Skip to main content

Religulous

I am not a fan of Bill Maher. As a matter of fact, I find him to be annoying. His obnoxiousness does not appeal to me. But I watched Maher’s “Religulous.” Essentially, it is a documentary that pokes fun at the credulity of religious people and the ridiculousness of religious claims (Christianity in particular). Although I am a Christian, I surprisingly like “Religulous.” It appears sacrilegious or blasphemous for a Christian to watch it. But I think that Christians should watch it.

Rottenness is sometimes not readily visible. It infects the inner core and gradually sets the process of decay. Sometimes the truth about a certain condition becomes more visible, when someone uninhibitedly brings out in the open the rottenness of what many consider to be sacred. So, there has to be a playing field, where nothing is sacred. In that playing field, we discover even that which is initially unimaginable. In a playing field where freethinking is suppressed in order to protect the sacred, the mind becomes oppressed by imprisonment to the uncorrected thinking of the past. A thing that is branded as sacred is usually immune from all-out criticisms. Such immunity hinders the discovery of any truth that can be accessible to humans, which can include the falsities of beliefs that we cherish as sacred. Maher’s uncensored mockeries of religion can bring to light the ridiculousness of our illusions and delusions. They are comedic corrections to our tragic doxastic dispositions.

Popular Christianity in its inner core is arguably rotten. Popular Christianity is corrupted by the ambitions of power-hungry clerics, scandalous behaviors of sexual maniacs in religious garbs, and money-making acts of religious pimps. Popular Christianity today is different from what Jesus and the apostles envisioned two thousand years ago. It looks shallow, dumb, ignorant, irrelevant, corrupt, hypocritical, narrow-minded, dogmatic, etc. “Religulous” reveals the current perception of Christianity among its cultured despisers. Christians should figure out what they can humbly learn from Maher’s insulting claims about Christianity, in order for them to learn how they should then live in the 21st century.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Divine-Human Love Affairs

Since Valentine’s Day is right around the corner, let me briefly reflect about love. What is the nature of God’s love for humanity? What is the nature of that love that has God as its object or the kind of love (directed to God) that the Bible demands from humans? God’s love and the love that is demanded from us are both intense and radical. God’s love for humanity is both intense and radical. Based on the theological narrative that developed through the spiritual insights of the early followers of Jesus (like Peter, John, and Paul), Jesus is the ultimate expression of God’s love for humanity. What does it mean? According to their theological narrative, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. God sent his only begotten Son to serve as the sacrifice for the sins of the world. The religious frameworks of the ancient world, of course, shaped the formation of this narrative. In the ancient world, human actions that offend the deities require sacrifices that sufficiently appease the offended...

Nazarenes and Evolution

I am not a Nazarene, but I received my undergraduate degree from a Nazarene college. There's something admirable about how the Nazarene Church as a denomination is responding to the theory of evolution. It should serve as a model for other evangelical denominations. http://www.exploringevolution.com/

Creation vs. Evolution

While I was driving yesterday, I ended up listening to a Christian radio station. The hosts with a special guest pointed out how creationist students are persecuted by evolutionist professors. The special guest who was a former student in a secular university exaggeratedly related a story about a biology professor who would not write a recommendation letter for a student who did not affirm the truth of the theory of evolution. While I was listening, it dawned on me what exactly is the problem with the perspectives of fundamentalist creationists and dogmatic evolutionists. It appears to me that both of them are confused about the nature of a theory (especially a scientific one). I usually hear creationists claiming that the theory of evolution is a mere philosophical theory. So, they claim that it is not intellectually superior to creationism. On the other hand, evolutionists usually claim that the theory of evolution is actually a scientific theory, while creationism is a mere religiou...