What is refreshing is to see a skeptic admit with candor that they don't care about balanced treatment by a major news organization. It isn't about journalism afterall, it is about payback!

I never said, and would not say, such a thing at all. What I did say, is that it's about bloody time a relatively objective account of the subject was presented, as opposed to the "presuppositionalist" blather that characterizes most christian television programming.

Koyaanisqatsi is right on the money. You lot play transparently disingenous semantic games.

Why would you expect Christian programming to be unbiased? I certainly don't expect the SecWeb to be unbiased.

Of course, neither the Christian programming nor the SecWeb are a major media outlet that pawns itself off as unbiased.

Did they even ask E.P. Sanders if he was available? J.P. Meier? Witherington? Stanton? Why FOUR scholars from one institute?

Of course, you cannot defend the ABC program as unbiased. As a result, your only recourse is to bash fundies. In this case, you are bashing them for not being unbiased. Of course, they don't pretend to be.

I said that?? I'm sorry - I've lost track. What are you on about? Is this "Statement C" or "Statement D" you're arguing now?

Have you been taking debating lessons from Omnedon?

You flatly claimed that you welcome ABC's "relatively objective" (how so?) account vs. the presuppositionalist "blather that characterizes most christian television programing."

So it seems that you are unworried that ABC offered a biased presentation, flatly ignored leading New Testament scholars (such as J.P. Meier, E.P. Sanders, and Graham Stanton), because Christians have had too much to say.

Never heard of him. But I'm going out on a limb here and assume you're not the president of his fan club.

Correctomundo. "Relatively objective" in that it doesn't assume the divinity, virgin birth, crucifiction, etc., etc., etc. You know, like Jesus shows on TV do. Never seen one?

I find that "relatively objective" quite obviously because I do not subscribe to the veracity of those miraculous events. My use of the term "relatively" (which I deliberately italicized for your edification and enjoyment) necessarily implied comparison, yes?

Sheesh. It was a two-hour program, not a bloody Ken Burns extravanganza. Were you on the research team? Can you tell us who was and was not contacted, who refused to appear, who was wilfully excluded, who was under contract to CBS at the time, who was unavailable by dint of being on an Ark hunting expedition to Mount Ararat ...

Trust me, when Raymond E. Brown turns up on Conan, or better yet, gets his own talk show, I'll watch it.

And let's not kid ourselves. The only real "objective journalism" is a baseball score. Objectivity is an ideal, something towards which we can only strive. In my opinion however, (which you are free to dispute and offer alternative evidence against) Peter Jennings is a damned good journalist.

No comment.

"Sheesh. It was a two-hour program, not a bloody Ken Burns extravanganza. Were you on the research team? Can you tell us who was and was not contacted, who refused to appear, who was wilfully excluded, who was under contract to CBS at the time, who was unavailable by dint of being on an Ark hunting expedition to Mount Ararat ..."


When you have limited time it is all the more important to give a balanced program. Again, they included FOUR scholars from the Jesus Seminar. And seriously doubt that Sanders, Meier, Stanton, and Witherington refused to be on the show. And these are just the moderate scholars. I'm sure a host of evangelicals, such as Craig or Carson, would have jumped at the chance. And even if they were contacted (doubtful) and refused (unbelievable) to be on the show, their ideas and works are well known and could have been alluded to.

The SecWeb slams Lee Strobel for not inlcuding opposing view points when he flatly titled his book, "The Case FOR Christ." But when ABC ignores moderate to conservative scholars you think its "relatively balanced."

And FYI, if Rayomd Brown showed up on Conan, I'm sure EVERYONE in America would be watching. He's been dead for a few years now.

Bede

I preferred the programme from our good old BBC. Watch it and learn.

B

Attention all atheists! For truly balanced view on Jesus: go to church! (preferably the one you were baptized in)

I realize that. I figured that in your quest for "objectivity" you would expect nothing less than an appearance by an actual denizen of the supernatural underworld.

Please don't bother responding with another litany of gratuitous namedropping. I don't care what the Secular Web had to say about Lee Strobel either. I get the point. You didn't like the ABC special.

God forbid an unrefuted questioning of the existence of Jesus should be presented to the American public. Hell, they should have censored Crossan too. He's far too conservative for me. Into the flames with Spong! Goddamn those Christian propagandists at ABC! Peter Jennings is a an unwitting tool of the Papacy! All Hail Almighty Satan!