Religulous

[suited]

Originally Posted by Dragon

What are some of the questions raised in the movie? I am genuinely interested to know, but will not be able to see the movie for some time.

I'm pretty sure he mentions that people stop believing in Santa Claus because the story is ridiculous, yet they believe in an exponentially more ridiculous story called the bible...

 

[antirabbit]

Wow, funny how there is a body of evidence for the bible that out weighs the evidence for nearly any other book ever written....
I suppose those that want to deny or mock the faith in something that is pretty bullet proof is fun? Bill M. does it in a manner that is dumbed down from the level that others in the past approached it.
I would not buy into the fact that he raises questions that everyone should ask, he is raising questions he wants to ask, and these are hardly new questions.
The fact that he is compelled to make this movie is interesting though.

 

[Deluks917]

Originally Posted by dusty

Bill Maher is the biggest asshole in the universe -- is this evident in the film?
Yes. I can't believe how little you guys are bringing up what a d-bag he came off as in the film. Regardless though he made a lot of excellent points up until the end when he he made some monologue about the evils of religion. I think he made great points but he certainly could have presented them in a less offensive package. (note i agree with him on the basic premise) btw: He brought up many things I did not know including the story of Horus which greatly parallels that of Christ, and contradicted many accepted "facts" such as Christ's historical existence.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by antirabbit

Wow, funny how there is a body of evidence for the bible that out weighs the evidence for nearly any other book ever written....
I suppose those that want to deny or mock the faith in something Bis fun? Bill M. does it in a manner that is dumbed down from the level that others in the past approached it.
I would not buy into the fact that he raises questions that everyone should ask, he is raising questions he wants to ask, and these are hardly new questions.
The fact that he is compelled to make this movie is interesting though.

Wait.

You are saying the Bible is bullet proof in its facts and stories?

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by Reggs

...The latinist I mentioned earlier is also a Priest, and is shown in the movie. He also does not believe hell exists. ...
Interesting. There's a line of theological thought that goes back almost 2 thousand years that believes this. The thought is that if God is all-powerful, and if God is all-loving, then no one will go to "hell." Why? If God is all-loving, God wants all people to go to "heaven" and if God is all-powerful, then what God wants will happen.

I however, disagree. I think that God also wills free will. So God respects a person's choice. A person goes to hell if s/he rejects God and being with God.

But I also agree. Because to me, heaven and hell are the same "place." They are both being with God.
But different people experience this same state differently. God is Truth, Goodness, Love, Light, Beauty etc. If one chose consistently to live one's life contrary to truth, goodness, love, light, beauty, etc, then one will become the type of person who will experience these things as painful. Such, would be hell.

Also, if one defines hell as a place w/ fire and naked red people w/ horns and pitchforks, then I don't believe in it either. But I do believe in some kind of an "afterlife" and I do believe that one's actions now affect it then.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Given the reactions/answers and such he is given in the movie, though, shows that the question STILL needs to be asked and reinterpreted.
I agree completely. The questions are timeless. And the answers must be given continually. Moreover, the same answers cannot suffice. They need to be "translated" to fit the culture, the individual, the particular time and place.

I just wish these crusading atheists and supposed agnostics would choose as dialogue partners better representatives of religion.

 

[antirabbit]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

Wait.

You are saying the Bible is bullet proof in its facts and stories?


I am saying, the bible is the most researched work in literature, and yes most of it holds up to the test of scientific scrutiny.
As far as parables and illustrative stories, they are well illuminated as such.
As far as fact goes, it is one of the most historically accurate books we have today.
If one were to look at the continuity of the book, dispite the 55 different authors and the numerous languages in which it was written, it is completely remarkable and worthy of its elevated position in many peoples lives.

 

[rach2jlc]

^Could you explain what you mean, rabbit (I'm genuinely curious, not being snarky)?

It seems to me that all that pillars of salt, burning bushes, talking snakes, 5000 year old earth history, World-encompassing floods, Men being thrown into furnaces and walking around and having a big ol' time, walking on water, rising from the dead/being raised from the dead, etc etc etc stuff seems a bit off in terms of historical accuracy. Are you saying all of those supposed historical events are parables? Or, what exactly do you mean by saying the bible is one of the most "accurate" books we have? I just don't get it...

 

[antirabbit]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

^Could you explain what you mean, rabbit (I'm genuinely curious, not being snarky)?

It seems to me that all that pillars of salt, burning bushes, talking snakes, 5000 year old earth history, World-encompassing floods, Men being thrown into furnaces and walking around and having a big ol' time, walking on water, rising from the dead/being raised from the dead, etc etc etc stuff seems a bit off in terms of historical accuracy. Are you saying all of those supposed historical events are parables? Or, what exactly do you mean by saying the bible is one of the most "accurate" books we have? I just don't get it...
I will write it out here when the work day is over, or rather some examples....
Realize there is a bridge in this, the old testement and the new, both are equally validated.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Or given that between the time that the New Testament "took place" and was written down there was a large gap in time?

 

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by suited

I'm pretty sure he mentions that people stop believing in Santa Claus because the story is ridiculous, yet they believe in an exponentially more ridiculous story called the bible...

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

There are lots of them, but the basic questions revolve around how people who would tell you flatly that the tooth fairy are ridiculous, Santa Claus is ridiculous, other Religion XYZ, etc. are ridiculous... nevertheless have no problem believing in a man who heard voices from flammable shrubberies (moses), a guy who supposedly walked on water, raised dead people, etc. He's trying to get people to square these inconsistencies in their own minds and say why ONE is absurd/ridiculous but the other is absolutely true to the point that they'd be willing to fight over it! He also tries to get the same people who swear everything in the bible is true to reconcile that with all the things they believe but AREN'T in the bible (and he goes through a whole list of things).

Further, he asks if religion is necessary to make people "good." He says... probably not; goodness is pretty compelling in and of itself, when you get down to it (i.e. not killing your neighbors or stealing their stuff, etc.)

Finally, he asks them how they can square the "nice, touchy/feely" Xian notions with the vengeful, wrathful, jealous Yahweh... he who smotes left and right, he who destroys humanity, fear him!!!

But, like I said, there are lots of others...

Thanks for the preview. I will probably watch it since I heard about it here, but I don`t think the Santa Claus angle is THAT interesting.

Aside from the stories, I think they should question where the stories came from, how the Bible was made, how it was changed throughout the years, and things like that. It seems smart people always question the source of information for other things, but when it comes to the Bible they just take it at face value and believe everything word for word.

 

[antirabbit]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

Or given that between the time that the New Testament "took place" and was written down there was a large gap in time?

Less than 30 years.

 

[antirabbit]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Thanks for the preview. I will probably watch it since I heard about it here, but I don`t think the Santa Claus angle is THAT interesting.

Aside from the stories, I think they should question where the stories came from, how the Bible was made, how it was changed throughout the years, and things like that. It seems smart people always question the source of information for other things, but when it comes to the Bible they just take it at face value and believe everything word for word.

That is simply incorrect, the bible has been subjected to more scrutiny than most historical works....if not more than any.
SO, there is no taking it at face value here.

 

[Dragon]

Maybe it was included in the film (I don`t know) but I think they should ask questions like, "Why do Christians and non-Christians think Jesus was born on December 25 and celebrate his birth on that date?"

Personally, I think questions like that lead to, and open up a lot of other important questions in any religion.

 

[Vintage Gent]

Originally Posted by antirabbit

I suppose those that want to deny or mock the faith in something that is pretty bullet proof is fun?

If religion's so bulletproof, why then does it require faith?

 

[Davidko19]

Originally Posted by antirabbit

Less than 30 years.

I dont even remember most of Saturday night, how are some people supposed to remember a lifetime worth of events and stories 29 years later, especially when the life expectancy back then was what, 40 years old?