That being said anyone who is religious would feel uncomfortable while watching “Religulous”. The name to me was well thought out but offensive, “Religulous” a portmanteau or blend of the two words, religion and ridiculous. To me the movie should have actually been called “Christian Bashing Featuring Some Other Religions for Split Seconds” by Bill Maher. I wrote down many of his questionable quotes that are almost intelligent. Bill Maher is a smart individual but an agnostic can only promote what they know which means not very much when it comes to religion.
Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving. As far as Genesis 1-2 goes, it is more important to understand the scripture, rather than prove it to be factual. “Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization” (Ferngren, 2). Genesis 1-2 is the cause of much unnecessary tension between the religious and scientific communities. The writers of Genesis 1-2 wrote it in a way that presents the Earth’s creation as a factual account of God creating the heavens and the Earth.
It is not a reliable way. This includes reasoning and making predictions without further testing. Faith is another way that a lot of Christian believers us to seek the truth. The faith based way of seeking the truth is different from the scientific method in that it can answer a lot of questions about the most important truths. (Religious-Science.com 2008) The truths about the purpose of life and that our creator, God wants us to be happy and that he has a plan for each one of us.
One negative aspect to his essay would have to be his bias toward conservatives and the rich. He deliberately labels out the rich in many of his examples by pointing out how they claim to be Christian but do not wish to help aid the poor. As for conservatives, he not only points out George W. Bush but refers at times to religion as “conservative religion.” This clearly shows his bias toward them and could be a way for him to associate them with the American Christianity problem. I believe McKibben has a great point on this issue. As American Christians, we always believe that if we do good deeds or help ourselves we go to heaven.
It almost leads us to question Henry’s morals if he is willing to kill infants. Although we assume that Henry is just playing up what will happen because he hasn’t lost control of them yet we have to play with the notion that Henry isn’t on as high of a moral ground as we thought even though it might be a just ground. This speech also uses a lot more detail to describe certain events than the other two speeches. He vividly states, “ the blind and bloody soldier with foul hand defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters:”(34-35). This is very detailed and horrific because he is saying he won’t be able to stop his soldiers from raping the women in the city.
The norms of the society sexuality is largely based on their religion, like marriage flirting and most of the other sexual behaviors. The introduction of a vampire whose sexuality is not in line with the norms of the community, thus receives many critics’ from the community and it has considered morally right to destroy the sinful creatures associated with the dark
Paul Tillich argues against the literal theologians and the social scientists as well. He says that “religion has rediscovered its true place in man’s spiritual life, namely, in its depth, out of which it gives substance, ultimate meaning, judgment and creative courage to all functions of the human spirit.” (Tillich 9) In my opinion and it may be clouded by my religion, which is Christianity, is that God does exist and one will not
Some however may question, how do you name a conscience if it is not a physical matter and one cannot distinguish where it originates from? One of the two main philosophers to support that conscience is the voice of reason is Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed the conscience primarily to be a substance of reason; a moral guide that has been placed in us by God in order to make us more inclined to do his will here on earth. He believed that at conception or at some later stage, God gives each person a conscience to be able to discern morally right and wrong. Does this mean then that people who do not have faith or a believe in God are consciousness?
It is doubtful that Darrow was as white or Bryan as black, or even Scopes himself as absolutely ignorant and innocent in resolute belief as is depicted. Characters such as the newspaper reporter and Scopes’ love interest have been given more ‘spirit’ to help the plot through. This, however, opened up the film to possibilities of backlash. It is fairer to approach the criticism, perhaps, in the words of the critics themselves. Robert Harsh, for example, declares in ‘Exposing the Lie: Inherit the Wind’ that "Christians, particularly William Jennings Bryan, are consistently lampooned throughout, while the skeptics and agnostics are consistently portrayed as intelligent, kindly, and even heroic.
Using the scripture to make political arguments is trashy and unfair. As a Speech and Debate acc. veteran, I’ve had personal experience with religiously inclined ‘support’. As a non-Christian, I felt disadvantaged and nervous to make a comeback because I didn’t want to offend anyone. But hey, before I go off on a nostalgic rant, let me back up.