not true.

He was catholic.

yeah i just watched it and it's of course stupid.
But it's just as stupid as catholic priests not being able to marry.
But what they do inside their orginazation is on them I don't care, but don't **** with the poor and needy, to get out your god agenda.

yeah i do remember the face melting one but is'nt there one where they are trying to get the holy grail from the nazis or someting?

crap i don't know they all run together.

I have always put a couple of bucks in the red bucket every year.
I normaly will not give to a charity with a god atached to it.
But I naver see them preaching, if they do it seem pretty low key.
If I thought they were not helping someone because they were gay or did not except their god then I would not give to them, but I would need proof that's the case with them because I like to think that they are one of the good ones.

sounds like you get your history from Indiana Jones movies.

right and the black kids were kept from the whites, so we need to go back to that also?
People seem to have this fantacy of how the 50s were and it just is not so in reality.

you would be hard pressed to find something i've done that most would find normal.

wow, you have pictures and you still refuse to see.
hmmmmmm

yeah and there's alot more than that also.
Hitler made sure the cross was prominent on a great deal of medals and believed that the german race had decended strait from heaven.
He also visited church on a regular basis.

oh no what will we ever do without a daily does of hate and intollerence.

wow there is no way that these kids will get beat up in school if the other kids find out.
The other kids will say wow man those god pj's are the coolest thing ever where can i get them.
And when I do then can also hold hands with my sister? because that would be even cooler.


They would'nt last a day if the word got out.
****, I want to beat em up.

yes, I did watch the film and as a jew I was offended to the extreme. As every jew should have been.Ben Stein did an injustice to his own people as far as i'm concerned. The core of what is ethically rotten about this movie. Darwinism did not lead to Nazism in Germany. Nor does Darwinism inherently contain the seeds of Nazism.

There were many nations, such as Brazil, where Darwinism led to no political ideology. There were some such as Britain which embraced Darwinism but saw a considerable number of their population killed trying to eliminate Nazism. There were other nations, such as the Soviet Union, where Darwinism was seen as so dangerous and subversive to state sponsored dreams of social engineering that those who espoused it were killed or exiled and a complete biological fairy tale, Lysenkoism, put into classrooms and agricultural policy ultimately leading to the deaths of millions from starvation.

And there were some nations where Darwinism was greeted with glee because it seemed so compatible with the prevailing ideology of the day. In particular the United States at the turn of the 20th century where robber-baron capitalists like the Carnegies, Mellons, Sumners, Stanfords and yes, even Jack London, could not stop rattling on about how the "survival of the fittest" justified crushing unions, exploiting immigrant labor or being left unregulated to amass huge fortunes while administering monopolies.

Ben Stein apparently understands none of this. He flags Darwin but does not bother to go and stare at the busts of Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Ernst Haeckel, Thomas Malthus so much beloved by American proponents of survival of the fittest.

Worse yet, while frowning at Darwin’s statute in a manly fashion, Stein makes no mention of the key factors driving Nazi ideology — racism, homophobia and hatred of the mentally ill and disabled.

To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end.

The late Morton Smith, of Columbia University reported in 1958 that he had found a fragment of a manuscript which at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem. It contained the full text of Mark, chapter 10. Apparently the version that is in the Christian Scriptures is an edited version of the original. Additional verses allegedly formed part of the full version of Mark, and were inserted after verse 34. It discusses how a young man, naked but for a linen covering, expressed his love for Jesus and stayed with him at his place all night. More details.
"J Richards" suggested that Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." Richards suggests that Jesus gave great emphasis to this teaching, directing it to everyone. Richards suggests that the sentence refers to dietary laws and also extends to "blood transfusions, medication, organ transplants, and artificial insemination" and to homosexual acts as well.

pfft Ben Stein is a hack, I saw expelled and it's a propaganda film full of half truths and flat out lies.

The Gospel references to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" use the word "agape." Whether the authors originally used "eros" and the word was subsequently changed is open to speculation.



"Jagannath" interprets the Gospels differently. He argues that Jesus may have been bisexual. He wrote:

"In the Book of John a word is used eight times that means 'is in love with' with the implication of sexual intimacy. Five times it is used with reference to Jesus' relationship with John. Once it is used to define Jesus' relationship with Lazarus. And it is also used to describe his relationship with Mary and with her sister Martha."

During the crucifixion, in John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as seeing his mother and an unidentified man: "the disciple standing by, whom he loved." Again, Jesus probably loved all of his 12 or 70 disciples in a non-sexual manner (and that's up for debate). But this particular disciple is identified as "the" disciple who Jesus loved. That might indicate a special intimate relationship with one special disciple.

There is nothing in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) which specifically identifies Jesus' sexual orientation. The Bible does not say clearly whether Jesus had a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. It is silent on whether Jesus was celibate or sexually active; single or married, childless or with children. However, a few theologians have asserted that Jesus had, and presumably still has, a homosexual orientation.