BBC bans Jesus from Radio 2

[Crimson Dynamo]

Pop star Eliza Doolittle and DJ baffled over order to change 'innocent' lyric
Singer told to change line in Walking On Water for radio appearance
'Sometimes I wish I was Jesus' became 'Sometimes I wish it was easy'

Chris Evans baffled as he can play controversial songs about sex or drugs

Former Archbishop Lord Carey blasted move but said he is 'not surprised'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2581867/Good-Evans-BBC-bans-Jesus-Radio-2-Pop-star-Eliza-Doolittle-DJ-baffled-order-change-innocent-lyric.html#ixzz2w8djaj2E

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1230/1217790.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/29/article-0-1181AEA6000005DC-201_634x855.jpg

[Verbal]

That bikini is a tad bit too small for her

[arista]

Who Cares

[Crimson Dynamo]

Who Cares

thousands of DM readers who never go to church, dont read the bible, dont attempt to live in a "christian" manner but some how still think they are christians

[joeysteele]

Ridiculous, totally ridiculous.

[Jesus.]

Can't keep a great man down.

[Livia]

Doesn't Chris Evans' show contain the multi-denominational, multi-faith 'pause for thought' section? My Dad listens to it... he's particularly fond of Catholic Father Brian D'arcy and I'm pretty sure he mentions Jesus regularly.

Maybe they banned this because Eliza Doolittle is shiyt.

[arista]

thousands of DM readers who never go to church, dont read the bible, dont attempt to live in a "christian" manner but some how still think they are christians



There is No God


Feck that Fable book

[InOne]

There is No God


Feck that Fable book

And it begins...

[smeagol]

As soon as the bbc go down the better , they are stoneage and should be extinct funny i was chatting the day about how you cant even fart on the bbc n how crap n corrupt they are, they.

[Z]

Doesn't Chris Evans' show contain the multi-denominational, multi-faith 'pause for thought' section? My Dad listens to it... he's particularly fond of Catholic Father Brian D'arcy and I'm pretty sure he mentions Jesus regularly.

Maybe they banned this because Eliza Doolittle is shiyt.

Hopefully they banned it because she's shiyt. She's very shiyyyyt.

[King Gizzard]

Eliza >>>>

[Livia]

*Eliza >>>>

*Eliza - better than nothing.

[lily.]

*Eliza - better than nothing.


^ LoL...

and o/t but Verbal, I LOVE your avatar..

[T*]

Can't keep a great man down.

I'm sorry they banned you :(

[Marsh.]

Sounds like an awful song and an awful lyric.

I suppose it's a step up from Katy Perry feeling like a plastic bag.

[the truth]

thousands of DM readers who never go to church, dont read the bible, dont attempt to live in a "christian" manner but some how still think they are christians

and you preach about not labelling people?

[the truth]

There is No God


Feck that Fable book

prove it

[the truth]

As soon as the bbc go down the better , they are stoneage and should be extinct funny i was chatting the day about how you cant even fart on the bbc n how crap n corrupt they are, they.

the usual tripe from the utterly corrupt radically liberal bloated biased waste of our billions unfit for purpose fiasco
ps if Jesus was a woman shed have her own daily 24 hour bbc chat show

[Crimson Dynamo]

prove it

there is no need and never has been :elephant:

[Jesus.]

prove it

We've had this discussion before - it's impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof isn't with those that say there isn't a god, it's solely with those that say there is.

[user104658]

I suspect they've asked for the lyric to be changed for fear that it would offend Christians, to be honest. Expecting some sort of "How dare you wish you were our perfect little guy! He's a precious Jesus and you can't wish you were him or else! You can never compare to his awesomeness and god and stuff!" ...

Sounds pretty standard.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The reason for the change is, as usual at the bbc, fear of blame. Someone fears that they will get blamed for complaints and so to avoid this they ask for the change. There is no thought of anyone bar themselves. Selfish fear of blame.

[Livia]

We've had this discussion before - it's impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof isn't with those that say there isn't a god, it's solely with those that say there is.

The burden of proof only applies within a court of law. You can't apply it to every day discussions, it's ridiculous. No one has to prove themselves because you demand it because we have religious freedom in this country... which means I am free to worship in my own way, and you're free to do your own thing... or nothing.

This thread isn't a discussion about whether or not God exists, and trust the Atheists to drag it down to that.

[Livia]

I suspect they've asked for the lyric to be changed for fear that it would offend Christians, to be honest. Expecting some sort of "How dare you wish you were our perfect little guy! He's a precious Jesus and you can't wish you were him or else! You can never compare to his awesomeness and god and stuff!" ...

Sounds pretty standard.

Whereas if she was singing about the Muslims' "perfect little guy" we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would dare contemplate playing a song like that... ever.

You don't have to believe. A modicum of respect for other people's right to believe wouldn't be too much to ask, I think. After all, I respect your right to rip the piss out of anything that doesn't fit in with you.

[Jesus.]

The burden of proof only applies within a court of law. You can't apply it to every day discussions, it's ridiculous. No one has to prove themselves because you demand it because we have religious freedom in this country... which means I am free to worship in my own way, and you're free to do your own thing... or nothing.

This thread isn't a discussion about whether or not God exists, and trust the Atheists to drag it down to that.


You're questioning me about a post I replied to, asking for proof that there isn't a god?

I didn't bring up anything in this thread relating to religion, and at no point have I ever tried to tell anyone what they can or can't believe, so trust religious people to rush to be offended where there is no need to be.

I have no issues with anyone who has faith, but I think I'm within my rights to point out logical impossibilities. I don't mean about the existence of god, I mean whether it is possible to prove a negative.

You missed the point with my post completely. The guy with religion was asking for proof - not the atheist.

[the truth]

We've had this discussion before - it's impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof isn't with those that say there isn't a god, it's solely with those that say there is.

you cant prove it and I cant prove otherwise

[Crimson Dynamo]

you cant prove it and I cant prove otherwise

yes like the loch ness monster and an infinite number of fictitious things


what part of this do you not get?:conf:

[Livia]

You're questioning me about a post I replied to, asking for proof that there isn't a god?

I didn't bring up anything in this thread relating to religion, and at no point have I ever tried to tell anyone what they can or can't believe, so trust religious people to rush to be offended where there is no need to be.

I have no issues with anyone who has faith, but I think I'm within my rights to point out logical impossibilities. I don't mean about the existence of god, I mean whether it is possible to prove a negative.

You missed the point with my post completely. The guy with religion was asking for proof - not the atheist.

I am not in a rush to be offended. I'm not offended at all. And anyone can reply to any post, I don't have to wait for you to address me directly.

You replied to the "guy with religion", who was replying to Arista... who made the original [rather off-topic post]. Anyone can reply to anyone. Arista said "there is no God". thetruth said "prove it". I suspect thetruth was being ironic because it's a constant request from Atheists for people of faith to offer some proof, demonstrating that they just can't get a handle on the "faith" thing.

I was questioning your "burden of proof" comment. No one has to prove anything; religious people don't have to prove there is a God, Atheists don't have to prove there isn't. The burden of proof does not apply here.

[Livia]

yes like the loch ness monster and an infinite number of fictitious things


what part of this do you not get?:conf:

"Faith". You either get it, or you don't. If you don't, no amount of explaining will make you get it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"Faith". You either get it, or you don't. If you don't, no amount of explaining will make you get it.

I know what faith is, its like believing that man U will get 4th spot this season.

It wont happen, there is no evidence that it will and to think that you must be mad

and yet, tons of man u fans still believe :joker:

[the truth]

I know what faith is, its like believing that man U will get 4th spot this season.

It wont happen, there is no evidence that it will and to think that you must be mad

and yet, tons of man u fans still believe :joker:

no its not like that whatsoever its sad how little you understand it

[Jesus.]

I am not in a rush to be offended. I'm not offended at all. And anyone can reply to any post, I don't have to wait for you to address me directly.

You replied to the "guy with religion", who was replying to Arista... who made the original [rather off-topic post]. Anyone can reply to anyone. Arista said "there is no God". thetruth said "prove it". I suspect thetruth was being ironic because it's a constant request from Atheists for people of faith to offer some proof, demonstrating that they just can't get a handle on the "faith" thing.

I was questioning your "burden of proof" comment. No one has to prove anything; religious people don't have to prove there is a God, Atheists don't have to prove there isn't. The burden of proof does not apply here.

It's an argument the truth has used before, so I sincerely doubt there was any irony there at all - but yet again you've missed the point.

If one side posits that something exists - albeit in whatever language and allegories people wish to use, then they are making claims that should have evidence, or could be at least tested or proved.

Now, whilst I have no issue of people with faith because they believe, it doesn't mean that they get a free pass in the logic department

That was the only point I was making, and as for this not being a court of law, thus negating any need for any burden of proof, religion continues to this day to make scientific claims about the world and nature that under no circumstance can be viewed using the scientific method. Cuz...y'know...faith innit, and we don't get it. Faith to me is believing in things for which there is no evidence, not some free pass from the mystical realm afforded to only a few of us.

I had issues with the logic in truths post, not that he has faith. It's pretty simple.

[Nedusa]

It's an argument the truth has used before, so I sincerely doubt there was any irony there at all - but yet again you've missed the point.

If one side posits that something exists - albeit in whatever language and allegories people wish to use, then they are making claims that should have evidence, or could be at least tested or proved.

Now, whilst I have no issue of people with faith because they believe, it doesn't mean that they get a free pass in the logic department

That was the only point I was making, and as for this not being a court of law, thus negating any need for any burden of proof, religion continues to this day to make scientific claims about the world and nature that under no circumstance can be viewed using the scientific method. Cuz...y'know...faith innit, and we don't get it. Faith to me is believing in things for which there is no evidence, not some free pass from the mystical realm afforded to only a few of us.

I had issues with the logic in truths post, not that he has faith. It's pretty simple.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

[the truth]

It's an argument the truth has used before, so I sincerely doubt there was any irony there at all - but yet again you've missed the point.

If one side posits that something exists - albeit in whatever language and allegories people wish to use, then they are making claims that should have evidence, or could be at least tested or proved.

Now, whilst I have no issue of people with faith because they believe, it doesn't mean that they get a free pass in the logic department

That was the only point I was making, and as for this not being a court of law, thus negating any need for any burden of proof, religion continues to this day to make scientific claims about the world and nature that under no circumstance can be viewed using the scientific method. Cuz...y'know...faith innit, and we don't get it. Faith to me is believing in things for which there is no evidence, not some free pass from the mystical realm afforded to only a few of us.

I had issues with the logic in truths post, not that he has faith. It's pretty simple.

I think your using sarah palin a little too heavily in your Christian consensus. I nor any Christians I know believe the earth is flat and I fully support science
Its also important to note vast numbers of scientists were religious themselves and it in no way conflicted with their scientific studies. as you have inadvertantly pointed out, values as discussed and debated over throughout the new testament is a seperate issues from science so the 2 are not necessarily at odds with each other and are not inextricably linked. You can be a good Christian and still unlock the secrets of science.

[Gstar]

I thought that they were on about the real baby jesus before reading this thread

[the truth]

I thought that they were on about the real baby jesus before reading this thread

No just the grown up one

[Crimson Dynamo]

no its not like that whatsoever its sad how little you understand it

Do you mean its like Liverpool fans thinking they will win the title? :conf: