Is James Cameron really serious about this documentary or is this a publicity stunt?

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity. In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene... Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins [found 27 years ago in Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburbin] belong to Jesus and his family... This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics.

If Cameron can prove his findings, that means he would prove that Jesus did exist. Let's face it, that's more than we realistically have today. But of course he would also shoot a major hole in Christianity. So there's good news/bad news in the mix. But I don't see how he can prove it. Saying he has DNA sounds good but whose DNA does he have to compare to? Maybe I don't know enough about DNA but he needs a solid base to compare to. Or am I wrong?

Well, either way, this isn't going to change those who have faith and it's not going to change those who don't believe. But hey, I bet the ratings will be pretty good. And that's the name of the game, isn't it?

Labels: documentary, James Cameron, Jesus Christ

With Iraq constantly in the news, and with Iran and Saudi Arabia being influential in the area, it's sometimes hard to keep track of who is who. Are the 3 major groups tribes? Political parties? Grouped by geography? Religion is the major factor in determining the groups. Understanding their history and beliefs help us understand how they shape conditions today.

The magazine Mother Jones as put together a "Iraq 101" document that keeps the explanations very simple. I found the simplicity of presentation very helpful. I hope you do too.

The piece is called Who Is This Ali Cat? Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds -- a Primer.

Although the article includes politics, war costs, and other information about how we got where we are today, the explanation of the difference in the religious groups is what caught my attention the most.

Labels: Kurds, mother jones, Muslims, primer, Shiites, Sunnis

The following was extracted from this article.

Editor's note: At 46, Sara Miles, a left-wing, secular journalist and former cook, found herself an unlikely convert to Christianity. She joined St. Gregory's Episcopal Church in San Francisco, where she turned the bread she ate at Communion into groceries for a food bank that now feeds over 450 people a week. The following excerpt is from her memoir about what she calls her "unexpected and terribly inconvenient" spiritual awakening -- "Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion."

By Sara Miles

Jose and I met for lunch at a small cafe with outdoor tables one afternoon, when he was in the middle of an excruciating breakup. We sat on the patio and talked, picking at some complicated California sourdough-and-vegetable sandwiches while the fog came in.

Jose was in analysis then, and seeing a dozen patients, and serving as the medical director at a community mental health clinic, and writing scholarly papers on Freud, and doing energetic yoga for hours every morning, and generally overachieving, but he couldn't fill every minute, and whenever he paused, the heartbreak would pour in. "Maybe I should go sit at the Zen center again," Jose said. He was a small, handsome man with wiry hair and little glasses and perfect posture. His eyes were wet. "I'm not sleeping so well anyway; I might as well get up at five, what the hell."

We finished lunch, and I took Jose's hand. "Jose," I said, "you should pray."

As soon as I said it, I felt like an idiot -- worse, like a proselytizing busybody who knows, without ambiguity, what's right for everyone else. Jose looked genuinely surprised. Then he put on his analyst face. "Hmm," he said. "What do you mean?"

What did I mean by prayer? I didn't mean asking an omnipotent being to do favors; the idea of "answered prayers" was untenable for me, since millions of people prayed fervently for things they never received. I didn't mean reciting a formula: I loved the language of some of the old prayers that were chanted at St. Gregory's, but I didn't think the words had magical power to change things. I didn't mean kneeling and looking pious, or trying to make a deal with God, or even praying "for" something. What was I telling him?

"Um, well," I said. I was embarrassed. Then I looked at Jose again, and the word tender filled my mind -- tender as in sore to the touch and compassionate, at the same time. After my father had died, Jose had listened to me cry with the deepest empathy and patience, not trying to "comfort" me but just being present. As tenderly as I could, I said to him, "I really don't know. I don't know what I believe or who I'm talking to. Sometimes I just try to stay open, sort of. Especially when it hurts. And I try to -- I know this is corny -- but I try to summon up thankfulness."

Labels: Christianity, prayer, religion, sara miles

This poll showing how those who attend church are more likely to support the war is such a sad statement of where this country's religious folks' mindset is:

Those who say they attend religious services weekly were more supportive of the administration's move to increase U.S. troops levels in Iraq. But a majority still opposed that idea.

Attend church weekly: 46% favor troop increase, 53% oppose.
Nearly weekly/monthly: 35% favor, 62% oppose.
Seldom/never: 34% favor, 63% oppose.

Those who say they attend religious services weekly were the least likely to support the idea of Congress setting a timetable to bring U.S. forces home by the end of next year. But a majority still supported the proposal.

Attend church weekly: 56% support, 41% oppose.
Nearly weekly/monthly: 68% support, 31% oppose
Seldom/never: 65% support, 33% oppose

[USA Today/Gallup Poll, Feb. 9-10, 2007]

Um... I have to ask, WWJS?

Labels: church goers, iraq war, religion, war support

Top 10 Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

Here's a few of the signs that caught my attention. You can visit the link above to read the rest:

You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

Labels: Christianity, fundamentalist

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president... A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

This opinion piece goes on to address 10 common myths about atheists. Here's one of the 10:

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Labels: atheism, religion

From a story in the NY Times:

One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is ''completely heterosexual.'' Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph... told The Denver Post... ''He is completely heterosexual,'' Ralph said. ''That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing.''

Can we say these people are "delusional"? Yes, we can and we should because they are!

Labels: gay, homosexual, ted haggard