Scarborough is a journalist, right? So, he naturally takes an objective view, looking for the evidence of life after death. Not presenting any, or being presented with any, he makes the customary objective leap to the conclusion that there is life after death. What's wrong with that?
Maher, looking for the evidence of life after death and not finding any, naturally jumps to the false conclusion that there is none. How could anyone agree with that?
I didn't hear any of that, Bob. I heard an argument against organized religion. And I thought I might have heard Maher say he believes in God, just not religious fanaticism.
As for life after death, I'm not really sure anymore what that means.
Bill Maher has a warped view of religion. Somehow he thinks that the fallenness of believers is a reflection on theology or the practice thereof(which he inaccurately calls religion which is theology and its expression in practice).
I'm not a exceptionally good person but my failing is not a reflection on my religion. Furthermore and most importantly, I believe that if I was better at living up to what I believe Christ asks of me, I'd be a better person and the world a bit better collectively. I don't know where Bill finds his inspriration for bettering himself (and thus society) but I based on his public statements about God, I see no evidence he looks to Him for inspiration.
Furthermore, I don't appreciate his open disrespect he has for my inspiration for betterment. I'm quite confident I've given him and his beliefs than he gives me.
Finally, his moronic if I'd "been born in Pakistan" argument demonstrates only his ignorance of the religion in which he was raised. Catholicism teaches that God desires all to spend eternity with Him and gives each of us sufficient grace to know and love Him. How He works is a mystery to us mere mortals.
3 comments:
Scarborough is a journalist, right? So, he naturally takes an objective view, looking for the evidence of life after death. Not presenting any, or being presented with any, he makes the customary objective leap to the conclusion that there is life after death. What's wrong with that?
Maher, looking for the evidence of life after death and not finding any, naturally jumps to the false conclusion that there is none. How could anyone agree with that?
Joe wins. By a mustard seed.
I didn't hear any of that, Bob. I heard an argument against organized religion. And I thought I might have heard Maher say he believes in God, just not religious fanaticism.
As for life after death, I'm not really sure anymore what that means.
Bill Maher has a warped view of religion. Somehow he thinks that the fallenness of believers is a reflection on theology or the practice thereof(which he inaccurately calls religion which is theology and its expression in practice).
I'm not a exceptionally good person but my failing is not a reflection on my religion. Furthermore and most importantly, I believe that if I was better at living up to what I believe Christ asks of me, I'd be a better person and the world a bit better collectively. I don't know where Bill finds his inspriration for bettering himself (and thus society) but I based on his public statements about God, I see no evidence he looks to Him for inspiration.
Furthermore, I don't appreciate his open disrespect he has for my inspiration for betterment. I'm quite confident I've given him and his beliefs than he gives me.
Finally, his moronic if I'd "been born in Pakistan" argument demonstrates only his ignorance of the religion in which he was raised. Catholicism teaches that God desires all to spend eternity with Him and gives each of us sufficient grace to know and love Him. How He works is a mystery to us mere mortals.
Post a Comment