 hour bible readings.

It's great to see one of these real Christians on TV, usually the churches to their best to keep them well away, so we end up only seeing the theological Archbishop of Canterbury types.

Stephen has already said he'd ask his daughter to be killed rather than her utter the words "I don't believe in Jesus", and apparently, in some metaphorical way that justifies his biblical belief, we only need oxygen because someone named it.

He's a creationist because "If we evolved from apes ... how come there's still apes left?", and disappointingly none of 10 other contestants could answer that question.

Turtwig

Even if Jesus Himself were on it, I would never watch it. Reality tv is disgraceful imo.:(

doctoremma

pH wrote: »

He's a creationist because "If we evolved from apes ... how come there's still apes left?", and disappointingly none of 10 other contestants could answer that question.

Lol, I can't say I'm surprised..... Have you read their CVs?

Dades

pH wrote: »

He's a creationist because "If we evolved from apes ... how come there's still apes left?", and disappointingly none of 10 other contestants could answer that question.

Out of all your post, that part has left me scarred...

These are the 'people' most watched by the public - most who've probably never even switched over National Geographic Channel except if their showing naked Amazonian women or something.

PDN

So, out of eleven dumb and shallow c-list celebrities, one of them is a dumb and shallow Christian?

Not enough bait there to entice me to watch a dumb and shallow show. If you start watching that crap, who knows where the slippery slope will take you? You could end up watching Eastenders before we reach 2012.

robindch

pH wrote: »

Stephen has already said he'd ask his daughter to be killed rather than her utter the words "I don't believe in Jesus"

I haven't wasted any time in watching this junk, but correct me if I'm picking you up wrong, but does the bold Stephen really want somebody else to murder his child? Won't he do it himself, or is he worried about receiving the kind of moral blowback that William Lane Craig talked about when people have to execute children because of religious differences?

And if he does make this monstrous claim, how come nobody's called in the police for him threatening behaviour? I'd have thought a police caution was the very least he could have received.

BTW, does the daughter know about her father's homicidal thoughts towards her?

pH

Dades wrote:

Out of all your post, that part has left me scarred...

Have a look here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/celebrity-big-brother/4od#3020320

2 parts, one at 1:20 and another at 3:40 - I think the daughter comment is worse.

PDN wrote:

So, out of eleven dumb and shallow c-list celebrities, one of them is a dumb and shallow Christian?

No, there is more than one dumb and shallow Christian in there, just only one dumb and shallow Evangelical Christian.

Goduznt Xzst

<insert trite insult relating to reality tv>

If I was a fame whore and went on BB I'd be damn sure not to argue with anyone regarding their religious, political or cultural beliefs on the show, even if I did know better.

Just look at the storm in a teacup over that Indian one. They're all labeled as racist because they did an Apu impression of her accent, and joked about some common Indian stereotypes.

I've heard Stephen Fry on QI frequently stereotype the French and Irish without any form of backlash. BB is a cesspit for wanton controversy and scandal, and I'm sure these celebrities know this. Making Baldwin the victimized xtian is only going to garner him more attention and adoration and take it away from the other z-listers.

I can guarantee you if one of them spoke up and told Baldwin he was wrong about creationism the Sun would have a headline like "Comrade xxx flings verbal feces like the monkey he is" the very next day.

pH

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

<insert trite insult relating to reality tv>

I can guarantee you if one of them spoke up and told Baldwin he was wrong about creationism the Sun would have a headline like "Comrade xxx flings verbal feces like the monkey he is" the very next day.

I'm not so sure, it's actually quite interesting to see how people react to what Stephen is saying, mostly folks are just too polite, or because it's "religious" they just defer. Most are happy to disagree behind his back, which is many ways is what can make CBB so compelling.

Looking at it from the opposite side is also interesting, if someone like Dawkins (yea I know NEVER - but imagine) was in there, and spent as much time evangelising his atheism, then I guess you would see a much more negative reaction.

It still amazes me you can say such crap, in a public setting, and yet because it's "his faith", it's automatically tolerated, respected and deferred to.

Yea it's CBB, yea it's crap, we all know this, but it's strange that it's given us the first "real" religious discussion I've seen on British TV in the last 10 years.

robindch

pH wrote: »

I think the daughter comment is worse.

Hmmm... getting hurt for Jesus. Now, that's a controversial topic that's come up before.

Now that I see the clip, if you can temporarily forget that he's just said that he'd prefer to see his daughter commit suicide than deny his own religious beliefs, it's hard not to laugh at the fairly appropriate one-word reply from the woman sitting next to him.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Hmmm... getting hurt for Jesus. Now, that's a controversial topic that's come up before.

Now that I see the clip, if you can temporarily forget that he's just said that he'd prefer to see his daughter commit suicide than deny his own religious beliefs, it's hard not to laugh at the fairly appropriate one-word reply from the woman sitting next to him.

Just watched that; absolutely terrifying.
He's a nut, needs urgent medical/ psychological assistance. Why is he even imagining situations where theres a possibility for him to show off his extremism? Very, sick, weird and twisted wish fulfillmennt going on there but the need to share it with strangers and the general public, scary.

Handsome Bob

pH wrote: »

It's great to see one of these real Christians on TV

LOL, back in your box mate.

On topic, Stephen Baldwin is a tool, Jordan's bloke left him stumped FFS. Baldwin says to him "Oh you believe in oxygen don't you? Why is that? Because you were told too?" Jordan's bloke replys with "But I'm living proof of oxygen, as in if I stop breathing then I die." Baldwin couldn't reply. He's not a real Christian, he's just a retard.

PDN

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Real" in this case, means profoundly unattractive and thereby giving any dishonest person a stick by which to beat other Christians who are nothing like the "real" Christian in the reality TV show.

It would be akin to me saying how refreshing it was to see footage of a real atheist like Josef Stalin on the History Channel, since the atheists usually keep them hidden away so we only end up seeing the amiable Stephen Fry types. (Something I wouldn't do, since it would be trolling and lying)

Sam Vimes

Could we just put a sticky at the top of the forum that states:

"If a post is written that looks as if PDN would it feel misrepresents his view of christianity, it can be safely assumed that his contribution will consist of calling the poster a liar"

It would save you all that effort.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I think he is saying it is nice to see a hole in the propaganda some Christians like to present of an image of Christianity that is in line with nice friend kind caring middle English types.

The reality, as demonstrated by Baldwin, is often quite different. Baldwin is as real a Christian as the Archbishop of Canterbury, though a lot of Christians would like to pretend he isn't.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could we just put a sticky at the top of the forum that states:

"If a post is written that looks as if PDN would it feel misrepresents his view of christianity, it can be safely assumed that his contribution will consist of calling the poster a liar"

It would save you all that effort.

I would like to wish PDN luck taking on pH, though he may soon long for the more traditional eaten by Roman lions approach.

Sam Vimes

By the way PDN I've decided that I'm going to start reporting every post where you accuse someone of dishonesty/lying from now on. I have a warning on my profile from you for telling another member that I didn't believe them and you said at the time, and I quote: "Attacking the truthfulness of another poster is not on. Since you stopped short of openly calling him a liar I have stopped short of giving you a red card." so I don't see why should be allowed do it whenever you want

Handsome Bob

Isn't that like what we're doing all the time anyway? I mean it's a discussion board, the nature of it is to discuss and to debate, basically to question the truthfulness of one's argument.

Sam Vimes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Isn't that like what we're doing all the time anyway? I mean it's a discussion board, the nature of it is to discuss and to debate, basically to question the truthfulness of one's argument.

No it's not really. You can tell someone they're wrong all you want, that their argument is not true, but that's different to saying they're being deliberately dishonest

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Handsome Bob

Has he ever come outright and accused someone of being a liar?

Sam Vimes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Has he ever come outright and accused someone of being a liar?

Well yes he did it just now

He compared pH's statement to something else and then said that he wouldn't say that himself because it would be trolling and lying. He is quite clearly calling him a liar, he just didn't put it in exactly those words. He also regularly uses the word "dishonest" and says things along the lines of "you aren't the slightest bit interested in what is true" and accuses people of having agendas.

Handsome Bob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well yes he did it just now

He compared pH's statement to something else and then said that he wouldn't say that himself because it would be trolling and lying. He is quite clearly calling him a liar, he just didn't put it in exactly those words. He also regularly uses the word "dishonest" and says things along the lines of "you aren't the slightest bit interested in what is true" and accuses people of having agendas.

pH made a statement that he believed to be fact, even though I'm not religious I do believe he misrepresented religious people by referring to Baldwin as a "real Christian". Basically, he claimed real Christians are oddballs, oddballs who conveniently make a show of themselves and thus, fall nicely into whatever stereotype that pH likes to think all "real" Christian people fall into. That IMO is bang out of order, yet PDN is the one who is vilified for addressing such an outrageous statement made by pH.

Sam Vimes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

pH made a statement that he believed to be fact, even though I'm not religious I do believe he misrepresented religious people by referring to Baldwin as a "real Christian". Basically, he claimed real Christians are oddballs, oddballs who conveniently make a show of themselves and thus, fall nicely into whatever stereotype that pH likes to think all "real" Christian people fall into. That IMO is bang out of order, yet PDN is the one who is vilified for addressing such an outrageous statement made by pH.

Whether he misrepresented anything is irrelevant. Whether PDN actually thinks he's lying is irrelevant and whether he actually is lying is irrelevant. When I told someone I didn't believe him I also honestly thought he was lying but I still got a warning because, as PDN says himself: Attacking the truthfulness of another poster is not on

A situation where you can't call someone a liar unless you're really really sure he is doesn't work.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

any dishonest person

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He is quite clearly calling him a liar

Lads, you're both going to be sent to bed early if you keep on saying or implying that other people are liars.

.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

"Real" in this case, means profoundly unattractive and thereby giving any dishonest person a stick by which to beat other Christians who are nothing like the "real" Christian in the reality TV show.

I think pH is reasonable in using the word "real" here, because Baldwin is doing what he sincerely believes his religious views requires him, and his daughter, to do. Rowan Williams, while he has a different and no doubt far less extreme interpretation, is also doing what he believes his religious views requires him to do and I don't think there's any implication that he's "less" of a christian for having a different interpretation, though I'm sure Baldwin would disagree.

More pointedly, I'm having a hard time distinguishing your condemnation of Baldwin (and the rubbishing of him and his views by yourself and others), with your own hagiographic description of a Chinese man and his daughter who were in a situation which is almost identical to what Baldwin describes, and who acted with pretty much as Baldwin required. That post is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59911601

Why do you appear to believe that Baldwin is a nutter in this situation, while the Chinese guy and his daughter are exactly the opposite?

pH

LZ5by5 wrote: »

pH made a statement that he believed to be fact, even though I'm not religious I do believe he misrepresented religious people by referring to Baldwin as a "real Christian". Basically, he claimed real Christians are oddballs, oddballs who conveniently make a show of themselves and thus, fall nicely into whatever stereotype that pH likes to think all "real" Christian people fall into. That IMO is bang out of order, yet PDN is the one who is vilified for addressing such an outrageous statement made by pH.

I did? You could read all that into a word I had already put in italics? It seems to be you who is claiming that Baldwin is an oddball and making a "show of themselves".

Are you disagreeing that he is a "real" Christian? If my point wasn't clear in the OP then let me make it explicit now. We on the internet with youtube and whatnot, and I guess anyone watching some of the digital religious TV channels can see these beliefs all the time, I'm merely pointing out that these are rarely seen on the mainstream British TV channels at the moment. I'd also hesitantly state that they're probably more relevant, more "real" if you like to global Christianity (well protestantism more accurately) than the theologically strained Archbishop of Canterbury who's presiding over the dying and splitting remnants of Anglicanism.

My real was intended to represent Stephen's view of himself, in that it's my experience that this form of Christianity is much more likely to claim that they are "real" than say Anglicans (who wouldn't dream of such a thing). You may claim that it's "outrageous" and "bang out of order" to mention this, I think perhaps on rereading my OP, as it is posted, not through PDN's glasses you might agree.

However I guess the point still stands, PDN (In a way I presume he thinks is highly clever) gets to call me a liar, he gets to post my (and others) infraction information in this forum, he rarely gets warned (unless a mod can pull up an atheist too!), and we're left with either accepting his insults, or getting into a slagging match that results in thread closure, that's called "win,win" in common parlance I believe.

Turtwig

What is this nonsense about not being a "real" Christian? LZ5by5 and PDN, you really need to explain this a bit more clearly. Baldwin describes himself as Christian, yet you guys argue that's he's not a real one. How bizarre, I openly accept that Stalin was an atheist, he didn't live by my ideals (or the ideal of many other atheists) but I don't deny he was atheist. Are we to assume that anything a Christian disagrees with regarding another Christian can just be passed off as the latter Christian not being the "real" Christian? In which case what exactly constitutes the "real" Christian?

Arcus Arrow

I wonder if it would be worth an email campaign to CBB to introduce a guest who would be qualified to put Baldwin straight on a few facts about Evolution?

I think Baldwin is best described as an "American Christian". The arch bish of Cantebury gets it from both sides for trying to be reasonable and less dogmatic than someone like Herr Ratzinger. He must feel like he can't win for trying.

I don't doubt that a huge percentage of the audience probably agree with his dedication to the jesus character and think he deserves respect for his views.

"Oh he's a good man, he'd even kill his daughter for his religion".

The prospects for the human race are not good.....

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

What is this nonsense about not being a "real" Christian? LZ5by5 and PDN, you really need to explain this a bit more clearly. Baldwin describes himself as Christian, yet you guys argue that's he's not a real one. How bizarre, I openly accept that Stalin was an atheist, he didn't live by my ideals (or the ideal of many other atheists) but I don't deny he was atheist. Are we to assume that anything a Christian disagrees with regarding another Christian can just be passed off as the latter Christian not being the "real" Christian? In which case what exactly constitutes the "real" Christian?

I have nowhere argued that Baldwin is not a real Christian, so maybe you should get your facts straight. I have said in this thread that he is a shallow and dumb Christian. The truth is, as anyone except the most extreme fundamentalists on either side of the fence will readily admit, is that you get both extremely decent people and also dumb shallow people who are Christians. Equally you get extremely decent people and also dumb shallow people who are atheists.

I have consistently, in hundreds of posts in both this forum and elsewhere, stated that you get people who are the good, the bad, and the ugly among both Christians and atheists. This has, on occasion, caused firestorms in threads where posters want to present a distorted view of reality where Christians are all ignorant, violent bigots whereas atheists are all intelligent, and enlightened.

pH, in presenting Baldwin as a "real Christian" in contrast with the Archbishop of Canterbury (carrying the implication that the Archbishop is not a "real" Christian) was perpetuating the kind of puerile stereotyping propaganda that stifles any genuine discussion in this forum.

Sam Vimes, with a response that makes Pavlov's dogs seem rather slow and thoughtful, can be guaranteed to respond with vitriol to any post of mine in this forum that does not conform to the prevailing groupthink.

Q: How do you know when your aircraft has landed in the A&A forum?
A: Even after the engines have been turned off you can still hear the sound of whining as Sam Vimes complains about the moderating in a different forum.

Arcus Arrow

Personally I've always though a Moderator should do just that, moderate, not act like a referee who wants to take part in the football match as well.

There is such a thing as a player/manager.

There is no such thing as a player/referee.

pH

Can a mod save this thread?

PDN

pH wrote: »

Can a mod save this thread?

I'm doing my best.

robindch

pH wrote: »

Can a mod save this thread?

I'm not sure if Jesus Christ himself could save this thread.

WRT commenting on moderation of other forums, everybody please read this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63895718

pH

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure if Jesus Christ himself could save this thread.

WRT commenting on moderation of other forums, everybody please read this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63895718

Pathetic.

Once again PDN shows up, decides to focus on one word, insults specific posters (myself included), and your response to it is to join him in smartarse replies to my request? This whole "we're mods - buddy buddies" thing you guys play is getting old real fast.

So now we can accept being called "groupthinkers", "liars", and "whiners" and take it like men, or we can respond in kind, pick up infractions and get the thread closed.

And just a postscript to this whole mess, the word "real" (as I explained above) is used from Stephen's point of view, in my opinion Anglican-beardy types would never dream of saying that another form of Christianity wasn't "real" or theirs was the only way to be saved, however in my experience, evangelicals like Baldwin often believe and say that theirs is the *only* way to follow Christ to salvation. The fact that some posters, inflamed by their own self-importance, continue to tell me that they are the ones who know what I meant isn't surprising.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I have nowhere argued that Baldwin is not a real Christian, so maybe you should get your facts straight. I have said in this thread that he is a shallow and dumb Christian. The truth is, as anyone except the most extreme fundamentalists on either side of the fence will readily admit, is that you get both extremely decent people and also dumb shallow people who are Christians. Equally you get extremely decent people and also dumb shallow people who are atheists.

I have consistently, in hundreds of posts in both this forum and elsewhere, stated that you get people who are the good, the bad, and the ugly among both Christians and atheists. This has, on occasion, caused firestorms in threads where posters want to present a distorted view of reality where Christians are all ignorant, violent bigots whereas atheists are all intelligent, and enlightened.

pH, in presenting Baldwin as a "real Christian" in contrast with the Archbishop of Canterbury (carrying the implication that the Archbishop is not a "real" Christian) was perpetuating the kind of puerile stereotyping propaganda that stifles any genuine discussion in this forum.

Sam Vimes, with a response that makes Pavlov's dogs seem rather slow and thoughtful, can be guaranteed to respond with vitriol to any post of mine in this forum that does not conform to the prevailing groupthink.

Q: How do you know when your aircraft has landed in the A&A forum?
A: Even after the engines have been turned off you can still hear the sound of whining as Sam Vimes complains about the moderating in a different forum.

Which part of that makes it ok to call people liars whenever you feel like it while simultaneously saying that attacking another poster's truthfulness is not on? A bit hypocritical no? Or is it that it's ok to do it if you're PDN, or maybe if you really really think they are?

Sam Vimes

pH wrote: »

So now we can accept being called "groupthinkers", "liars", and "whiners" and take it like men, or we can respond in kind, pick up infractions and get the thread closed.

Precisely. I don't give a **** if you're John Breslin himself PDN, that kind of **** is not acceptable outside of the schoolyard

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Precisely. I don't give a **** if you're John Breslin himself PDN, that kind of **** is not acceptable outside of the schoolyard

Yeah but part of the rules of a game of sport are that you let the referee (in thread case the mod) tackle the offender, not take the law into your own hands as that usually takes the game down a very slippery slope for both spectators, officials and players alike.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah but part of the rules of a game of sportl are that you let the referee (in thread case the mod) tackle the offender, not take the law into your own hands.

I've reported the post.

yaaaboy

we need richard dawkins in that house and we need him in it now!

Handsome Bob

Malty_T wrote: »

What is this nonsense about not being a "real" Christian? LZ5by5 and PDN, you really need to explain this a bit more clearly.

What I'm saying is that it's entirely unfair to take one particular type of Christian, put him or her on a pedestal, and declare that he is a "real" Christian.

Turtwig

yaaaboy wrote: »

we need richard dawkins in that house and we need him in it now!

Francis Collins,Kenneth Miller, or Francisco Ayala would be far more interesting though.

pH

pH wrote: »

He's a creationist because "If we evolved from apes ... how come there's still apes left?", and disappointingly none of 10 other contestants could answer that question.

Nobody had enough wits to say "if adults came from children why are there still children"?
sigh

pH

LZ5by5 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that it's entirely unfair to take one particular type of Christian, put him or her on a pedestal, and declare that he is a "real" Christian.

And I've repeatedly said this is not what I meant, for the third time, the real refers to the proclivity of evangelical Christians to declare themselves "real" and the only way to get salvation. This is in contrast to Christians (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) who would never claim this and have a very relaxed view and tolerance for other versions of Christianity.

The fact that you continue to make a big deal about one word in the OP that you've interpreted in a way that suits you is very strange indeed.

Sam Vimes

pH wrote: »

And I've repeatedly said this is not what I meant, for the third time, the real refers to the proclivity of evangelical Christians to declare themselves "real" and the only way to get salvation. This is in contrast to Christians (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) who would never claim this and have a very relaxed view and tolerance for other versions of Christianity.

The fact that you continue to make a big deal about one word in the OP that you've interpreted in a way that suits you is very strange indeed.

That's not even the point. Regardless of what you said it's not ok to call you a liar. But I suppose that's just me responding with vitriol to someone going against the groupthink :rolleyes:

Handsome Bob

pH wrote: »

And I've repeatedly said this is not what I meant, for the third time, the real refers to the proclivity of evangelical Christians to declare themselves "real" and the only way to get salvation. This is in contrast to Christians (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) who would never claim this and have a very relaxed view and tolerance for other versions of Christianity.

The fact that you continue to make a big deal about one word in the OP that you've interpreted in a way that suits you is very strange indeed.

I saw your previous responses, all I can do is take you at face value and believe you when you say that I misinterpreted your OP.

robindch

There was a public warning to play nice:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63893003&postcount=26

This has been ignored and three posters have received red cards. Further silliness will result in bans. Stick to the topic, please.

thanks,

- robin.

robindch

pH wrote: »

And I've repeatedly said this is not what I meant, for the third time, the real refers to the proclivity of evangelical Christians to declare themselves "real" and the only way to get salvation. This is in contrast to Christians (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) who would never claim this and have a very relaxed view and tolerance for other versions of Christianity.

I don't know whether or not Rowan Williams does view his beliefs as the one, true, real version of his religion, but now that you've clarified what you mean by "real" in this context, I think your point is useful and well-made.

Evangelical christians like Baldwin certainly do have an unpleasant and arrogant inclination to behave, to coin a phrase, like cultural creationists who believe that their religious beliefs have sprung up from the unholy dirt around them, in their one and final perfect form. And who tend to be just as dim-witted and open to reason and fact as their biological creationist colleagues.

It would be interesting to see religious people openly call people like Baldwin idiots solely for taking their religious interpretations so seriously, and taking them to their unpleasant, but logical, conclusion.

Galvasean

I honestly cant see many Christians watching at home thinking, "Yep, Baldwin is my kind of guy."