If Oprah has really started a church, then good for her!

[Angela Shelley]

Being a talk show host is hard work ...

and ...

organized religion is the most efficient cash cow on the planet.

[Bucky]

1. No, Pat Robertson

is the most efficient cash cow on the planet.

[Deep13]

2. Yes, good for her...

...and bad for everyone else.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

3. Just so long as she stops calling herself a baptist/Christian

[cynatnite]

4. Why? I've seen worse people calling themselves christian n/t

[Angela Shelley]

6. I agree!

best example, GWB

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

7. And I wish they would stop as well

but *nothing* Oprah has been pimping on her show comes anywhere close to Christianity it would be like the pope calling himself Hindu... She holds no basic tenants of the faith nor does the recognize the Nature of God as Christianity sees him calling herself a Christian is marketing and nothing more..

on edit Ill add:

Being a Christian does not mean 'being a good person' true one should result from the other but there are Buddhist, Mormons, Muslims, Atheist, etc. who are good people as the world understands the term..

[cynatnite]

8. How do you figure that?

Oprah has an enourmous network of charities and has done a lot of good in the world. She's more of a christian than I'd call anyone else.

Besides, how do you know her heart? Are you just making assumption based on what YOU think a christian should be or shouldn't be? How do you know what she does or doesn't believe?

Is she fornicating or something? Watching porn on her off time? :shrug:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

10. Being a good person does *not* make you a christian

Are you not saying there are good atheist, good Hindus, good Buddhist?

Yes Oprah does *allot of good* and I defended her when people were complaining about the school in South Africa, she does allot of good I have no qualms with her as a person! But she is *not* a Christian in that she denies most tenets of Christianity..

"Besides, how do you know her heart? Are you just making assumption based on what YOU think a christian should be or shouldn't be?"

I give allot of leeway before I tell someone they are not a Christian but Oprah, as good as she might be, *clearly* does not follow the basic beliefs of Christianity..


--

The foundation of the Christian Gospel can be found here

Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

Oprah: "there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity."

--

To sum up, nice woman not a Christian the two things are not mutually in or exclusice

[cynatnite]

15. Here is what I think of christianity...

It's a sky god type of religion that preaches if you don't believe the way he wants you to...you're going to burn in hell for an eternity. It's a religion for those who fear death. Don't fret. I have similar opinions on a variety of religions.

I grew up in a baptist household and had this stuff preached at me my entire life. I used to believe it, but then I grew up and was tired of being afraid all the time. Now, I'm an atheist.

Matthew 7:5

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

To sum it up...quit being a hypocrite.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

19. I dont remember asking you what you think but thanks for sharing..

Point is there is a large group of people who share a common faith, Oprah does not share that faith yet labels herself as a member of that group.

Please tell me how Im being a hypocrite? I am taking what Oprah said about the nature of Jesus and what Jesus said about the nature of Jesus and laying them side by side... They dont agree ergo she is not a Christian.

Once again lovely woman not a Christian...

[cynatnite]

24. She does share that faith...but not by your narrow hypocritical standards n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

31. What faith does she share

she contradicts Christ and calls it Christianity..

and you have *yet* to point to any hypocrisy on my account

[cynatnite]

33. Hypocrites are always ready to point fingers at others...

before taking care of their own issues.

The fact is that there are many different sects of Christianity with a wide range of opinions. Only God, if a person believes in him or her, can say one way or the other. The heart is where it matters in the end.

You're unwillingness to acknowledge the varied Christians shows you to be rigid and judgmental...something christians are not supposed to be.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

35. And what issue am I not taking care of?

As I said *many of the sects have differences* that are not core nature. Calvinist and Wesylans get along fine, Free will versus elect get along fine, infant baptism vs adult get along fine, sacramental vs non get along fine...

Im not going to run into a Nazarene church and scream that they are not Christians despite some minor theological differences I might have with them. To deny Christ is God, and Christ is the only way disagrees with the core of the Christian faith.. Its like someone who thinks craving wealth and possessions is a good thing wealth calling themselves a Buddhist..

I have acknowledged there is room in the Christian community for debate on some issues but the very core is not, if you don't think Christ is God and and you dont think he was speaking truth when he said *I am the way the truth and the Life* then you are not a Christian. Period.

[EstimatedProphet]

72. No it does not

To deny Christ is God, and Christ is the only way disagrees with the core of the Christian faith.

No, there are several mainstream Christian sects which do not require the belief of Christ as divine, only that his teachings are followed. I was raised in the disciples of Christ church, which is one of them. Look it up.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

77. If youre referring to Mormons

They are *not* Christian as they dont worship Christ.. anf, frankly, neither is the DCC if they deny that as well..

[EstimatedProphet]

83. No, I am referring to the Disciples of Christ church, as I said

A mainstream Christian church. We worship Christ. You are not in a position to tell anyone what their beliefs are supposed to be.

From wikipedia, which I use here because it says it well:

For modern Disciples the one essential is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and obedience in baptism.<35> There is no requirement to give assent to any other statement of belief or creed. Nor is there any "official" interpretation of the Bible.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. BTW What faith does she share?

[LanternWaste]

133. If that is indeed the case

"Hypocrites are always ready to point fingers at others before taking care of their own issues"

If that is indeed the case, I think anyone would be hard pressed to name anyone who is, in fact not a hypocrite, as I doubt we know of any one individual who has completely taken care of their own issues.

[cynatnite]

17. Let me add this little definition of Christian...

The definition of who is a "Christian" varies among different Christian groups. Some believe that, to be a Christian, an individual must go to a church and participate in baptism. Others teach that instead a belief and acceptance in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is necessary. Some consider a Christian to be simply one who tries to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Some theologians consider a Christian to be anyone who accepts the Nicene Creed. This ancient text is accepted by Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all the remaining mainline Protestant Churches.

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants define a Christian as one who has become a member of the church through the sacrament of baptism. In these denominations, infants who are baptized may be considered Christians, although they are expected to make a personal affirmation of faith when old enough to decide for themselves.

Evangelical and fundamentalist denominations do not generally practice infant baptism and do not necessarily believe that baptism is necessary for salvation (a sacrament). Rather, they consider it to be a public command of identifying oneself with Jesus Christ in his death, representing repentance and a new life in God, as in Christ's resurrection. They encourage youth and adults to "become Christians" by personally "accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour," and to follow that decision with Believer's Baptism. These groups also use the phrase "born-again" (John 3:3) to describe becoming a Christian. Many Christians believe that the only way to Salvation is through Jesus Christ (Son of God) (John 14:6). They believe that everyone is a sinner and must repent. Other Christians believe that being baptised is not required for salvation, but is an example that you are going to change your life and live as God wants you to live. Catholics believe that baptism is required for salvation and that it saves them from their sins.

A few denominations and sects teach that Believer's baptism is necessary for salvation — the transition from non-Christian to Christian (see Baptismal regeneration). They define a Christian as one who has been baptized as a repenting adult.

Other believers follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, but do not believe it is necessary to affiliate with organized religion.

Within countries where Christianity is the historical majority religion, the term is also used by some in a casual generic sense to indicate that they are not members of nor affiliated with any other religion – therefore considering themselves Christians by default.<7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian#Who_is_a_Christian.3F

Now, you have your own narrow definition of what a christian is...are you going to tell people who consider themselves christians, but believe differently than you they are not christian?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

20. My definition fits to within that

Infant Baptism? Dont care
Saints? Dont care much
Post or Pre trib rapture? dont care

*NATURE OF JESUS AND GOD* somewhat important..

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Or you can read the section around that quote too

Here's a guy who's spent quite a lot of time studying the bible:

Two contentious examples. The first of them is, as we shall see, of more than accidental importance in understanding certain things about Scripture as a whole, but I choose it because of its frequent use in modern debates about relations between faith communities. Jesus says in the Farewell Discourses of John's Gospel that 'no-one comes to the Father except by me'. As an isolated text, this is regularly used to insist that salvation depends upon explicit confession of Christ, and so as a refutation of any attempt to create a more 'inclusive' theology of interfaith relations. But the words come at the end of a typically dense and compressed piece of exposition. Jesus has, at the end of ch.13, explained that the disciples cannot follow him now; he goes ahead to prepare a place. Thus, he creates the path to the Father that the disciples must follow; they know the path already in the sense that they know him. And this knowledge of him, expressed in the mutual love that he has made possible (13.34-5), will carry them through the devastation of absence and not-knowing which will follow the crucifixion. Seeing and knowing Jesus as he goes towards his death in the perfection of his 'love for his own' is already in some way a knowing of the Father as that goal towards which the self-giving of Jesus in life and death is directed. The Father is not to be known apart from this knowledge of Jesus.

Now this certainly does not suggest in any direct way a more inclusive approach to other faiths. But the point is that the actual question being asked is not about the fate of non-Christians; it is about how the disciples are to understand the death of Jesus as the necessary clearing of the way which they are to walk. If they are devastated and left desolate by his death, they have not grasped that it is itself the opening of a way which would otherwise remain closed to them. Thus it is part of the theology of the cross that is evolving throughout the later chapters of John, the mapping out of a revelation of glory through self-forgetting and self-offering. The text in question indeed states that there is no way to the Father except in virtue of what Jesus does and suffers; but precisely because that defines the way we must then follow, it is (to say the least) paradoxical if it is used as a simple self-affirmation for the exclusive claim of the Christian institution or the Christian system. There is, in other words, a way of affirming the necessity of Christ's crucified mediation that has the effect of undermining the very way it is supposed to operate. If we ask what the question is that the passage overall poses, or what the change is that needs to be taking place over the time of the passage's narration, it is about the move from desolation in the face of the cross (Jesus' cross and the implicit demand for the disciple to carry the cross also) to confidence that the process is the work of love coming from and leading to the Father.

the Archbishop of Canterbury

To take one line of the Bible, and say "no-one who considers a non-Christian might be able to find God can themselves be a Christian" is a very exclusionary attitude. Who told you you could take one line of the Bible and say your interpretation of it can be a definition of a Christian? Would a look at the word 'Christian' be more useful - ie someone who believes Jesus was 'Christ', ie specially annointed by God? There's nothing in the normal definition that says "must interpret each line of the Bible in a literal way that agrees with someone else's interpretation".

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. OMG TOLERANCE! BURN THE WITCH!

"There are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity." Gee, how horrible.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

80. omg hyperbole the poster

"Yes Oprah does *allot of good* and I defended her when people were complaining about the school in South Africa, she does allot of good I have no qualms with her as a person!" Gee, how burning like.

[Zuiderelle]

74. A Christian is simply someone who believes in Christ and follows the Christian faith.

Being a good Christian is trying to live like Christ and God would have you live. There are several people of non-Christian faiths who live their lives in exactly the same way as a good Christian lives, by virtue of being charitable and compassionate and kind. She is a Christian because she says she is one. I really don't think it's any more complicated than that.

Oprah: "there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity."

That's an amazingly progressive way of accepting other people's religions. We could use more of that from every religious person in the world. People who take Jesus' words strictly literally are the ones doing more damage to this world than those who interpret them progressively and welcome people of all religions. It sounds like you are the type of Christian that thinks that the billions of non-Christians in this world are damned.

And anyway, what do you get out of claiming that she's not a Christian?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

81. I get to point out she is *not* a member of the Christian

faith..

[EstimatedProphet]

84. No, you DON'T get to point that out

[Zuiderelle]

85. How do you know that? If she says she is, she is.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

87. If she says she is the queen of england that does not make it so

in a similar manner if she does not follow the core tenantes of Christianity no matter what she says she is not a Christian.

[Zuiderelle]

90. You have not yet answered whether you believe that all non-Christians are damned. From your posts it

sounds like that's exactly what you believe. Since that's the ONLY thing you can claim about Oprah (her acceptance of other's religions and her belief that there are several pathways to God other than Christianity) to prove your erroneous assumption that she is not Christian.

Basically, anyone who thinks that a single Jew or Muslim or Buddhist has the potential for a relationship with God that does not involve converting to Christianity, is damned in your book and is not a Christian.

No wonder fundamentalist Christians have such a bad reputation if that's what they believe. "Everyone but me is worthless and Godless." :eyes:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

92. I believe the words of Christ

"I am the way the truth and the light, no man goes to the Father but by me". And Ill reserve the damning part to God I am a sinner as lost without Christ as anyone else but I can say that unless you come to the cross you will be judged for your sins.

BTW I am *equally worthless* so please dont put words in my mouth. Nothing I do or say will afford me the 'right' to heaven its all grace..

[Zuiderelle]

94. So, then you admit that you believe that ONLY Christians can find God.

I don't much care for fundamentalists.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

95. Im sorry you feel that way

My faith in no way changes who I interact with other or what the government can be doing but I don't fell like Ive lost anything because I don't much care for people who discriminate against others based on religious beliefs. If someone to you is a lesser person because of what they believe well I guess thats a box you fit into..

Regards

[Zuiderelle]

107. Actually, YOUR particular faith makes you unaccepting of anyone not like you.

And that affects all of us rather seriously. You are the one that is saying that non-Christians are less than you. Oprah and I disagree with you. Nice try.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

110. I avoid christians who think they are the only saved ones.

They love to point fingers and judge others.

I've been called an evil woman by my son in law. He's called his own father a sinner who has been led astray by ME, like he does not have enough sense to be a non-believer on his own.

I consider that to be a point of pride. Son in law has not read what Jesus said "Judge not lest ye be judged". He's illiterate anyway and scared to death of the world.

He got mad at me when I said one prophecy of Jesus came true - that he came with a sword to split families apart.

Religion has split families apart for generations.

[Lifetimedem]

149. . Son in law has not read what Jesus said "Judge not lest ye be judged

Actually that quote is used so often out of context. In context it is a warning that the judgment we make of others is a standard we will be held to.

So we had best make our judgments very carefully .


Actually more than one prophecy of Christ came true.. :)

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

112. It does?

I accept other peopl of other faiths can you tell me how I dont?

I am again saying no such thing as 'Im Better' I may be worse than some and better than others but its not by *my* acts or *my* standing that I might be saved. Whats really funny is this:

Oprah can say 'Im a Christian' and when I disagree because her statements contradict scripture im told 'she can call herself anything she wants'

I say 'I dont think Im better than anyone else and its only by grace I might be saved' and you say *you cant say that you obviously think youre better*

[Zuiderelle]

113. You don't accept that they can find God/salvation. So, yes, it does.

Saying that only Christians can find God, is no different than saying that you are better. You can spin it any fundamental way you want, and it still comes across as judgmental and unaccepting.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

114. lol whatever...

I did not end up where I am because *I* am superior to anyone how *you* want to hear that is beyond my control and, apparently, beyond reason.

[Zuiderelle]

119. You laugh instead of ever answering the question? That doesn't seem very Christian.

You believe that non-Christians cannot be saved and cannot enter the kingdom of God. True or not?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

127. I have answered the question

you have ignored it, you have denied it, and you will continue to do no different...

Yes one needs to come to Christ for salvation, all faiths have their absolute truths that is the truth of Christianity. It does not mean 'Christians are better' in order to come to Christ one must realize that they need him because they are worthless sinners before a holy God. I am indeed a sinner in the hands of an angry God (and his anger is just and Holy against me)..

I don't wish to continue to build up animosity between you and I so I will leave this conversation (that you and I are having) here...

Regards

[Zuiderelle]

129. Thanks you finally answered that you think all non-Christians are damned.

And, yes, it does mean that you think "true" Christians (only those who think that no others can reach salvation) are better, in regard to their ability to find salvation, than anyone else.

How you can't see that is beyond me.

[Bill McBlueState]

126. i disagree

"Saying that only Christians can find God, is no different than saying that you are better."

Why?

In evaluating a person, I don't see why it matters whether they're able to "find God." Or salvation. If God is a myth, and nobody needs "salvation" from anything, why would it matter? We should all be judged by the way we treat others, not by our adherence to whatever myths are popular.

[Zuiderelle]

131. In evaluating whether someone else is Christian, and saying they are NOT

because they accept that there are other paths to God, is judgmental and superior. It matters very much to a fundamentalist Christian whether someone else is able to find God. That's what this entire conversation is about. Did you read the stuff leading to this or are you just knee-jerking?

[Bill McBlueState]

135. sure, it matters to a fundamentalist Christian

But I think there's broad agreement on this board that fundamentalist Christians have the wrong outlook on a lot of issues.

I'm having a hard time understanding why it's such a big deal if someone says Oprah isn't a Christian. There's so little agreement over what "Christian" means that it's useless as an adjective. I'd think people would be more interested in what Oprah does than in what religion she is.

[Zuiderelle]

136. But you see, the person I'm conversing with is a fundamentalist Christian.

[Lifetimedem]

148. Soooo

If you think he is wrong why do you care what he thinks? What
difference does it make?

[Zuiderelle]

153. Soooo, welcome to DU.

This is a discussion board. Just so you know.

[EstimatedProphet]

105. The "core tenets" of Christianity are not universally set

the fact is, there is plenty of ongoing disagreement between the different branches of Christianity, on every point imaginable. that is why you do not have the authority to state that someone else is not a Christian because they don't believe what you think they are supposed to believe.

[Lifetimedem]

151. Actually they are set

The problem is that the term "Christian" has taken on a cultural meaning as well as a professional meaning.

The "official " definition of a Christian is one that gives intellectual assent to this creed.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

Our culture has changed and now often uses the word Christian to describe one that has professed faith in Christ for their salvation (as in "born again" or "saved" )

I do not know if Oprah would give an intellectual assent to the creed, but there is no question that the new age philosophies of which she is a proponent qualify as a religion.

[EstimatedProphet]

154. No they are not

There are many mainstream divisions of Christianity which allow for different interpretations of what it means to be Christian. The Nicene creed may be the base of what came out of the Council of Nicea, but it simply isn't a hard and fast rule, as if a literal interpretation of the creed is necessary or else someone isn't Christian.

[Midlodemocrat]

101. Uh, no you don't. Not at all.

:eyes:

[Chovexani]

140. For once, I agree with you.

It amazes me that so many dyed in the wool hardcore evangelicals love her show, when O's me-focused version of spirituality resembles nothing they believe in, except for the doing good works part. Theologically Oprah is square in the Watered Down New Age Bullshit category. Her belief system appears to be a haphazard mismash of whatever the latest trendy New Age thang is (not that there's anything wrong with that, it clearly works for her, but let's call it what it is--it ain't Christianity).

I have a fair amount of antipathy towards evangelical Christianity as practiced in the US (I left the church over ten years ago and am a practicing Neo-Pagan). But even I'm offended by this idea that all you have to do to get pegged as a member of a religion is the shallow outward stuff. This is like saying someone is a Hindu because they're vegetarian. Uh, no. One becomes a Hindu by worshipping Hindu deities, making puja, etc. And with all due respect to my Wiccan cousins, prancing around in tacky ren faire outfits and reading Scott Cunningham books doesn't make you Wiccan, either.

[Donnachaidh]

21. and you don't think that she takes the TAX CREDITS for those charities?

PUH-LEEZE!

Oh wait -- I've got this land in florida that will make you a millionaire. I'll sell it to you cheap! You might want to change the name though - Okeefenokee is really hard to pronounce....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cynatnite]

25. Anyone in their right mind would take tax credit for charity...

I do. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

[Donnachaidh]

26. So all thos *charities* are just to give herself a tax break

That's SOOOOO christian of her, ain't it? :sarcasm:

[cynatnite]

27. Oh, yes...we're so evil that we give money to poor people so we can write it off at tax time...

:sarcasm:

[Donnachaidh]

50. sure -- especially as she's given to so many to offset that BILLION dollar salary

Sorry hun -- I'm not a celebrity worshipper like the rest of the sheep who watch her show. It's also great PR to get even MORE *sheep* to watch her show. She gets even MORE of a salary BOOST with her *charities*.:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

145. How idiotic. NT

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

40. Sorry but availing youself of a tax-break does not

make giving any less note worthy... and unless youre giving money out to charities and not claiming them (or taking the standard deduction) you really are in no moral place to attack her for it..

[mondo joe]

78. Nothing wrong with taking a tax break for doing something good. NT

[Zuiderelle]

86. You should take a math course. If I give 100,000 to charity, why would I also pay tax on it?

SHE GIVES MONEY AWAY, it makes perfect sense to then reduce her overall income reported to the IRS by the same amount. She's not saving more than she's giving. She's GIVING a LOT more than the tax break she gets from it, so that others can benefit.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. If she believes Jesus is the son of God

and can grant salvation, she's free to call herself a christian, regardless of what else she believes.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

11. When she says Jesus was wrong

when he claimed to be the only way to the father she is most certainly not a Christian.

Im not Oprah bashing, she is a nice woman who does a ton of good in the world but she is *not* a Christian in anyway other than she was raised in a church.

--

BTW she is free to call herself whatever she wants but that does not make it so..

[MonkeyFunk]

12. I dunno

Many catholics believe Mary can grant salvation. I'm always wary when people try to decide what constitutes a "real" christian.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. Yup.

And, I am leary as well. No one has the ability to look into another's heart or soul.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

16. Oh for the love of pete

I'm not 'looking into her heart or soul and spitting on her' any attempts to paint this as such are either moronically obtuse or intentionally misleading.

Oprah is a good person of that I don't doubt and Ill take her word on the things she says *except when she makes two completely contradictory statements*

1) I'm a Christian
2) Christ is not the only way

are contradictory statements! Christians worship Christ as part of the triune God and as such when he said *nobody comes to the Father but by me* he means it.

You can like the philosophy of Jesus, the message and deny the deity and truth of his words but when you do that you forfeit the label of Christian.

[cynatnite]

22. Have you ever heard of Bart Ehrman?

He's a scholar and very knowledgeable on the Bible. He did in depth studies along with other scholars and it's an undisputed fact that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions.

The problem with the bible is that it was copied over and over and over. In the first several hundred years of historical christianity majority of those who copied books of the bible couldn't even read. They had no way of knowing what they were copying.

Much of the bible was rewritten and reinterpreted to fit a certain agenda.

Even the Counsel of Nicea, who picked the books in today's Bible, had an agenda and left out a ton of books because they wanted THEIR idea of Jesus and God to be told.

The Bible is a really old complex book full of inaccuracies and made by humans.

No one has a clue as to what a christian is supposed to be...well, except God...if you believe in him...or her.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

29. ugg this again.

The Bible is among the most well preserved ancient documents in existence and 99% of the NT can bre reproduced from multiple sources (not just Bible manuscripts but contemporary sermons and messages based on the bible)

The books left out were left out for a reason and it was not agenda driven there was a strict set of guidelines as to what went into the cannon and things had to pass a test to get in not the other way around.

Among them were references in other books, reliability of authorship, mentions by apostles and Christ as 'scripture'. If Christ quoted it (OT) it generally made it into the cannon, the gospels made it in because of authorship and authority of the sources and what letters made it in made it because the were referenced by an apostle as 'scriptures'. It was a very meticulous and strict process if you want to know more I suggest you read some of Grudems work

http://www.amazon.com/SYSTEMATIC-THEOLOGY-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700

There is more original source for the bible than any other book of antiquity..

--

I might also suggest the book or movie 'The case for Christ'

[cynatnite]

32. Actually, that's not true...

The books in the bible have been copied over and over and over again. This is fact. It's been proven and is without dispute by leading scholars.

We're not just talking bible interpretation here. There is verified carbon dating and written text to back it up. Ehrman isn't the only one, either.

And the Counsel of Nicea wanted to put forth their idea of christianity. They did so by censoring books that were considered valid at the time. There was dispute on how they wanted Jesus presented. Do they go with divine Jesus or with Jesus the man?

There were so many views and different sects of Christianity at the time that confusion was rampant. When the decisions were made there was a campaign to stomp out any other views of Christianity. That's why so many Gnostic books were lost, destroyed and hidden away.

I'm just amazed that you're so ready to dismiss it out of hand despite the hard evidence available. I'm an atheist, but I find historical Christianity fascinating. I'm always reading up on it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

34. Sorry guy youre missing facts...

With 1st generation sources referring to the Christian texts dated between 70-120 AD and *not* the texts themselves you can reconstruct all but a handful of versus.

The John Rylands fragment of the Gospel of John, found in Egypt in 1920, has been dated to between 125 AD and 150 AD. The fragment, which is a copy of John, demonstrates that John wrote from Ephesus as early as 90 AD.

So we have within 30 years of the writings of NT docs so much reference that we dont really need the original any more and not *one of them* disagrees. The belief that there were hundred to thousands of iterations in a couple of decade span when many of those who were taught by the apostles themselves (not to mention some of the younger apostles) were still alive is just foolish on its face.

"They did so by censoring books that were considered valid at the time."

No they did so by setting a really high bar for what got into the cannon and anything that did not was thrown out. They wanted to be as exclusive as possible to avoid instances when authority, authorship, and reliability of books was questionable, really read the systematic theology book it should be in your library and the issues youre bringing up are discussed in the first several chapters..

--

I'm just amazed that you're so ready to dismiss it out of hand despite the hard evidence available. I'm an atheist, but I find historical Christianity fascinating. I'm always reading up on it.

--

Right... cause your the first person Ive come across in my life to make this claim, and your the first person to sight scholars, and Ive read up on many sources pro and con because im just not interested... I dismiss it because I have already looked into this, its not new, smart, or hip, its just the same recycled garbage people were spitting when they used to claim Pilot did not exist (later corroborated by contemporary secular findings), when the Gospel of John was questioned before the Rylands find in 1920, The dismissal of bethesda before archaeologist found it in 1888, ... lather rinse repeat...

[cynatnite]

41. Well, I'm not a guy...

Errors were common in antiquity mainly because most of the scribes could not read and there are instances where some intentionally changed text. When texts are compared to one another there is enough of a difference that it makes deciphering almost impossible in some cases.

Majority of the population was illiterate and the only way one could hear about Jesus was through scribes. They were so few compared to the large populations that majority of Christianity was spread orally. Between that and the poor job many did at copying it should be no surprise that we would have a completely different Christianity now than what was common at the time. The old Testament was taught right beside Christianity and most of the time Judaism was strictly followed in addition.

As different sects appeared many came with the belief that there was no need to continue Judaism in addition to Christianity.

No one knows who even wrote the Gospels...let alone the rest of the New Testament. We can assume all we'd like, but more than likely we'd be wrong. None of the disciples could even read.

How do we know what actually happened in those days is correctly given to us given the huge discrepancies in the bible?

We don't know. You can have all the faith in the world, but there is never any way to be positive.

Now, you can dismiss Ehrman as much as you'd like, but he is one of the few who have broken down the studying of coptic and Greek manuscripts to show exactly how he came to the conclusions he did. It's very detailed and he shows exactly why there are problems in the bible.

Out of all the reading I've done in regards to the people in the Bible and the book itself, his is one of the most detailed and no one has been able to discredit his work.

No one can discredit his work because it's reliable, respected and it's correct. The scientific evidence backs up his conclusions.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

42. Apologies for the gender assumption ;)

"Errors were common in antiquity mainly because most of the scribes could not read and there are instances where some intentionally changed text."

We are talking *first generation originals* not copies of copies of copies as you continue to imply.

"No one knows who even wrote the Gospels."

Sorry but you're dead off with the exception of Hebrews the authorship of each and every NT book is well established via the same process you would use for any historical document (including dating methods).

"How do we know what actually happened in those days is correctly given to us given the huge discrepancies in the bible?"

We know because multiple independent sources from all over the empire *agreed with each other*

[cynatnite]

44. The counsel of Nicea used copies...

Plus there was no way to determine if the texts were first generation or not because so much of it had been lost over a period of time. Most of the manuscripts had markings on them that indicated a scribe had marked out some words not to mention the ones that were changed.

The Gospels were written in Greek and 90% of the population was illiterate. They could not read or write at all. The only ones who knew how to read did so because they had the time and the money to learn. The disciples were poor, undeducated and on the low end of the classes in those days. The chances any of them could read was remote at best.

Do you even know about the discrepancies in the Bible? Judas was killed in two different ways. Jesus was given both wine and vinegar. Two different descriptions of the robe on Jesus. After Jesus was baptized was he in the wilderness or with his desciples?

There is so much more....

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

So, how can there be independent resources agreeing with each other when the bible can't even agree with itself.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

45. The docs used at Nicea

Were identical to the original sources that can be use to reconstruct the NT word for word..

crap if I had only read the bible /sarc

Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

--

It doesn't really say it was in two different ways if you research the ones who wrote the accounts. Some accounts were a little more detailed than others because that was the nature of the gospel writer. Apparently Judas began by trying to hang himself from a tree, and this tree was apparently near a cliff. What most likely happened was that in trying to hang himself, the branch on the tree broke, and he fell down the cliff onto the rocks and was killed that way, but ultimately it was from trying to hang himself.

For those who actually are looking for clarity on things like this, they do research to see what the case may have been. Ignorant people just sit around and say "oh the Bible just contradicts itself over and over", and yet they won't be bothered to do a little work to see if they're wrong. (And they always are.)

[cynatnite]

47. Okay...one verse says one thing...and another says something different...

:shrug: Are you saying it's NOT contradictory? Really?

So, in order for your belief to remain intact you have to come up with 'oh, well, both probably happened'. Gotcha.

Intelligent people, who want the truth and are not afraid of it, read, research, and question. You dismiss the blatant problems of the bible by calling those folks who see it ignorant and lazy.

I didn't come to be an atheist out of ignorance and laziness. It grew from years of doubt, watching hypocrisy, observing suffering, reading the bible and listening to those folks who proclaim to have the most knowledge about it.

I can put forth example after example of problems in the Bible and no matter how many I list...you'll dismiss it out of hand because it challenges your view of this religion. You don't want to acknowledge problems.

It's understandable, you know. Realizing that the bible is as fallible as any other ancient written word can be unnerving. It can have a tremendous impact on one's faith. It was very difficult for me because it had been apart of my life for a very long time. In many ways...it still is. I find some of the bible very inspirational and lifting.

I'm not going to deny those aspects of the Bible that teaches us to be better human beings. I'd be a fool to do so, but I'm not going to deny it's blatant fallibility either.

[Dorian Gray]

55. I don't deny

that Oprah is Christian. I do think that the philosophy of The Secret, a book in which she strongly supports and claims to live by, is severely contradictory to the theological basis of Catholicism/Anglicanism/Presbyterianism/Lutheranism and many other Christian sects.

There are many other Christian sects, however, that hold beliefs that are contradictory to those mainline Christian denominations, as well. Pentecostalists, 7th Day Adventists, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons. Which is why there are often heated arguments about whether they are actually Christians in the first place.

I can't judge her, though I strongly disagree with the views of The Secret, and I deny that they have any place in Christian philosophy.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

93. Of course both could have easily happened

I can pick up any two accounts about an event written for different purposes and start to find things which appear to be contradictions.

"I'm not going to deny those aspects of the Bible that teaches us to be better human beings."

And why prey tell, would you be able to trust those?

[Lost-in-FL]

62. There is NO first generation original...

So we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies done by illiterate human coping machines thus the HUGE discrepancies in the bible.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

66. Yes there are...

The John Rylands fragment of the Gospel of John, found in Egypt in 1920, has been dated to between 125 AD and 150 AD. The fragment, which is a copy of John, demonstrates that John wrote from Ephesus as early as 90 AD.

[Zuiderelle]

111. So something found that dates back to about 90-120 years after Jesus died,

that "demonstrates" that someone else wrote something some 60 years after he died, when he himself was QUITE elderly (especially by the standards then)... What exactly does that prove? Especially when no current bibles have that exact text, and have been translated and interpreted umpteen times since?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

115. the something that 'someone' wrote

was a contemporary of Jesus and a witness to the events... and the origional text still exist..

BTW I dont ever study the Bible without the original greek and Hebrew in mind..

[Zuiderelle]

118. A contemporary who was VERY ELDERLY, and whose text has been translated and interpreted

several times over in the end-product that is read by MOST Christians. I'm impressed that you understand ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew so well, but it doesn't change the FACT that you are a fundamentalist who believes that no one but Christians can enter the "kingdom of God." Whether it was actually written that way, which really is meaningless since Jesus did not write it himself, or not.

[Lost-in-FL]

63. Ehrman but also Karen Armstrong...

has great info that can be correlated. I am reading A History of God but want to get this one in the link...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16220762

[mrreowwr_kittty]

108. "...it was not agenda driven .. "

Yeah, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya. :rofl:

The whole point of organized religion is to impose an agenda on people.

[TNOE]

37. Well, let me just add this 1 thing

it appears to me that the RW has hijacked and sullied the very word "christian" - which I was under the impession ws supposed to mean 'CHRIST LIKE' (trying to live like Jesus did)

- so for now - I know many who are embarrassed and ashamed to refer to themselves as "christian". That label brings to mind George W. Bush (1st & foremost), Ted Haggert, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Trentt Lott, Larry Craig, Jimmy Swagert, etc., etc., etc., and all the other phoneys out there - where "christian" is just another word for "trust me, but please don't pay any attention to my actions".

We live in a world now where our CHRISTIAN president has ordered and authorized the "torture" of other human beings. If that's "christian", then I want no part of them.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

43. Please dont call me RW just becuase I disagree with ones theology

says nothing of my politics..

BTW the dictionary:

1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

--

There are many wonderful, charitable, loving people who are not Christian and Oprah is one of them, there are many who would seem to act in accordance with Buddhism in their interactions who are not Buddhist..

And FWIW I seriously doubt * is a Christian..

[TNOE]

46. I was not calling you a RW

because I don't believe you are. I am just saying - and will state again - that many on the right side of the isle (Rightwingers) have sullied the name "christian", and that unfortunately, is a fact. And its a shame, but its the truth. Once upon a time being a "christian" was seen as a good, moral thing. Not anymore. But then Bush ruined that - just as he has ruined everything else he has ever touched.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

96. Thanks for clearing that up

Sorry I jumped to any conclusion, my faith here often gets people to make assumptions about what 'box' I fit into.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

123. GWB says he's a Christian. Who are you to deny him?

And I'm guessing he subscribes to a similar doctrine as you vis a vis the role of Christ.

Face it, you and George W. Bush are both Christians.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. It is Christian. Christians are self identifying.

No matter how badly they act.
Don't use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether Oprah is irrelevant and a time-waster for people who are obsessed with labeling people.

"A New Earth", her current book, is basic Buddhism. I think she's helping people get rid of their egos and helping them realize that now is the only moment we have.

The people who scream about Oprah not being Christian should use that energy to go help poor people instead of to judge Oprah. Those people are scared of everything and can't handle the idea that Oprah might be open to better ideas than the exclusive, elitist ideas of Christianity: the ones about "I'm going to heaven, and you're going to Hell, so I'm better than you". That is ego all over.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

97. No true scottsman does not apply here

Saying someone is not a us citizen because they dont fit a et of parameters is not no true scottsman and neither is saying if you dont fit the parameters of being a Christian than youre not a christian.

Im not saying 'no true Christian would do infant baptism' because there is no firm rule in the Bible for that but if you don't worship Christ your not a Christian in the same way that if Bush tomorrow started calling himself a Buddhist he would *not* be a buddhist because there are a set of beliefs associated with that label that he doe snot share..

BTW Ive always admired Oprah for what she does and I wont speak an ill word about that, even on this thread when other questioned her motivation for giving I stood up for her. Im making a statement on her views versus God v Christianity..

I have no ego about my salvation on my own deeds I dont deserve it I am a lying adulterer who has idols in his life and covets (just to start the list) by the law of God I am damned. Ego is saying that one does not have to hold the tennants of a faith to call themselves a member..

[mondo joe]

99. Wrong. US citizen status is empirically verifiable.

Christianity is not.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

102. Yes it is

There are a set of doctrines one has to subscribe to a few core doctrines

1) Deity of Christ
2) Nature of God

Are among the most critical!

Like I said GWB can call himself a devout Buddhist but that does not make it so..

[mondo joe]

144. No, those are your standards. There are no empirical standards. Stop mistaking

yourself for the empirical truth.

[trotsky]

147. TENETS of faith, not "tennants."

Man that one bugs me. TENNANTS are people who rent property.

[Midlodemocrat]

59. Dude.

Do not EVER lecture me on Christianity. EVER.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

67. Well it seems you are either

ignorant of the tenints of the religion or Oprahs take on them...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. I'm talking about logic. I never said Christianity was logical!!!

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is a logical fallacy.

That's the fallacy people use when they say "So and so is NOT a Christian, they kill millions of people; therefore, Hitler was not a Christian".

Logical fallacy.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

[bullwinkle428]

152. Yeah, Midlo...don't be so ignorant about the "tenints" of the religion!

:spray:

[Zuiderelle]

88. Do you take the entire bible literally? Do you really believe no one but Christians can find God?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

14. Actually no

Catholics believe Mary is the co-redemptrix in that she is the mother of Christ. Catholics believe that saints take prayers to God not that they themselves answer prayer..

I understand we live in a society that says call yourself whatever you like but there are some *core* Christian beliefs that if you don't share you're not a Christian. Christ being the only way to the father is one of them, the nature of God and the trinity is another.

I'm not bashing people can be far nicer than anyone you know and not be a Christian but Oprah calling herself a Christian is like someone who voted gop every cycle, fund raises for the gop, and is at odds with the core plank of the DNC calling themselves a democrat.. because they were born into a home of democrats and never bothered to change their registration..

[Elspeth]

18. Maybe we should ask the damned pope about it. He's here today

Of course, the last REAL pope was John Paul II. This new guy is a fraud.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

30. Im not a catholic (or orthodox at all for that matter)

So while he can answer Ill still use scripture first..

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. How about the Archbishop of Canterbury: " Muslims can go to heaven"

He surprised some at the three-day Greenbelt festival in Cheltenham, Glos, by declaring that Muslims can go to heaven.

Dr Williams said that neither he nor any Christian could control access to heaven. "It is possible for God's spirit to cross boundaries," he said.

"I say this as someone who is quite happy to say that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Jesus. But how God leads people through Jesus to heaven, that can be quite varied, I think."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/30/narch30.xml

[Zuiderelle]

109. OMG Stone him! He's not a Christian. Only through accepting JC can you get to heaven!

/sarcasm

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

116. omg hyperbole

where, exactly, have I called for violence or placed *myself* above Oprah or the good Archbishop on this thread?

[Zuiderelle]

117. OMG! Fundamentalism.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

120. well at least that lable is appropriate

but I don't push my faith on others by the use of law or social pressure...

Regards

[Zuiderelle]

121. No you just push your faith on others by claiming that their faith is meaningless.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

124. Thats not pushing my faith

thats disagreeing with them... have we moved so far that we are no longer allowed to disagree?

Regards

[Zuiderelle]

125. Actually it is pushing your faith. What should I call it when someone claims someone is not

Christian when they are Christian? You are pushing YOUR version of faith on Oprah, who IS Christian. You are defining HER faith by your definition of YOUR faith. It's very pushy indeed.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

128. Buddhist say that all suffering is because of desire

are they pushing their faith? after all you have to follow their path so you 'dont suffer'

..

Im not pushing my faith on Oprah I am saying she *is not* a member of my faith, any more than trump could call himself a buddhist..

[Zuiderelle]

130. Buddhists do not claim that other Buddhists are not Buddhists simply because they interpret some

parts of Buddhism differently than they do. You are indeed pushing YOUR VERSION OF YOUR FAITH on Oprah to interpret that she is not Christian. When she is, in fact, Christian.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

132. Cough cough

http://www.alexwright.org/blog/archives/001082.html

[Zuiderelle]

134. And linking to one person's blog proves what?

It doesn't prove any more than there are buddhists who are as unaccepting and fundamentalist as they are some Christians, like you.

Bottom line for me here, since we are continuing this silly conversation despite your claim that you didn't want to continue it, is that you are a fundamentalist who feels he has some right to judge other Christians and decide whether or not they are actually Christians based on one sole belief that people of other faiths are capable of reaching God. Somehow, believing that means that she is not Christian herself.

Ridiculous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. You do seem to be saying he isn't a Christian, as well as Oprah

and that anyone who agrees with him aren't Christians either. It's an extreme Humpty Dumpty stance you're taking - not only do words mean exactly what you say, you won't allow anyone else to define them either. Instead, you have unilaterally declared one line of the Bible to be the defining characteristic of the most popular religion in the world.

At least you're placing yourself above the dictionary compilers.

[Dorian Gray]

53. The only Catholics

who believe that are Catholics who are ignorant about Church teaching.

(Having said that, there are many Catholics who are ignorant about Church teaching. But, they're still Catholics.)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

69. Catholics believe in salvation by good works too. Are they not Christian? Please answer. -nt

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

75. I think of catholics like any other Chrsitian faith

There are Christians and non Christians in any given service. But to simplify it to 'good works' ignores that to catholics the seed of those works has to be Christ, Catholics are a very sacramental sect so to say doing good works is all there is to is is *especially* misleading in their case as you must make your first communion, confirmation, ...,... Catholics just believe *beyond* this that wors are evidance of salvation.

Short answer: just like a baptist Church some are some are not..

--

[mondo joe]

79. No one knows what Jesus claimed. She's disagreeing with an interpretation of a story.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

82. Thats a quote..

Jesus: I am the way...

[mondo joe]

98. Its from a story written by people not there, and then interpreted in both language

and meaning.

You can think it means anything you want - no one is obliged to share your interpretation.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

103. Who are you to say who can call themselves Christian?

Screw that "they're not a True Christian(tm)" noise. A Christian is anyone who says they are one. That includes Bush, Cheney, John McCain, and Rev. Sun Myung Moon. You don't get to pick and choose whom you associate with so you can pretend that organized religion doesn't create and protect people like the aforementioned.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

104. Thank you for repeating what I said upthread.

Only you said it more forcefully. People who say that Christians don't do bad things cling to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The comparison of a US citizen's status to Christianity is a strawman (distraction).

Thank you again.

Yes, Hitler WAS a Christian!!! George W. Bush is a Christian, although he has killed around a million people in Iraq. The Popes who sent millions of children to the Middle East to be slaughtered were Christians!! John Calvin, who barbecued the first Unitarian,Michael Servetus, at the stake, was a Christian! The priests who drowned and barbecued millions of men and women as witches were Christians!

You can't pick and choose who is a Christian. Sorry.

The fact that those mass murders give Christianity a bad name is NOT my problem.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

106. According to the logic of the DUer you're arguing with

GWB is a real Christian and Oprah is not. That's why I will never see organized religion as anything but arbitrary, bewildering bullshit designed to control people.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

139. yes it is arbitrary bewildering BS designed to control people.

Right you are.

People who are freaking out about Oprah not being Christian because she thinks that people of other religions are OK too, are busy limiting themselves, and they are threatened by the fact that Oprah is growing in her spirituality, by seeing that there is not one path to enlightenment. Good for her.

The Christians are so threatened by Eckhardt Tolle and Oprah's series on A New Earth, you would not believe how enraged they are.

Why don't they use that energy constructively, like working at a food bank or clothing the naked or sheltering the homeless? Huh? Why not?

Because then they wouldn't be making noise and drawing attention to themselves for being SOOOO righteous and holy.

[LisaM]

5. Is it Our Lady of the Eternal Victim?

Just asking.......

[Donnachaidh]

23. No -- that's Jerry Springer's Church

Oprah's would be the Church of the Eternal Giveaways.

Be prepared to sign a receipt for tax purposes...:evilgrin:

[Alcibiades]

28. She's already a cult leader

I sometimes watched her show a long time ago, back when it was a regular talk show. Sometimes she would interview self-help types, now she has become one herself.

It must be weird, being that rich and having so many people fawning all over you, telling you how great you are. Before long, you begin to believe it, and, after you've interviews enough gurus, you become a guru yourself. Eventually, she will acknowledge her status as the messiah.

One of my wife's friends is an Oprahite. Oprah talks about how great facebook is, bam, she gets a facebook page. Oprah gets a body scan, bam, she flies out to California to get one herself. Bizarre.

[TNOE]

38. If she's a cult leader

I sure hope she has a huge following then - and that it grows to be more enormous than any other religion. Because that woman has done more good for tens of thousands of people over her lifetime than anyone else I've seen in my lifetime. If we would all just do or give a drop of what she does - the world would be a much better place, that's for sure.

[Alcibiades]

64. I had no idea

I have not watched her in years. All I know is that my wife's friend seems to think she's far more worthy of emulation than the person I used to watch on TV seemed to be, back when she was a regular talk show host. I do know about the car thing, and about the school, but that's about it. Maybe I'm not paying attention, or she's just not all that interested in publicizing these charitable acts, and does it quietly. I would really respect her if that's the case.

My wife said that giving money to start up a school in Africa is one thing, but she would be really impressed if Oprah actually chose to forgo running her financial empire to go and serve as a teacher at such a school.

[TNOE]

39. BUT - let me add

That I do not believe she has started a church - she has merely found a book and made it her Book of the Month club and is holding on-line classes. Many people have claimed that book has opened their eyes and have saved their lives and their marriages and their families.

So - if you want to consider that "church", then fine, because apparently she is doing more for families than the churches currently are.

[earth mom]

51. Not exactly sure what you are referring to, but Oprah starting her own church is ominous.

This whole Obama thing is evidence of that because Obama would be NO WHERE without Oprah. The entire thing is scary and too much like a cult.

No more Oprah for me. I'm creeped out by her now. :yoiks: :puke:

[Dorian Gray]

56. Yeah... I'm also

a little creeped out by her, too.

[Generator]

60. And Mrs. Clinton would too be nowhere without marrying a president

Cause I noticed she never ran for any office until she gave Bill his turn. Couldn't resist the Obama bashing heh? YES, he'd be nuthing without Oprah. Absolutely nothing.

[Richard Steele]

52. "Robotology? Why couldn't Bender just join some MAINSTREAM religion like Voodoo, or Oprah-ism?"

Life imitates art.

Sometimes, really LAME art. :shrug:

[spanone]

54. we don't need no more steeeeenkin' churches

[Mind_your_head]

57. Everyone always thinks they "know better" than g-d

when 'we' don't. That's the problem right there.

Oprah is no different.

[Alcibiades]

65. BTW, what is this g-d thing?

I've seen it before--is there some sort of taboo involved?

Seriously, if anyone can tell me the significance of this, I'd really like to know. :shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

71. Judaism forbids writing "God." Oddly, in any language.

Yep, in Portuguese you see "D-us" or "D*us."

[Alcibiades]

89. Thanks

I've had students do this in papers. Now at least I know there's a good reason so I don't mark them down for it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

138. DUDE! You were marking people down for THAT? -nt

[mondo joe]

76. I have the advantage over god of being real. NT

[Generator]

61. Nah she's just peddling the same new age crap she always has

Not that there isn't some truth there, but she thinks it's the end all. She's been pushing it forever.

[susankh4]

73. Another one jumps the shark.

Too bad.

[TNOE]

91. I am astounded by the fact that there are people

who could possibly "dis" Oprah and find a reason to rag on her.

How much money has this woman given away? Tons.

How many people has she helped? Millions.

Just the Oprah's Big Give show alone - has helped a tremendous amount of people - her school in Africa, she is TEACHING & SHOWING people HOW TO GIVE and get the excited about it.

And "this" creeps people out? Yea, that makes alot of sense. Not. Thank God for Oprah, and Thank God for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jole, and for George Clooney, etc., etc. - and all those who are showing the way.

[Midlodemocrat]

100. Great post.

:applause:

[Lost-in-FL]

137. ...

:applause:

[earth mom]

141. I said I was creeped out by Oprah because her ego is out of control.

Oprah is a smug know it all and I'm sick of it.

Sure Oprah has done good things but that does NOT mean she should be put on a pedestal. NO ONE should be.

FYI-Oprah foisted Arnold on California, kissed up to O'Lielly, didn't even try to help Kerry in '04, and now is pushing a corporatist like Obama, which is the last thing this country needs.

Sorry, but NOTHING is going to change with Obama or Hillary for that matter.

Who in the hell does Oprah think she is?!

First Oprah pushed "The Secret" on everyone and now she's pushing some other similar crap on her website.

I'm agnostic, and I do NOT want to be preached to or have religion pushed on me by anyone and certainly not on airwaves that belong to the public!

Oprah needs to shut the hell up, before she alienates her entire audience! :grr:

[Mind_your_head]

146. Even our 'best works' are nothing but dirty rags in G-d's sight.....

perhaps the derision has something to do with that? :shrug:

[Arugula Latte]

122. self-delete.

I need more coffee. :hangover:

[Javaman]

142. Is she going to have a funny hat and her own domed mobile? nt

[Angela Shelley]

150. Good idea, just google www.oprahmobile.com

and if there´s no match, then you have your chance to make a million!