Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
As our morals progress, so do the way we read these books.
A catholic in 1200 AD would have found nothing wrong with burning someone alive for "witchcraft" or having sex before marriage, in fact they would find it being Righteous.
Yet today, using the exact same book and religion, you would chose to read it differently...
That is only proof that religion falls in line or evolves with our norms and morals, NOT the other way around
with Maher's take on Christianity at least is that he does what the religious crazies do - takes Biblical stories as claims to literal truth, instead of as parables. The people who spoke and wrote the narratives collected in the Bible had no notion of our modern-day empiricism. To them, empirical fact was barely relevant to the telling of a story that conveyed (again, to them) a timeless truth. Like Plato's perfect forms, the story, the parable, the narrative was immutable and hence impervious to facts which were considered niggling, largely unimportant. All mythology does this, and Christianity is no exception. The myth of Icarus and Daedalus is empirically false, but what it teaches about extremism and moderation is highly relevant. Contemporary commentators who claim the biblical stories to be literally factual would be unrecognizable to the people of Mesopotamia 2000 years ago, whether they proclaim themselves to be believers like Sarah Palin or agnostics like Bill Maher.
Maher is a funny guy and any skewering of the nutcases of Christianity is welcome, but taking the stories of the Bible to be what they were meant to be can yield real wisdom today, just like it could back then. The notion that, in order to become a spiritual being, one must first figuratively die to one's material self should not be dismissed because Jesus resurrection is a scientific impossibility.
MAHER: I'm not into western medicine. That to me is a complete scare tactic. It just shows you, you can...
KING: You mean you don't get a -- you don't get a flu shot?
MAHER: A flu shot is the worst thing you can do.
KING: Why?
MAHER: Because it's got -- it's got mercury.
KING: It prevents flu.
MAHER: It doesn't prevent. First of all, that's...
KING: I haven't had the flu in 25 years since I've been taking a flu shot.
MAHER: Well, I hate to tell you, Larry, but if you have a flu shot for more than five years in a row, there's ten times the likelihood that you'll get Alzheimer's disease. I would stop getting your...
KING: What did you say?
MAHER: That went better in rehearsal but it was still good. Absolutely, no the defense against disease is to have a strong immune system. A flu shot just compromises your immune system.
Whatever. The genius of Larry Charles is what makes this movie great. Maher's just in the shots. He looks stoned most of the time in the film.
Well, why not?!
If someone came here and said that George Bush was the greatest president ever, and we need to accept the neo con agenda...I sure as hell would challenge them on that. So what if they have Faith in the above statement?
If someone came here and said that black people are not as smart as white people, I would challenge them on it. I would demand proof of their argument.
So what if it is their faith?
If someone said that Smoking is good for you, I would challenge them on it, I would demand proof, I would demand they support their argument. I would not just say, Hay, If that is what you have faith in.....
No, ask questions! Challenge dogma!
If it cant stand up to Scrutiny, thats its problem. Not my fault for pointing it out.
To judge any religion by it's adherents is ass backwards (Even Milton's Satan was disappointed with his). Christ killed no-one (especially if he didn't exist!). Those that CLAIM to be following HIS example by waging war aren't.
Maher is a clown... basically relevant only in the company of other clowns.
Again you make unsupported assumptions - that religion is the source of morality. Nonsense! Do you suggest that early groups of pre-literate, pre-priest infested humans had no morality or code of conduct? No one knew that stealing or screwing someone else's spouse was wrong prior to the invention of religion? Plenty of species have taboos similar to those adopted by humans in order to get along in a group. It doesn't take religion to know not to fuck with the silverback's mate, to avoid stealing the alpha wolf's leg of caribou, or to take steps to protect the weaker members of the group Religion was made up by members of the tribe who were smart enough to get out of the hard work by making up stories to explain what their pre-scientifc minds could not understand. And that's why religion is still so effective today.
...see documentaries by people who aren't PeTA nuts, who don't equate mentally handicapped children to dogs; and who don't only date strippers (who consistently go on to say he had to be the "superior" one in the relationship). Work on your own issues first, Mr. Maher.
of Jesus stopping a crowd from stoning an adulterous woman in which he uttered the immortal words; "Let ye without sin cast the first stone". The idea being that we're all error prone humans and we can forgive each other our trespasses. The writers of the bible were surely smart enough to realize they couldn't just state the point because no one would listen. But they would listen to an exciting story in which the hero saves a woman in distress from the jaws of death at the last possible second into which they could insert the point. And the whole point of that story is to teach us something about being human that is true. That is why people need their faiths. Yes, there are a lot of beliefs that are ridiculous. I think that's Maher's point. Those aside, both atheists and fundamentalists have got it wrong. This also reminds me of a passage from Douglas C. Adams. In it God was arguing with someone about creation, we asked, "But what about the babelfish?" God said, "I hadn't thought of that." Then Adams wrote; "And God disappeared in a puff of logic." Thereby, he made brilliant fun of both atheists and the devoutly religious.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
