Saturday, January 5, 2008

Bill Maher on Conan


"You can't be a rational person six days a week... and on one day of the week, go to a building, and think you're drinking the blood of a two thousand year old space god."
Note: This is part 2 of the interview, for part 1 click here

(via Pharyngula)

6 comments:

  1. I actually saw this on Conan. I thought it was kind of silly, because Maher simply displays a lack of knowledge with respect to religion.

    I think its so strange when people completely rush to bash Christianity or religion in general, without trying to understand the belief in general.

    I doubt Maher has read apologetic classics such as Mere Christianity. Granted, those things alone can't make people believe in God, but if he was much more educated on it, he wouldn't make such comments.

    I realize it's pretty difficult to sympathize with Christians when the a lot of Christians in America are those who are starting wars and housing judgment mixed with hatred. But that is not the message of Christianity. That, in my humble opinion, is the opposite of Christianity.

    I'd love to attempt to answer any questions you have about Christianity or what not. I don't have any goals of "converting" you or anything, but if you don't understand something, I'd love to explain my personal opinions.

    Peace,
    Matt

    (btw, e-mail address is matt.scott.crum(at )gmail(dot )com

    ReplyDelete
  2. "lack of knowlege of religion" is a common claim made against those who Do understand Exactly what it is and correctly call it made-up bull. The historical evidence proves that Christianity was made-up quite a bit of time after the events portrayed in the New Testament gospels, and NOT by actual eye-witnesses of those alleged events as it claims to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ""lack of knowlege of religion" is a common claim made against those who Do understand Exactly what it is and correctly call it made-up bull. The historical evidence proves that Christianity was made-up quite a bit of time after the events portrayed in the New Testament gospels, and NOT by actual eye-witnesses of those alleged events as it claims to be.

    What are your sources? I can find many whom are credible and disagree.

    Initial thoughts when reading:
    There are documents written by people who lived within just a generation of Jesus that were church leaders. There are written history of the early church which is considered from the death of Jesus to year 325 which is the absolute date of the First Council of Nicaea.

    There are church writings from those first generation Christians, most famously from what some call the "Apostolic Fathers" which include Saint Clement I. He was very well recorded in history because he was the Bishop of Rome for a period of time.

    Saint Clement is documented as to known Saint Peter of the New Testament personally. The book that it was documented was the Liber Pontificalis. Of course one must consider the accuracy of the Liber Pontificalis, but it is truly to me, hard to deny that the timing is accurate of the New Testament.

    I don't understand how you can argue that the New Testament was written much later, because there are a lot of history in the early church after Saint Peter that has been documented...

    Anyway, I'm open to listening to your reasoning.

    Peace,
    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  4. I forgot to respond to the first part. The segment of Maher does not describe Christianity accurately. That is what I was more or less referring to.

    If one had to describe a religion (more in the case of one I didn't believe), one is much more apt to describe it in a manner that Maher described Christianity if he/she was uneducated on the subject.

    I am not saying every Atheist is uneducated of Christianity, because I realize that simply isn't true, and I respect that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Matt, Did you watch the featured documentary on this blog, the hidden story of jesus? if so, what did you think about it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I haven't watched it...it's really long! haha.. but I am in the process of it but it may take a little while. I've made it through approximately a half an hour.

    So far its interesting, especially learning of other religions... but in regards to some things, I am not sure of its accuracy with respect to Krishna. It seems that there are a conflict with what the documentary states, that Krishna was born of a virgin, as well as what other folks whom are educated about the subject say. Most sources that I have looked state that Krishna was born of Princess Devaki and Vasudeva, whom also had children before Krishna was born. Source listed is Mahabharata Book 12 in section 48. I have however not read it. Just something I wanted to point out.

    Also, I'm not sure about the rest of the documentary, but the thing that I believe separates Christianity from other religions is the crucifixion and the key resurrection. When using the term resurrection, I want to convey the definition as Jesus returning to life fully and eternally. Thus
    "defeating death".

    I will continue to watch the video to see if it addresses that issue.

    The stuff dealing with Buddha isn't really necessarily surprising. Buddha has some amazing philosophies and was very very intelligent, that is undeniable. I believe he did find ways in which to live a good life in relation to other lifestyles. If Christianity has the correct moral beliefs in which people should hold to, to live a good life, it seems feasible for people to find some of the morality without believing in Jesus.
    It is obvious that a majority of people thing its wrong to steal, cheat, lie, and whatnot in at least some circumstances, and to live a good life, many would say it is best not to do those things. Buddha just went a little bit further, I'd say, than the general public.

    Thanks for the video tho. I'll finish it and I'm sorry for responding prematurely. haha. I just will forget half the stuff by the time I can finish.

    ReplyDelete