Last night I watched, the first part of Bill Maher's "Religulous." No, I didn't throw a hissy-fit and storm away (like some Christians in the movie), I had to go help a friend with an art project. Going into this movie, I knew that Bill is an ardent atheist claiming agnosticism. That sounds weird, but it basically means he wants others to doubt religion like him and doesn't seek to understand others. Kind of like Bill O'Reily or Glenn Beck. They just ask questions to badger their source to either make them look stupid or not get any answers. Knowing this and realizing that I would just sit there and fume the entire movie if I took this attitude. I decided to take notes on it. Writing down questions asked, answers I would have given, and in-congruencies in either Bill's or the interviewees logic.
What I came away with was a look into the mind of a modern (excuse me) post-modern atheists. First off, Bill never sought out a qualified source. The only doctors he spoke to were the director of the Human Genome Project and a former Four-Tops who called himself doctor yet did not have a doctorate. At no point was any professor of religion from a divinity school questioned. Maybe I'm jaded and way more knowledgeable about sourcing interviews, but that's where I would have started, not the truck-stop church with the Flava-flav look-a-like preacher. (Interesting note, Bill thanked them for being Christ-like after they prayed for him). Second, there were too many cut scenes where the answers to the questions were cut off. It seemed if the answer wasn't what was expected, Bill did not further pursue it, as a seeker would have, he just moved on to the next question. In the cut scenes, which took place in the van the crew traveled in, Bill repeatedly insulted those he just interviewed or was about to interview. I also noticed how some of the people would stop the interview in the middle of it if they perceived they were losing. But, one time (I chuckle as I write this) a rabbi wouldn't let Bill say anything till he finished answering the question. Bill, visibly upset, stopped the interview and left.
Here are some of the things I took away from "Religulous"
Why is faith good?
Where do I stand on subjects such as evolution, homosexuals, existence of Jesus, virgin birth, veracity of scripture, after-life, and love?
Most people will equate Catholicism as what all Christians think, unless they handle snakes and speak in tongues.
Do I live like Jesus?
If heaven is so good, why don't I commit suicide?
How do I approach other religions; do I think their claims are to outlandish to be believed?
How much do I actually know about the Bible?
Do I love others?
If you interview or have a discussion with a person hostile to your views, pre-set the rules of engagement and use a paper in pen to jot down rebuttals instead of interrupting.
Know the signs of a seeker.
Know how you live your life and how God has told us to live in order to give an answer (1 Pet 3:15).
Above all be Christ-like so that no one can fault you as hypocrite.
The last thing that struck me was the perceived loss of freedom that religion brings. And while that is a whole post in itself, what is it that binds me: the love of/for God, or the traditions of men?
namaste
vaya con Dios
No comments:
Post a Comment