Why does the media try to discredit Christianity?

[arunangelo]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time and again the media claim that they have made startling discoveries about Christianity. To the common people who have not been educated in the history of Christianity, such presentations seem like eye openers, because, the presentations have scholarly pretenses. In reality, they are full of false information, unrealistic speculations and fiction. The De Vinci code was history mixed with fiction that made fiction appear like real history. Judas' Gospel, that were written by Gnostics (who were at odds with Christians) long after the real Gospels were written, had been discredited by scholars a long ago; yet it resurfaced as some new discovery in the media. More recently, they took an archeological findings of the early nineteen eighties, in which grave of a Jewish family was discovered, and tried to imply that it was the grave of Jesus and his family; although none of his family members lived in Jerusalem (where the grave was discovered) and the chief archeologist of the excavation found no connection between Jesus and the grave.

The media is anti-Christian, because, they are opposed to Christian teachings. Christianity teaches about unconditional love, in which, Christians, like Jesus, are called to love their enemies and compensate for the offenses of their offenders by sacrificing their own interest. Christians are also called to protect every human life, including those in the fetal and embryonic stages, and respect marital union as holy, permanent and life-giving. Christians, therefore, oppose contraception, artificial reproductive techniques, destruction of embryo for any reason, euthanasia, divorce, fornication, sexual immorality and perversities, gay union, and self-interest. The media, which espouses all these things, therefore, does not like Christianity. To them, Jesus is the stumbling block, because, in Jesus the reality of God, as pure, sacrificial, all forgiving is revealed. Jesus, therefore, is their prime target.

[LightGrenade04]

Thanks. Although applying the word "scientific" (even in "" as you did) to their worldview is a bit of a misnomer; they're no less metaphysical than anything else, they're simply materialistic/naturalistic. I do know what you meant though, and I agree.

Your comment on the word "scientific" implies (I think) that you have perhaps formulated a critique of the claims of Science to be considered as an objective authority on the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world.

It might be a hi-jack of this thread if I asked you to explain what you mean by saying that the scientific world view has a "metaphysical" basis. But I should be interested to follow your reasoning - if you care to elaborate either here or elsewhere.

James.

Oh, no that's not what I meant. I just meant that the secular-naturalistic worldview is not more "scientific" than those which are not secular and/or naturalistic; they simply try to explain all of reality in purely "physical" or "natural" terms.

[juliod]

I just meant that the secular-naturalistic worldview is not more "scientific" than those which are not secular and/or naturalistic; they simply try to explain all of reality in purely "physical" or "natural" terms.

Expect that science can explain some things, whereas non-scientific/supernatural views have never explained anything. I mean, you don't go to a TV psychic when you dace a serious medical diagnosis. Or do you?

DanZ

[ManBearPig]

I don't know about anyone else, but I learned about all the criticisms of James Cameron's new documentary from "the media", and I'll bet money the OPer did too.

[LightGrenade04]

I just meant that the secular-naturalistic worldview is not more "scientific" than those which are not secular and/or naturalistic; they simply try to explain all of reality in purely "physical" or "natural" terms.

Expect that science can explain some things, whereas non-scientific/supernatural views have never explained anything. I mean, you don't go to a TV psychic when you dace a serious medical diagnosis. Or do you?

DanZ

I would very much like for you to point out where - not just in this post but from my entire post history - I have attacked science in any way whatsoever. Go on, give it a shot. All I was trying to do was clarify the very simple and rudimentary concept that not all questions are scientific questions. Ergo, when faced with the non-scientific questions of life, the secular-naturalist will attempt to answer them in ways that are "natural" or "physical". Please tell me, what is so enormously difficult about discerning that from what I said? I honestly can't believe how much trouble people on this board seem to have with basic interpretation of other people's posts; I refuse to believe that there can be so much routine misunderstanding that occurs accidentally.

[juliod]

I would very much like for you to point out where - not just in this post but from my entire post history - I have attacked science in any way whatsoever.

I didn't say that you had attacked science in any way, did I?

BTW, my post should have begun "Except that..." rather than "Expect that...". (But the forward looking version is true to.)

Please tell me, what is so enormously difficult about discerning that from what I said?

Nothing at all. I was merely pointing out that "scientific" answers (that is, ones based on rationalism and naturalism) can explain some things, while other sorts of explanations cannot (or at least do not).

I honestly can't believe how much trouble people on this board seem to have with basic interpretation of other people's posts

And right back at ya...

DanZ

[Greatest I Am]

The media is like a prostitute. She will take on anyone with an ideas or issue to place before the public. This is OK because we do not want a free press leading us. We want those that the media shows to lead us.

In terms of attaching Christians, there is much that Christianity, old and new, need to accept criticism over.
I am thinking here of fundamentalist Christians more than the run of the mill Christian.
Jesus schools need to be criticized. For sure. Speaking only in quotes from the Bible needs criticizing. As two examples.

All publisity good or bad is good if it leads us to as better path.

Regards
DL

[The Duke of Vandals]

Oh, no that's not what I meant. I just meant that the secular-naturalistic worldview is not more "scientific" than those which are not secular and/or naturalistic; they simply try to explain all of reality in purely "physical" or "natural" terms.

No, what you meant is that scientists explain the universe using evidence. Theists explain the universe without evidence / invalid evidence.

As for the initial op: pot meet kettle. I had to laugh at the irony of someone whose based their worldview on historical fiction masquerading as truth crying foul on historical fiction masquerading as entertainment.

Christians have, of late, become obsessed with a type of persecution complex. Anything that DARES to challenge Christianity's unevidenced claims or doesn't end in "amen" is clearly out to get them... or so they'd have you believe.

The reality is America and parts of the world have (over the last few decades) become more and more secular. The first mandate of all branches of Christianity is the same: grow. Anything that stands in the way... anything that sheds the light of reason on what is obviously propaganda... is vilified.

[Cathar1950]

You do have a good point Duke as juliod pointed out there is hardly an anti-Christian bias given the connections.
NGC and the History Channel are always airing programs on religion and Christianity. Usually it is fairly favorable.
What many Christian don't like is anyone with a critical eye looking at their claims.
I think the OP is rather reactionary.

[Confused]

The media is like a prostitute. She will take on anyone with an ideas or issue to place before the public. This is OK because we do not want a free press leading us. We want those that the media shows to lead us.

In terms of attaching Christians, there is much that Christianity, old and new, need to accept criticism over.
I am thinking here of fundamentalist Christians more than the run of the mill Christian.
Jesus schools need to be criticized. For sure. Speaking only in quotes from the Bible needs criticizing. As two examples.

All publisity good or bad is good if it leads us to as better path.

Regards
DL

Truer words have never been spoken.

[The Duke of Vandals]

One other point: the thread title implies Christianty has some intellectual claim / evidence to discredit. That's not the case.