Religulous

[SuburbanSmoker]

for any people who arent super religous on the forum, i strongly urge that you check this movie out. in a nut shell its bill maher going to alot of the religous capitals/centers of the world basically pointing out the flaws in the religions as he sees it. but ya check it out. if anyone has seen it, whad you think about it?

[Boricua]

The movie looks interesting, even though Maher just gets on my nerves sometimes

[Hobbs]

It looks like it'll be worth watching. However my favorite movie pertaining to religion is still Zeitgeist

[Will_Evo]

The best part about religions, is their existence almost always rises in the wake of a new empire. Religion, in a sense was necessary way back when, how else could you justify right and wrong? Religion played in the favor of almost every new and upcoming empire. Some religions even went so far as to create a personification of war as a religious deed. If I was an early Emperor of Rome, I would have used religion as a base for creating one of the worlds largest army's too.

On topic, I have seen neither movie, but have heard about them...as soon as I get back to the states, I will watch em.

-Evo

[Hippo_Master]

I love this movie, and I love Bill Maher. He's such a smart-ass!

[Dr. B]

I typically like Bill Maher when he isn't getting on my nerves for going over the top on an issue. I especially enjoyed watching him make an ass out of Ron Paul on his show. This movie however, I do not like. I watched it bootlegged on a friend's comp so maybe I didn't get the full experience but the word wrong doesn't begin to describe how he approached this topic.

If I recall correctly he targets the institution of religion and the places in which it takes place. He doesn't do much to address the fact that people are accepting of the agenda which he is critical of. It essentially becomes some spiel about how bad institutionalized religion is without any homage paid to how apathetic patrons of churches (in all regard) are the reason why corruption and impiety proliferate. I'll admit some guilt lies with the institution, but to largely ignore the actions of the patrons whilst assessing blame is a fallacy.

To use Will's example: It is easy to blame the Roman emperor who assembles an army in the Lord's name for impiety; but are the soldiers who enlist in the name of the Lord without blame for promoting the emperor's agenda?

I'm not trying to start a fight, this is merely my criticism of Religulous explained. Perhaps it is because I don't proselytize and therefore don't feel especially guilty, but this movie, in my opinion, was atheist propaganda.

If you hate the man however, this movie is for you!

[SimplexCoda]

Bill really annoys me

[Tyler]

I hate people who speak on religion and/or cultural issues and have zero education in either topic. Most of them fail to realize that the Bible has scientific backings for at LEAST 93% of its stories c.f. Google. Additionally, religion has been in existance longer than any other thought process or idea. Most people take what they hear and accept it as fact because it seems true, but yet they fail to do research for theirselves because they assume whoever is talking has done it for them. Never underestimate the power of forming your own thoughts.

[mushrat]

Keep this conversation CIVIL. or else.

[Hippo_Master]

I hate people who speak on religion and/or cultural issues and have zero education in either topic. Most of them fail to realize that the Bible has scientific backings for at LEAST 93% of its stories c.f. Google. Additionally, religion has been in existance longer than any other thought process or idea. Most people take what they hear and accept it as fact because it seems true, but yet they fail to do research for theirselves because they assume whoever is talking has done it for them. Never underestimate the power of forming your own thoughts.

Seems like it coincides with major wars/massacres disguised as wars/ religious cleansings.

I.E. Israel + palestine.

[Will_Evo]

I hate people who speak on religion and/or cultural issues and have zero education in either topic. Most of them fail to realize that the Bible has scientific backings for at LEAST 93% of its stories c.f. Google. Additionally, religion has been in existance longer than any other thought process or idea. Most people take what they hear and accept it as fact because it seems true, but yet they fail to do research for theirselves because they assume whoever is talking has done it for them. Never underestimate the power of forming your own thoughts.

***I am not trying to flame here, just reply to the post***

Isn't backing the bible with scientific data completely contradictory to belief in faith, and that none of it needs to be proven? Also, so a sea being split into two, water turning into wine, man being made out of thin air, that is all backed by scientific data? I am going to have to throw up the BS card. Find me a source that says 93% of the bible is solidified by science.

Religion, has been in existence, within the exact same times civilization has. Religion started, almost systematically, with the creation of a new empire. This includes, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.. Religion is not original, it has not been here any longer than the first man wondered what a star was(Early philosophy).

Now I don't mean much offense by this, but it is inevitable, coming onto a forum telling people that they don't know what they are talking about, is completely a two way street. Additionally, from the looks of your post, you didn't do much original research for yourself either. Perhaps, instead of telling people like me we don't think for ourselves, you should take a close look at yourself..because..quite simply...you do not believe in anything someone else didnt tell you...you believe everything that is in the bible, you have to, therefore you do not have original thoughts, you believe what someone else tells you to because it "Seems true"

-Evo

[Sonthert]

As the astronomer for the Vatican talks about, in Religulous, the text of the bible was written between 1000BC and 400 AD. The Period of modern science starts in around 1500 AD. Of course there's no science in the bible, according to the astronomer for the Vatican.

[Tyler]

The miracles located in the 4 [5 if you count St.Thomas] gospels do not hold any current scientific backing. However, things like the giants in Genesis, the Nephilim, have been connected to the giant-sized human bones found in Syria. The 10 plagues of Egypt all have backing of real events. The flood was documented world-wide. Just because someone is Christian does not mean they take the stories in the Bible to be 100% true. In almost any religion class worth it's tuition cost, one of the first things you'll learn is that there are different types of stories in any religious text, that includes the Bible, Qur'an, Torah, Talmud, Tanach, Bio of Bahalluah, Bagivad-Gita (mispelt), ect... And you're not supposed to take everything literally. Imagine if all the Christians in the world took literally the passage about killing all Hittites? Or Muslims to kill all Kajirites? There would be non-stop killing, not that there isn't already...

The idea of religion takes two things, first and foremost it takes logic and understanding, the things that cannot be rationalized or explained by science or anything else requires faith.

Sontert: The Bible has many books that do not exist in the Bible, such as the Apocrypha and other extra-cannonical texts. A lot of them were excluded from the Bible for a variety of reasons but one of the reasons is that the books took away from the grandeur of G-d, such as the story of Lilith.

Hippo: The Israeli/Palestinian conflict did not begin until 1936 with the Arab revolt in conjunction with 1947's partitian plan.

Evo: I am currently a grad student at Xavier in Theology. I do NOT believe in everything that is in the Bible. Let's not make assumptions. Simply stated, people are taking the information presented in this decent movie and accepting everything as 100% true fact without second guessing the information because it seems good enough. You're right, eventaully we all do listen to someone else, even in research we're looking at someone else's work who looked at someone else's work, ect..ect...ect... but it's the coagulation of the material that allows one to form their own thoughts, ideas, and opinions about subjects. To form an idea based off of any fewer than 5 sources I would say is irresponsible.

I do not mean to offend anyone I am just here to offer my input, as far as I know, I'm the only one here with formal training/education in Religion.

[Zinite]

As the astronomer for the Vatican talks about, in Religulous, the text of the bible was written between 1000BC and 400 AD. The Period of modern science starts in around 1500 AD. Of course there's no science in the bible, according to the astronomer for the Vatican.

Science in the bible:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

10 cubits in diameter, 30 cubits in circumference. You heard it here folks, the Bible says pi(π) = 3.00

[Tyler]

As the astronomer for the Vatican talks about, in Religulous, the text of the bible was written between 1000BC and 400 AD. The Period of modern science starts in around 1500 AD. Of course there's no science in the bible, according to the astronomer for the Vatican.

Science in the bible:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

10 cubits in diameter, 30 cubits in circumference. You heard it here folks, the Bible says pi(π) = 3.00

Never heard of that one before! Wow

[Capt. Morgan]

Saw it and enjoyed it. Didn't necessarily agree with everything he did and said but overall I liked the movie.

[Will_Evo]

The miracles located in the 4 [5 if you count St.Thomas] gospels do not hold any current scientific backing. However, things like the giants in Genesis, the Nephilim, have been connected to the giant-sized human bones found in Syria. The 10 plagues of Egypt all have backing of real events. The flood was documented world-wide. Just because someone is Christian does not mean they take the stories in the Bible to be 100% true. In almost any religion class worth it's tuition cost, one of the first things you'll learn is that there are different types of stories in any religious text, that includes the Bible, Qur'an, Torah, Talmud, Tanach, Bio of Bahalluah, Bagivad-Gita (mispelt), ect... And you're not supposed to take everything literally. Imagine if all the Christians in the world took literally the passage about killing all Hittites? Or Muslims to kill all Kajirites? There would be non-stop killing, not that there isn't already...

The idea of religion takes two things, first and foremost it takes logic and understanding, the things that cannot be rationalized or explained by science or anything else requires faith.

Sontert: The Bible has many books that do not exist in the Bible, such as the Apocrypha and other extra-cannonical texts. A lot of them were excluded from the Bible for a variety of reasons but one of the reasons is that the books took away from the grandeur of G-d, such as the story of Lilith.

Hippo: The Israeli/Palestinian conflict did not begin until 1936 with the Arab revolt in conjunction with 1947's partitian plan.

Evo: I am currently a grad student at Xavier in Theology. I do NOT believe in everything that is in the Bible. Let's not make assumptions. Simply stated, people are taking the information presented in this decent movie and accepting everything as 100% true fact without second guessing the information because it seems good enough. You're right, eventaully we all do listen to someone else, even in research we're looking at someone else's work who looked at someone else's work, ect..ect...ect... but it's the coagulation of the material that allows one to form their own thoughts, ideas, and opinions about subjects. To form an idea based off of any fewer than 5 sources I would say is irresponsible.

I do not mean to offend anyone I am just here to offer my input, as far as I know, I'm the only one here with formal training/education in Religion.

My bad, I did assume you were a christian.

My point in that post was that you said "people take what they hear and accept it as fact because it seems true,, but yet they fail to do research for theirselves because they assume whoever is talking has done it for them" ...yet you would pull a number like 93% out of thin air and expect us to believe that 93% of the bible is backed by scientific data.

Now if you are a Christian. You have to believe 100% of the bible. According to Christianity, the bible is gods words written through man. A christian must accept everything written in the bible in one context or another. If not, then they are saying the God of the religion is indirectly a liar.
My point behind this, was you said we are not forming our own original thoughts...and as a direct contradiction(Assuming you are a Christian) you believe(because you must) every word someone else wrote down because it "Seems true".

Or Muslims to kill all Kajirites? There would be non-stop killing, not that there isn't already...

By the way, Muslims are still taking passages like this literally. aka the American "Terrorist" is actually a religious "Extremeist"(Only extreme because it is so foreign to us, normal for them). They believe every bit of it, and some take action.

-Evo

[Dr. B]

...Now if you are a Christian. You have to believe 100% of the bible. According to Christianity, the bible is gods words written through man. A christian must accept everything written in the bible in one context or another. If not, then they are saying the God of the religion is indirectly a liar...
-Evo

My personal belief, and I know a lot of others would agree, is that the stories of the books are not to be taken literally but rather the motifs and themes, and even sometimes events, prevalent in each tale are to be applied to the circumstance of man, in all his imperfection. Everything in the books may possibly be true, in one context or another - Or at least applicable.

It is, as you said yourself, because the Lord's words were transcribed by man that we have an imperfect set of scriptures in this realm. We are not without the propensity for sin and error. We are not perfect. Therefore, we must derive some practices or doctrines to attempt to fill the void between the form - the ideal - and the imperfection implicit of it which we observe.

More to come, back me up FSU.

[Tyler]

...Now if you are a Christian. You have to believe 100% of the bible. According to Christianity, the bible is gods words written through man. A christian must accept everything written in the bible in one context or another. If not, then they are saying the God of the religion is indirectly a liar...
-Evo

My personal belief, and I know a lot of others would agree, is that the stories of the books are not to be taken literally but rather the motifs and themes, and even sometimes events, prevalent in each tale are to be applied to the circumstance of man, in all his imperfection. Everything in the books may possibly be true, in one context or another - Or at least applicable.

It is, as you said yourself, because the Lord's words were transcribed by man that we have an imperfect set of scriptures in this realm. We are not without the propensity for sin and error. We are not perfect. Therefore, we must derive some practices or doctrines to attempt to fill the void between the form - the ideal - and the imperfection implicit of it which we observe.

More to come, back me up FSU.

I agree with you almost 100%. I don't want to get into my thesis topic on here because I'd be typing for ages, but yeah, basically what you said, echoes in part, what I said. The Biblical tradition is a very complex one that takes years upon years to even get the slightest understanding of.

[Will_Evo]

...Now if you are a Christian. You have to believe 100% of the bible. According to Christianity, the bible is gods words written through man. A christian must accept everything written in the bible in one context or another. If not, then they are saying the God of the religion is indirectly a liar...
-Evo

My personal belief, and I know a lot of others would agree, is that the stories of the books are not to be taken literally but rather the motifs and themes, and even sometimes events, prevalent in each tale are to be applied to the circumstance of man, in all his imperfection. Everything in the books may possibly be true, in one context or another - Or at least applicable.

It is, as you said yourself, because the Lord's words were transcribed by man that we have an imperfect set of scriptures in this realm. We are not without the propensity for sin and error. We are not perfect. Therefore, we must derive some practices or doctrines to attempt to fill the void between the form - the ideal - and the imperfection implicit of it which we observe.

More to come, back me up FSU.

I agree with you almost 100%. I don't want to get into my thesis topic on here because I'd be typing for ages, but yeah, basically what you said, echoes in part, what I said. The Biblical tradition is a very complex one that takes years upon years to even get the slightest understanding of.

I agree with both of you on this one. I understand that the bible is full of stories that did not happen literally, they are meant to personify sinners as a whole and teach a lesson. My thing is that not only are those stories not meant to be taken literally, there are those that were meant to be. You mean to tell me, that Moses through God turned an entire river into wine? That he split the red sea in two so his people could walk across? No way, but as a Christian, you are forced by nature to believe these things.

And for error, the bible in translation would have errors, but in its original version, it would have contained no errors...it would have contained exactly what "God" wanted it to say.

Anyway, like you said I don't want to get deep into this, we could talk for days. Anyways, good news, I leave Iraq today. :-D

-Evo©

[Tyler]

I agree with both of you on this one. I understand that the bible is full of stories that did not happen literally, they are meant to personify sinners as a whole and teach a lesson. My thing is that not only are those stories not meant to be taken literally, there are those that were meant to be. You mean to tell me, that Moses through God turned an entire river into wine? That he split the red sea in two so his people could walk across? No way, but as a Christian, you are forced by nature to believe these things.

And for error, the bible in translation would have errors, but in its original version, it would have contained no errors...it would have contained exactly what "God" wanted it to say.

Anyway, like you said I don't want to get deep into this, we could talk for days. Anyways, good news, I leave Iraq today. :-D

-Evo©

Wrong wrong wrong. First, Moses didn't turn a river into wine at any point in the Bible. Second of all, the Red Sea is a divergent plate boundary and could have very well been shallow enough durign an earthquake to walk accross for a period of time.

[Will_Evo]

I thought that moses was the one that did the plagues...wasn't one of the plagues to do with the water? if you truly believe that millions of people happened to show up to a sea, during an earth quake, and were able to cross it during said earthquake, then more power to you...that right there is reaching man....use your head on this one

[Boricua]

FSU:

You said not 100% of it should be considered true but then what? 93% (as according to you that's the percent of things in the bible based on 'science')

Also, you might have formal education in Religion but ... so what? I'm in grad school too (not for Religion) and I recognize that most people who have a whole bunch of education and not much experience really know diddly squat, while people with real experience often have tons of more knowledge than grad school could ever give them. Particularly in a field as subjective as Religion, (again IMO) formal education doesn't really give you that much more insight - especially compared to other things like lets say engineering.

I have grown up Catholic and having traveled to many countries and learned about many religions my opinion is that most of these things are based on ancient rituals, traditions, and superstitions and a whole lot of faith. I can sit here and listen to you talk to what you believe based on faith all day, but when you try to start arguing that the Bible is based on science and historical facts - well then that's when I start losing all respect for the arguments.

My two cents

[erufiku]

I watched it... it's entertaining but pretty disgusting at the same time. I mean what he basically does is construct a strawman argument by presenting ridiculous cults and other extreme cases and tries to apply this argument to religion as a whole. People who're not smart to realize this shouldn't be touching the subject of religion. Neither should they be practicing any religion.

[Dr. B]

And for error, the bible in translation would have errors, but in its original version, it would have contained no errors...it would have contained exactly what "God" wanted it to say.

Anyway, like you said I don't want to get deep into this, we could talk for days. Anyways, good news, I leave Iraq today. :-D

-Evo©

If you right an essay with a faulty (incompetent) pen, errors are bound to surface despite the essay being the first material iteration of your ideals. Humans are not capable of exactly reiterating the ambitions of G-D because we are flawed. Does my extended metaphor make sense now?

I'm making the obervation in a constructive manner I assure you: You're contradicting yourself by imploring Christians to "believe the Bible 100%" while also expecting a mortal to translate G-D's form into words flawlessly. The Bible makes it quite apparent that we are made in G-D's likeness, but we are not perfect. How can a flawed scribe, utilizing a flawed medium, make a flawless copy?

On your side note: 'Gratz on comin home, I genuinely appreciate your service.

Boricua: It is true that experience teaches wisdom, but scrutiny and education can accomplish a lot as well. How exactly is one supposed to experience relgion aside from practicing, question, exploring, studying, and concluding from it?