Daily Mail: Atheist theology doctor knows nothing about the Bible by shoutingatco.ws

Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou: At least they didn't mention she's a foreign

Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a senior lecturer at Exeter University.  She has a doctorate in Theology from Oxford University, and has six published books on the Bible and theology.  All in all, she pretty much knows her shit.

That’s not good enough for the Mail, of course, because 1) she’s to be employed by the BBC (those liberal bastards hell bent on moral and social destruction) and 2) she’s an atheist.

Looking for a presenter for a TV show about the Bible? The ideal candidate is an atheist who believes traditional interpretations of the book are sexist – according to BBC bosses, at least.

Just phrase it in a way that sounds like the BBC have pulled a loon off the street to gargle uninformed shit about the Bible, yeah?  When in reality, she knows more about the subject than the two writers who evacuated their bums onto the page to produce this article.

She said: ‘I’m an atheist with a huge respect for religion.

‘I see what I do as a branch of history like any other.’

This sounds terrible! How can the BBC hire someone like this?  I can see why the Mail are unimpressed:  She has respect and tolerance for a point of view that she doesn’t believe in.  And that would never do.

Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who has been given a primetime BBC slot, claims that Eve has been ‘unfairly maligned’ by ‘middle-aged bearded men’ and should not have been blamed for the Fall of Man.

And she argues that God had a wife – making him part of a ‘divine pair’.

Her controversial claims will be explored in BBC2 series The Bible’s Buried Secrets.

But former MP Ann Widdecombe, who is a Roman Catholic, said: ‘I would guess that most other theologians will demolish her theory in three seconds flat.’

Yeah, cos fuck her, right?  She has no idea what she’s talking about.  Widdy, with her degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics is definitely right to “guess” at what other theologians would think.  Ann doesn’t actually refute anything she says, just offers the vague idea that maybe someone else might do it.  Maybe.

The tone of the article is snide, being careful to mention how controversial the ideas are, and giving the impression that it’s a silly atheist with silly ideas about god.

And, to be fair, you don’t have to believe in something, to know about it.  We commentate on the Daily Mail, but we’re not jackboot wearing, racist Nazis with an inexplicable interest in what Kelly Brook’s wearing.  There’s hundreds of books and documentaries about the Nazis – some of them by Jews.  She’ll be providing an unbiased, critical review of religion, instead of simpering, unquestioning Christian propaganda.

As always, goodness from the comments:

That is Blasphemy!!!!! If you must write at all, write about what you actually know and not what you have absolutely no clue of. How could you write about God, when you have no experience of Him?

- Benny, Ireland, 8/3/2011 3:58

Oh Benny.  I’ve never been punched in the cock, but I’m pretty sure I could write that it’s not only shit, but exactly what you nee

Comments

1. Don Smith says:

   May 3, 2011 at 1:37 am

   I was not impressed with her evidence. She would refer to conspiracies through out when the scriptures said something about its history, while offering nothing more than that she feels like there is one. She would say something like the Bible could not be trusted as history, even though it documents it names and events dates and time in far greater details than the obscure artefacts she claims over rides it. She also uses straw man arguments that the Bible shows the Israelites in a favourable position, when most of the time it does not see the books of Judges through to 2nd Chronicles and count how many times it said that they serve and worshipped other gods and did evil in the site of the Lord. She would ignore this, present a perfect relationship with God, then argue to break down her version of events. One the Bible never showed in the first place.
2. Matthew says:

   May 17, 2011 at 9:59 am

   I’ve been impressed by her and hopefully her appointment will ease the way for the non-religious to pick up a bible again. The BBC are playing a shrewd game here, balancing a pro-religion agenda with the fact that most people in this country are liberal christians, christian humanists, and humanists; people who don’t care much for extreme or literalist views.

Leave a Reply