criterionforum.org

I think that when you're dealing with beliefs that come as a package deal with talking snakes, turning water into wine, and giant man-swallowing fish tales, it's hard to treat the subject even-handedly. Because the question could always be asked of folks who believe some stuff but toss out the rest -- isn't that a bit hypocritical?

mfunk9786 wrote:I think that when you're dealing with beliefs that come as a package deal with talking snakes, turning water into wine, and giant man-swallowing fish tales, it's hard to treat the subject even-handedly. Because the question could always be asked of folks who believe some stuff but toss out the rest -- isn't that a bit hypocritical?

As with anything written by man, the bible, history books, etc, you have to practice critical acceptence of authority. Whether intentionally or not, the writer's biases, research, era, etc will be reflected in his writings. Maher (and CS Lewis) is right: Doubt.. and questioning what you believe, is essential. I don't think it's hypocritical at all, if you are "tossing some stuff out", for the right reasons.

But I don't think we should have a religion throw-down here mfunk

ByMarkClark.com wrote:To me, the term "Christian conservative" is an oxymoron. Christ wasn't a conservative; he was a radical.

Listening to some people, you'd think Christ grew up in fifties middle-America.

Jesus loved being in bed by 10

Don't you guys know, Jesus was a Democrat.



Note: This post should not be construed as an endorsement of the band Everclear.

No, Jesus was a Capricorn.

This post should be construed as an endorsement of Kris Kristofferson

LA Weekly gets some approving quotes from Maher on alternative healing and, um, astrology.

Well, this was alternately better and worse than I expected. Maher's smug tone and general rudeness in his quest for cheap laughs derailed the occasional good point he posed. I particularly liked his comments in conversation with the well-dressed R&B singer turned evangelical icon concerning his opulent dress and the offhand comment that any religion where a 10 year old can be a preacher has serious problems. I don't disagree with most of Maher's arguments against faith, and to his credit he did steer clear of the hometown church experience where I think the strongest argument for organized religion can be made, but I was really disappointed in how often he had to make some jackass comment rather than let the subject speak. Maher could learn a lesson from a master documentarian host like Louis Theroux about letting people talk and hang themselves. And those "kitschy" cut-aways to old films, ugh!

EDIT: Jeez, this DVD is loaded with cut footage. There's like another equally smug movie's worth here

domino harvey wrote: a master documentarian host like Louis Theroux about letting people talk and hang themselves.

I happen to like Louis Theroux but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Master? Really??? Seriously????

What does that make John Safran?

The most dangerous thing about religion is the all the people who misintrepret their text of choice (i.e. offering up a LITERAL interpretation, as opposed to a metaphorical one, etc.) and then practice this misinterpretation in their everyday lives. Conveniently ignoring some parts and practicing others is also a problem...creating agendas with it...using it as a crutch to avoid more difficult (but very necessary) things in life...using it to prey on the weak-minded...to make money. One could go on and on about how religion is a breeding grounds for hypocrisy, corruption, and intolerance. I'm just totally against human foundations that totally, needlessly divide people. I have no problem with people having faith and spirituality, but make damn sure you're understanding it correctly. And, above all, keep it to yourself. If that's what you need to get through your life in one piece, so be it. Just don't let a book of ancient fairy tales completely run your life.

MoonlitKnight wrote:One could go on and on about how religion is a breeding grounds for hypocrisy, corruption, and intolerance.

Of course it's not. Religion doesn't breed these things: human nature does. Religion is a convinient hook for justifying bad actions, but make no mistake, if there were no religions the same people would simply find another hook on which to justify their vices. Cutting out religion will only send people down other avenues in their pursuit of hypocrisy, corruption, and intolerance, it won't make any noticeable reduction in destructive behaviour.

I was just going to say, look at the rancorous divides that sprout up on this very forum over things as trivial as the OAR of certain Sirk and Welles films. (Though of course, all enlightened people know that Academy is the one and only, true and living ratio.)

But how many people are going to kill or, at least, inflict harm upon someone else over an OAR dispute????

People need to stop worrying about what happens to them after they die. Let's just say none of us can ever know as long as we're alive and leave it at that. Now go live your life. O:)

I was also going to add a point that the Hindu and Buddhist religions were pretty much completely ignored in this film. And I must say I don't think I've ever heard of an fanatical/fundie Hindu or Buddhist. Could this be why they were omitted? Are the people in these religions just...'smarter,' as a whole? :-k

MoonlitKnight wrote:But how many people are going to kill or, at least, inflict harm upon someone else over an OAR dispute????

Had the MO thread not been locked for a few weeks we'd have learned the answer

MoonlitKnight wrote:I was also going to add a point that the Hindu and Buddhist religions were pretty much completely ignored in this film. And I must say I don't think I've ever heard of an fanatical/fundie Hindu

You should probably read international news more often.

Antoine Doinel wrote:You should probably read international news more often.

Eh, what's the point when it's the same old shit? :-"

Antoine Doinel wrote:

MoonlitKnight wrote:I was also going to add a point that the Hindu and Buddhist religions were pretty much completely ignored in this film. And I must say I don't think I've ever heard of an fanatical/fundie Hindu

You should probably read international news more often.

Or rent Deepa Mehta's Fire and watch the extras, when the Shiv Senas were destroying movie theaters playing Mehta's film because of its deleterious effect on their idiot morality.

MoonlitKnight wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:

MoonlitKnight wrote:I was also going to add a point that the Hindu and Buddhist religions were pretty much completely ignored in this film. And I must say I don't think I've ever heard of an fanatical/fundie Hindu

You should probably read international news more often.

Eh, what's the point when it's the same old shit?

Why bother when you already know everything right?

According to the commentary, they said the eastern religions were left out due to time and money contraints. They also said somewhere that they shot enough footage to have it shown as episodes in 30 minute TV chunks, and if that were picked up (not too likely, but I'd be willing to see), then they would hit the eastern religions.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Why bother when you already know everything right?

Sorry...I'm just naturally cynical about human nature. People have the intellectual capacity to learn from falling victim to weaknesses and past fuck-ups, but, it seems, they generally choose not to. ](*,)

Don't know where else to put this, but I found this interesting and a little depressing: the comments section for a Huffpost article pointing out the unlikeliness of an urban legend involving a pastor who pretends to be homeless in order to teach his flock a lesson has been overrun by self-identifying Christians who either A, refuse to believe it could be false and accuse Huff Post of being anti-Christian (the article appears in the Religion section of Huff Post, but...) or B, most worryingly, gleefully declare that it should be true and it doesn't matter if it's made up. I understand wanting a nice story that teaches a lesson to be true, but the willful denial of reality as though the fact that this story made up is somehow poses affront to Christianity is just frustrating

Didn't Colbert already cover this in his first episode?

When the legend becomes fact...

Wait, domino is surprised that devout Christians might prefer teachable "feel bad" stories to facts? I also feel a bit like you've buried the credit and the lede for this expose. It's really all about the continuing work of Snopes.com -- a site anyone with older, more rural or red state relatives needs to bookmark -- not so much the HuffPo.

Uh, my point was the comments on the Huff Post article, as stated quite clearly in my post