The new one has its pluses and Tyson is an intelligent man.

But, I do dislike this type of intellectual dishonesty to score a point in an emotionally charged debate.

Some further discussion on this topic that I am glad you brought up:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christophers/2014/03/cosmos-may-get-science-right-but-it-gets-church-history-wrong/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christophers/2014/03/revisiting-the-cosmos-giordano-bruno-controversy-a-few-days-later/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2014/03/dishonestcosmos/

You should have hated this (among other things in those links):

40-50%? I had never seen that number. Is that worldwide Christians? Or in the US?

how you ask the questions.

http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164


Just How Many Young-Earth Creationists Are There in the U.S.?
Posted on November 8, 2013

But it varies on how the questions are crafted. Really hard to honestly gauge.

you come out swinging with the insults and the hyperbole and make an ass of yourself.

The other two replies covers the 'numbers'.

You can only see the fundamentalists and not the reality that here and elsewhere the mainstream Christian seminaries and churches are NOT 'young earth creationists'. They are in the minority even if they currently make up the 'majority' of the political religious right. And atheists, agnostics, and other Christians (Jews, Buddhist, etc.) fight against their idiocy daily.

And this little bullshit post to attack the 'religionistas' completely ignores the OP and my reply. Irrespective of fundamentalists, for an atheist and a scientist to be factually wrong to push an agenda makes him and you no better than a fundamentalist.

The original Cosmos did not need an inaccurate little cartoon about Bruno to make its point.

Clearly a plurality and probably a majority of Christians are Creationist. depending how you approximate the numbers within the groups. Unless you want to make the stand that Christians make up an equal percent of all three groups,(including God was not involved) then it's a majority.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

With fully two thirds of weekly Church goers are young earthers.

Are you counting churches and not people?, That seems pointless.

The poll clearly shows it's not just the fringe rw fundamentalists. But the majority of Christians.

beyond damned polls of just 'church goers'. Polls are notoriously inaccurate given their questions and stated intent.

Instead, actually look at the number of accredited seminaries for the majority of Christian denominations in this country that teach young earth creationism - hint, you will probably have a hard time finding many if any. Then go to the position and belief statements of the mainstream Christian denominations in this country - Anglican, Methodists, Church of Christ, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, and yes, even Baptists. Will you find support for 'creationism' as this form of literal bullshit? No. This is the majority of American religious people who call themselves nominally Christian or full believers. It is a very vocal and outspoken idiot minority that pushes against science. I absolutely agree that they must be pushed back against hard. You won't educate them from without so legal measures are the best bet.

The Southern Baptist Convention is considered one of the more conservative Christian denominations. Creationism is not one of their stated tenets or beliefs. Now, they are completely anti-homosexuality which means they are hardly progressive and worthy of support. But they do not teach or condone a literal fundamentalistic belief in creationism.

I am more interested in the denominations and their accredited seminaries. It is in these places that beliefs eventually transfer down to from the pulpit to the everyday church goer. The more believers and non-believers alike allow for education from within and legal protection from without, the more educated these 'everyday folk' will become. Hell, just look at civil rights and gay marriage for two immediate examples. The role of women in the church is another modern example. Change the leaders' and educators' hearts and minds and the people eventually follow.

Yelling at the idiots is cathartic I am sure for many who have been raised and hurt by such extreme religious beliefs. And if many new atheists wish to do so, fine and dandy with me. But, some may consider stepping back, looking within at that rage & hurt, and realizing that the Christian believers on this site are neither idiots, bigots, nor are they against science. Why the constant need for some here to alienate their allies just because they are fucking upset is rather useless and pointless to me.

within the Churches themselves can be q big help to change this.

But your continued reference to seminaries and Churches written tenets is a non-sequitor.

The majority of Christians in this country are Creationist. You obviously have a hard time accepting this, but that's just how it is.
Hopefully things will turn around someday, but ignoring the breadth of the problem doesn't help.

And as I said, the polls are worthless as done.

Yes, the majority of Christians are 'creationists'. Most religious people belief in some form of theistic creation.

But there is a significant different between young earth creationists and theistic creationists who still accept science. The former are a problem as evidenced by the religious right whom I have battled in various forms for decades. The later are how most Christians would answer if polls were asked different....yes, even the everyday church goer.

I don't get up in arms when there isn't a problem to fight - like here on DU with believers who are not idiot fundamentalists adverse to science and reason.

means zero. Do you have evidence that they're worthless? Or are you just going to continue with empty denials of anything that doesn't fit your agenda? Poll after poll after poll after poll, over decades, has shown that a majority or nearly a majority of American Christians are young earth creationists. Are they all totally wrong, just because you say so?

quite well with regards to the wording of the polls in question.

http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164

So yes, I tend to see the polls as worthless because of how they are worded and their inconsistencies with each other.

Can you ever reply with out being dickish?

that even comes close to showing that young-earth creationists are a "tiny minority" had to project it from a question that didn't even mention the evolution of life, and about which very few people even think or have an opinion before being asked. In short, a poll as worthless as you claim all of the others are.

And when people on this board act like dickish, arrogant assholes who are just here to bait and stir shit, I don't feel compelled to respond politely, no. Based on your recent posting history, you're about the last person who should be upbraiding others for being "dickish". Unfailingly polite, you ain't.

that don't support your conclusions.

I do dearly adore the projection as well. Keep it up.

"Polls are notoriously inaccurate"? Sheesh.

Very similar polls, asking very similar questions about belief in creation/evolution have been conducted for decades. The results are very consistent over time, and have never shown Biblical young earth creationists to be anything even close to a tiny minority. Where exactly did all of these people with their consistent beliefs come from (and where do they KEEP coming from), unless their religion has something to do with it?

Have you checked the results and methodology of all those polls, and found legitimate flaws in every one? Can you cite results of an equal number of polls that you can prove are more reliable and which show significantly different results? Because your lame, hand-waving, fact-free dismissal doesn't change a thing.

Ignorance of science and ignorance of religion.

That a large number, almost certainly a majority, of American Christians are young-earth, Biblical literalist creationists. Whether they all call themselves fundamentalists is frankly irrelevant. The claim that this group is a "small minority" is horseshit. Their beliefs and theology (to the extent they have it) are not "scientifically informed", and they vehemently deny the validity of any science that contradicts their beliefs. There's no "compatibility" with these people whatsoever. If there were, there wouldn't still be endless fights over ramming creationism into science classes.

Again, you are so busy being a bullshit artist and blustering yourself that you still fail to address the facts of the OP, Bruno, and the inaccuracies presented in the reboot of Cosmos.

I wonder why that is.

Nor have I said anywhere that I thought it was brilliantly and perfectly accurate. So why would I feel the need to leap in and defend it to you? Yes, I saw some inaccuracies and stretches. Show me a science show or documentary that doesn't have them. And yes, they had a cartoon of Bruno saying something he probably didn't really, to make a point about imagining (not proving) the vast scope of the universe (which was one of the main themes of the episode).

If you want to gripe that that bit of artistic license (it's TV and entertainment after all, not a scientific journal) de-legitimized the entire show and that you got nothing out of it because of that, that's your business. Some people still managed to enjoy it. I'm guessing you did too, and are just nitpicking here to try to bait people. If I keep watching and find too many inaccuracies to tolerate, then I'll spend my time otherwise, but this one thing certainly wouldn't spoil it completely for me.

artistic license has no place in teaching and popularizing science? If a high school science teacher came in dressed and acting as Darwin one day to talk to his class about evolution and how the theory came about, would it be totally inappropriate, even though he wasn't Darwin, and said some things that Darwin didn't? Would you castigate him for "inaccuracy"? Has anyone in history ever used humor to help communicate a scientific point?

As noted, this is a TV show, not a scientific journal.

Are you willing to go on record? Can artistic license ever have a place in popularizing science? Yes or no?

You purport to always support reason, logical, science, and facts...unless...it doesn't suit your agenda. I razzed you on 'artistic license' because of your constant word games and arguing style.

Regardless, if we are going to hold religion to 'facts' and criticize repeatedly, why should we not hold a show devoted to science to facts? The original Cosmos had no need for an inaccurate presentation of Bruno, justified by you as 'artistic license', to present science in an inspiring way.

In response to your last bit of nonsense, all I can do is laugh.

Which you went to great pains to avoid addressing in any way. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about your intellectual honesty. You're going to fit in well with the religionistas here, who have that tactic down to a fine art. I'm sure they'll welcome a hostile "thank god I'm not like other atheists" atheist into their ranks.

For those whose brains aren't stuck in neutral, I'll offer another example. The first episode showed a representation of the Big Bang. Was it accurate? Is that what the Big Bang really looked like? Did they do that graphic up based on actual knowledge of exactly how the Big Bang would have appeared if someone had been there when it happened? Or was it simply made to look cool, and to help evoke a sense of wonder, without concern for absolute scientific accuracy? Was it necessary for Tyson to say, "We have no idea exactly what the Big Bang really looked like, and what we're about to show you is just our representation of it" to insulate himself from charges of "inaccuracy"? None of those should be tough questions.

If the rant of our friend here was really about the need for ensuring strict scientific accuracy in all things, why is he not also railing against the inaccuracy of that depiction (and other things in the show)? Why has he chosen the depiction of Bruno to glom onto like a limpet? If you guessed baiting and shit-stirring, you'd probably not be far off.

All you have is the tired tripe of projection. Religionistas? Where do you come up with such creativity?

There is a distinct difference between presenting an artistic representation of something we can only theorize about (the Big Bang) and adding a cartoon that pretends to quote an actual historical figure that we do know did not say what was quoted to make a point (Bruno).

This is a near perfect example of your lack of intellectual honesty if you sincerely believe that others are going to believe these two examples are even remotely analogous.

You presume the OP is shit stirring. This is the Religion discussion forum. It is an OP that is calling to light the fact that a reboot of Cosmos added material not needed in the original that was false concerning a religious man burned by a religious institution for heresy but by putting words into his mouth that were not said as if they were in order to imply it was instead for being anti-science. That seems like an excellent topic of discussion here, and it is the atheist brigade that has come running in to point out our intellectual dishonesty's, to nitpick over bad polls on the various types of creationism, etc.

If it is truly shit-stirring, why did you fall for the bait so readily?

Can artistic license ever have a place in popularizing science? Yes or no?

You dodged that question in your first reply, and now you're dodging it again, and trying to obscure the fact that you can't answer honestly by spewing your usual dose of snark. But OK, let's be fair..I asked several simple, direct questions, and you couldn't answer any of them.

My example about the Big Bang was about artistic license, so it was directly relevant. I could have cited any number of other things in the show that we can do more than simply theorize about that were also presented in a way that was not 100% accurate, but looked cool and evoked a sense of wonder to illustrate the same point, but you're really to tiresome to waste more time on.

And no one here has claimed that Bruno actually said "your god is too small". He probably didn't. But your guess of why that statement was put in there is not more valid than thinking that it was meant to emphasize one of the central themes of the episode, which was how people have imagined the vastness of the universe. It was presented in a cartoon dramatization, not in a historical or scientific journal. Only an idiot would assume that all of the cartoon characters were being quoted verbatim from centuries ago.

This topic has never been about 'artistic license'. You do know what a strawman is right?

If I must answer your question, art yes can used to present numerous topics. There is even a place for artistic license when actually done by, you know, artists. That's where the term comes from.

This cartoon is not artistic license. This was not a drama or a poem taking dramatic or artistic liberties with a topic. This was a reboot of an inspiring show Cosmos discussing the science of cosmology and humanity. This cartoon seemed wholly unnecessary given the original Cosmos.

Some questions for you now:

Did you ever watch the original Cosmos? Yes, I did.

Was a statement falsely quoted from Bruno needed to make its original point? No, not really. Cosmos inspired my generation in way that few documentaries did. The only other I can think of was Bronowski's The Ascent of Man.

In other words, would you like to get back on the topic or are you too tired from all of this needless chatter off-topic to do so?

The only accurate attribution of this quote appears to be from a 1960's theological title. It was not from a 'heretic' burned by the Catholic Church not for his science but rather his politics & heresy. Are you familiar with Nicholas of Cusa per chance?

You dodged a direct answer to my question again. The tactic of answering "yes", but to a different question is lame and transparent. And yes, Cosmos is entertainment and education, and creating it is an artistic and creative enterprise, not just a scientific one. But you know that. Artistic license means sacrificing strict accuracy to make a point, which is exactly what happened here. And if you think it wasn't necessary (nothing in the show was necessary, hence the "creative" part), and if you have your hair on fire because this show doesn't conform to the original (which I did watch, btw, and have no need to see imitated scene for scene), e-mail Tyson and Druyan and vent. I'm sure they'll take you seriously.

And the "original topic" seemed to be that s4p was all in a knot about this quote being included, for reasons only he can explain. Since no one here is arguing that he actually said that, your need to drag this thread out longer is also a mystery.

This was before the creationists appropriated the phrase. It wasn't in general usage. It was also when I still believed in my Progressive Methodist god.

I answered yes. I believed that evolution happens. I also believed that evolution was the tool by which God creates. So that is one way the polling statistics can be skewed to say what they don't say.

That is exactly my point that seems to be missed by several in this sub-topic.

Allowing people to say that evolution has happened, but been guided by god, or words to that effect. Even with that choice, about 40% of American adults still choose the Biblical young-earth creationism option.

I was bemused after I was surveyed to find that the creationists had taken ownership of "intelligent design." Still, I have been surprised by the otherwise reasonable people in my own sequestered life who embrace the six day maxim.

Its results are constantly questioned as my above article notes as does this one:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/10/how-many-americans-actually-believe-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/

“In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans — maybe about 31 million people — with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth,” Rosenau concludes. “One or two in ten seem firmly committed to evolution, and another third leans heavily toward evolution. About a third of the public in the middle are open to evolution, but feel strongly that a god or gods must have been involved somehow, and wind up in different camps depending how a given poll is worded.”

young-earth creationism as the definition of creationism?

The polls still show most Christians don't think Man evolved. That's Creationism.

http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164

Young-earth creationism accounts for 10% of the American population as a literal and unerring acceptance of a fringe religious belief over science.

Theistic creationism may not be to your liking, however, there is no real issue with reconciling it with modern understandings of scientific evolution.

The last time I checked evolutions explanation for the origin of life is this:

Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[245] and the assembly of simple cells.

The article I linked clearly shows that a large part of the population does not believe Man evolved. But you want to make it only about young earth, bible literalist, fundamentalists. If you keep making the criteria narrow enough, I am sure you can get it down to zero.
Perhaps you should reread it and pay attention to the Pew and Harris polls. The results parallel Gallup.
But I can see you need to refuse these basic repeated results to fit into you view.
So you will propaby reply with a long response, citing more meaningless information.

You are focused on a narrow definition of 'creationism'. I am not.

I wont bore you with a long response full of meaningful facts and information.

You've certainly come to the right group.

We'll never know. But that doesn't seem to cause you much concern, even though it's the basis for your religion.

I have studied quite extensively and academically the Christian religion....among many others I might add...but it is not MY religion.

Are you so blinded by personal pain and rage that you can't realize that even though I have stated this numerous times in multiple threads?

And with regards to Bruno, if this is your response to the inaccuracy, it is a piss poor argument, and you know it.

So take your bitter vitriol elsewhere, please.

given how you replied and the order of posts.

I guess I hit a nerve there given your projective reply.

In the upper right corner of every post, it says which post and which poster it's in response to.

I did not deserve your vicious attack and nasty attitude because of your error.

I asked if you were replying to me as it was not clear at the moment. I apologize for not seeing the connection between posts.

I do not apologize for what was said as it still holds true given your response.

You launched right into making all sorts of assumptions and judgments about me.

That you are unable to simply apologize for your mistaken response speaks volumes.

I have nothing further to say to you. Please, have the last word and get some more digs in. Show what a fine human being you are. I'm washing my hands of you.

I said I was sorry for mistaking your reply to another for me.

I did address two things in the original post. One of those simply addressed your argument about Jesus and his words in response to inaccuracies with regards to Bruno. Even if I made a separate post minus my mistake that comment would still stand.

It is interesting that so many seem to like to throw out invectives and insults and yet if anyone throws back they seem to be taken aghast.

Please do wash your hands of me (though you do know that is in reference to Pilate and Jesus!).

religion has injured them" card.
Well played sir.

Not all atheists are 'poor souls' - nice straw man by the way.

Some are just assholes with rage issues based on issues from their past.

Many that I observe who post on the internet increasing amounts of vitriol against religious people whether they are fundamentalist idiots or otherwise do tend to come from a background of extreme religious belief themselves. They were raised Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS, Pentecostal, etc.

It is a pretty common psychological expression - enantiodromia. There is a lot of unresolved trauma growing up in an extreme field whether that is under an authoritarian government or a religious family. There is a great deal of rage - wood to be burned. For example it can be hard enough growing up homosexual in this culture, adding an extreme religion to the mix always makes it worse. The pain and rage is beyond understandable. The expressions of it often seen on these boards alone, no not so much.

Do you consider yourself an atheist? For all intents in purposes, for the sake of discussion, I always have. I do prefer the label ignostic, but a discussion why is another post. I wasn't raised in a particularly religious household. I was never angry at religion or the religious. I am not now. I can certainly get pissed at a fundamentalist who is trying to advance political and legal remedies based on their outrageous beliefs, but no, in general I feel zero need to simply attack them for 'believing'. I see no need to label them delusional. I see no need to lump all religious people en masse as bigots, racists, sexist, homophobes, etc. I don't have to go around calling them 'religionistas'.

Maybe you don't have or care to want to have the awareness to ask yourself why some people are just always angry at others who don't think, feel, belief, or act as they do or think they should.

psychologist. Bravo.

I have been a licensed psychologist for almost 25 years. Sorry to bust your bubble.

to diagnose someone based on anonymous posts on the internet?

This, in your professional opinion, is how you reply to someone asking a legitimate question, not even directed to you?

"Are you so blinded by personal pain and rage that you can't realize that even though I have stated this numerous times in multiple threads? "

Remind me not to recommend your services.

No, I didn't.

I can observe behaviors, recognize where they may come from psychologically, and then call them out if they are inappropriate or 'dickish', and that is still not diagnosing someone with a mental disorder.

No worries, I have no need for your recommendations. I have always done quite well thank you.

given every one here a good showing of your own behaviors. And they can make their own assumptions of your psychology.

Good day, sir.

you or particular others in this thread choose to view me.

as saying that any assessment of or assumption about someone's mental state is totally inappropriate (even for a trained mental health professional, which he claims to be), without proper context. He's now using the dodge that if he's not actually "diagnosing" someone, that he's fully qualified to label them as having mental disorders willy-nilly, just by reading posts on the internet. Apparently that's all the "context" he needs.

And he rather dishonestly implies that enantiodromia and "rage issues" go hand in hand. They don't. Religious people in this country do things every day that decent people should be angry about, but to imply that there are a bunch of atheists out there who just rage at any and all aspects of religion all the time is just another asinine strawman.

are truly lacking or you simply feign ignorance in order to score your little debate points.

Are you truly so unobservant and unaware that you can not see that there are indeed anti-theists and atheists that rage against religion and religious people constantly, even those who are not acting like some worthy of criticism and derision?

Apparently.

Wow. You're monitoring all of these people every moment of the day and reading every one of their internet posts?

You're either suffering from an overdose of hyperbole and an acute case of Strawman Syndrome, or you're working for the NSA.

Yes, some atheists and anti-theists express anger some of the time at the outrages perpetrated by religion, just as you've admitted to doing. If you have evidence of more than that, feel free to present it. Just be sure you don't get in the same trouble as Eric Snowden.

It is a specific question about a specific historical claim

that they claimed it was a real quote?

exist for the quote

“What everyone knows is wrong!” cries out Bruno in one animated segment. “Your god is too small!”

What would I say to those who feel threatened by something like “Cosmos?” Maybe I’d say what Giordano Bruno shouted (at least in the “Cosmos” portrayal) at his church trial – “Your God is too small!”

Onscreen, Bruno proclaims, "Your God is too small"

Perhaps we're hearing a bit of Fox and MacFarlane when an anguished Bruno shouts at the Church, "Your god is too small!" before he is thrown into a dungeon

The only good part of the sequence regarding Bruno was the statement that "your god is too small"

But was it claimed to be an actual quote from Bruno?

I watched it myself, but did not assume it was an attempt to precisely re-enact a historical event. More of a paraphrase of the overall themes of Bruno's assertions versus the status quo.

But you've got your distraction o' the day to latch on to, so that's all that matters. Good luck!

of a sixteenth century pantheist -- not only anachronistic, but not even accurately reflecting the views of Bruno himself

Looks like it worked! Don't worry, s4p, many other religious believers are upset with the program. You have lots of company.

Not obviously in any of his extant works. (He did publish, and those works are in print. Now.)

JB Phillips may have been nicely summing up Bruno's thought, which may not be a quote but does seem reasonable.

It's like a lot of other "quotes" that sort of ring true and seem to be in accord with what somebody probably believed.

Along the lines of "small minds talk about people, mediocre minds talk about things and events, and great minds talk about ideas" and attributing it to various and sundry folk. Or Occam's Razor reduced to "the simplest solution is the preferred solution" when Willem wouldn't have said that, probably would, with a lot of caveats and cautions, agree.

actually occurs anywhere in his book

Actual quotes include:

... There is a conception of God which seems at first sight to be very lofty and splendid, but which proves paradoxically enough on examination to be yet another of the “too small” ideas. It is to think that the God who is responsible for the terrifying vastnesses of the Universe cannot possibly be interested in the lives of the minute specks of consciousness which exist on this insignificant planet ...

... It is obviously impossible for an adult to worship the conception of God that exists in the mind of a child of Sunday-school age, unless he is prepared to deny his own experience of life. If, by a great effort of will, he does do this he will always be secretly afraid lest some new truth may expose the juvenility of his faith. And it will always be by such an effort that he either worships or serves a God who is really too small to command his adult loyalty and co-operation ...

"Your god is too small" was his belief and he defended it to his own death.

I doubt it is a verbatim quote.


Of course, this begs the question:
Did Jesus actually say anything written in red in the bible? And if so, what's the source?

If nothing else, there is actual historical evidence for Giordano Bruno ever existing in the first place.

as script for words to put in the mouth of a cartoon Bruno. The anachronism is astounding, of course, but so is the associated misrepresentations of Bruno's actual views

Bruno was a man of prodigious memory, and with enormous imagination, which he squandered by producing vast heaps of woo

He had no real interest in mathematics, which has -- following the lead of Galileo -- since become the essential formal language of modern scientific theorizing: in fact, Bruno wrote a book against mathematics (Articuli adversus mathematicos), in which many geometrical diagrams appear with mystical interpretations; and he wrote another (Magia Mathematica) devoted to the magical uses of symbols. He similarly had no interest in scientific observation or experiment. His standard for accepting ideas appears to be whether he could fit them into the vast speculative system he was attempting to construct

The results seem a mishmash

His theology appears to have been pantheistic -- but without much attention to the actual details of the world -- and it seems to be thoroughly mired in magical thought. Some see him as a martyr of pantheism; others as a martyr of theosophy. One might perhaps claim him as a martyr of free-thought, but he was not a martyr of science

Perhaps "your imaginations are too small" might reflect Bruno's views, especially if said sneeringly; but to put "your god is too small" in his mouth is merely misleading in multiple ways

This was not a rigorous examination of the life of Bruno, Bruno was used to illustrate and dramatize a specific point being made about this paradigm shift. The phrase you are having an allergic reaction to illustrates quite well how sweeping a change this was, from a finite universe centered around earth with a shell encapsulating the whole thing, and gods focused on this creation of theirs to an infinite universe filled with planets stars galaxies in numbers beyond comprehension. It is a change so stunning that we are still dealing with the ramifications.

Sure, he never used those words. Your upset is really about something else.

I would like to think most rational people would look at such attributions with a critical eye. Why you're pissing yourself over an alleged Bruno attribution and not the litany of shit Jesus supposedly said in the Bible is quite a conundrum.