Christians are calling for a boycott of the anti-religion comedy “Religulous,” which debuts this weekend on the big screen.
-
(Photo: Lionsgate)Bill Maher is shown here in a scene from his new film, "Religulous."
Or at least two self-proclaimed “Christian rockers” have in a YouTube video viewed more than 57,000 times in the past month it’s been up.
The duo, who call themselves the “Rapture Right,” say they have devoted their resources to getting comic Bill Maher’s “Devil movie” banned and that their “ministry … is currently at a heightened stage 9 alert awareness.”
And while there are some who may believe the call for boycott is real, those who have looked more closely at the group have discovered what many already have come to believe and what some already know.
The Rapture Right is just as anti-Christian and satirical as the movie it has “officially” boycotted.
“Are these guys real?” asked movie critic Colin Boyd who writes for the movie blog Get the Big Picture. “My first reaction was that it was a set up, because their positions are so bizarre, at least to the rational set.”
Some believe the duo is associated with “Religulous,” the self-described “documentary” that makes every effort to criticize and mock religion through interviews with mostly those on the religious fringe and through strategic editing to draw laughs more than thoughtful insight on religion.
The group’s YouTube video appears on the Religulous-affiliated website, disbeliefnet.com, and (if anything) their arguments provide the non-religious with more reason to watch the film – which many religious Americans haven’t even considered watching.
As Boyd pointed out, however, the duo has had YouTube postings dating as far back as March 2007 and a website that had been registered in February 2007.
Still, while the “Rapture Right” may not be associated with Bill Maher’s movie, observers such as Boyd are pretty sure the two stand in a position not too far from comic Bill Maher, who intellectually gave up on organized religion as a young man and has since been highly critical of it, skewering it as a bunch of ancient superstitions that do more harm than good.
“There is the possibility, however remote, that The Rapture Right is a gag – some kind of performance art or something – that mocks Christianity through one of its most annoying characters: The Christian rocker,” Boyd wrote. “And perhaps as part of that ongoing performance, they saw the opportunity to latch onto this film, which would clearly upset that character. That makes the most sense to me.”
A closer look at their website would support – if not convince visitors of – Boyd’s theory.
The website has a significant gap between the call for boycott and its prior entry (about six months) and similar gap between that and its first set of entries – nine of 11 of which were posted on the same date.
Some of the duo’s claims include “proof that Jesus was and is white,” the need for “a new Satan,” and belief that “retardation, mongoloidation, and cretinism is a choice” and therefore sins – an obvious parody of the Christian belief that homosexuality is a choice and a sin.
Both also claim to be “born without Original Sin,” were born as “Timothy Isaiah Christian” (or Timothy Is Christian, for short) and “Trevor Bernard Christian,” and want the “Universe record” in the Guinness Book of World Records for reading the Bible 4,340 times “but have been told by Guinness this title does not exist … yet.”
And if all that is not proof enough that the duo’s work is satire, the “Christian” brothers also reportedly appeared on a show produced by the Rational Response Squad, an atheist activist group dedicated to “obliterating dogma.”
Perhaps Bill Maher should have interviewed them for his “documentary.”
RSS
now prophet, you can write thing like that and feel justified. But it is not I that is flagging other people's post when it is not in agreement with you. I have seen a lot of your comments which is very far from Christian values but you have pointed the same accusation towards others, ignoring you are doing much worse.
I thought that feet, bob, or whatever name he goes by nowadays are the ones who is flagging people before in CP but it turns out that is you.
shame on you for supporting censorship, name calling and abusive approach.
Steve,
Yeah, I know. I can't stand people like that.
steveh20, the only problem is that when every knee bows it will be too late for many of them because this will occur after the Second Coming, that's why it is imperative that Christians share God's plan of salvation with as many people as possible before they will no longer have the opportunity to VOLUNTARILY ask Jesus Christ into their life.
Yeah, especially those who play devils advocate, who do they think they are!!
Wow. I've noticed a lot of people on here masquerading as Christians. No wonder we get a bad name.
Youv'e completely missed the point,a, but that could be my fault. You are correct about the terrorism but missing the point that the NT teaches that every knee will bow(do you believe that?) etc..At the end of the day how diffrent is that to those who teach all will embreace Islam, what about those who don't want either, do they have a choice. Look at the bigger picture. It's not that long ago historically speaking in Europe and the middle East we had forced baptism, the parellals are quite striking. So yes it is the sme because the NT says people will even if they don't want to. Its just Christians don't do such things today as Christainity has had its reformation and Islam not.
By the way its no good playing on my heart strings with the "my daughter" bit (It makes you seem a bit strange, no offence meant.)
Steve
Steve,
You don't know me very well either. That's not what I wanted to hear.
steve,
If the idea is that everybody will embrace Islam etc...what is the diffrence between that and the NT assertion that every knee will bow and every tounge confess Jesus is lord, they seem very much alike to me.
Maybe your question can be passed to the British families who lost 24 of their loved ones on 12 October 2002 in Bali.
Their murderer (Amrozi et al) are still saying the same mantras live in television. Mukhlas is saying Yes, we are very proud to kill those British infidels hahaha they had it coming.
Still saying that is the same with "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus is Lord" ? Please ask those family members that have the remains of their children in a boxed bits and pieces about those so called mantras.
What if that happens to your daughter in her next vacation?
Best wishes
No, you don't know anything about me prophet, I just decided to give you your pound of flesh and tell you what you wanted to hear.
Best wishes
Steve
Knowing that about you, I know now not to take your comments seriously.
steve,
"Oh. A double standard. I see. You live your life one way, but preach it another. I got it...."
Good
Feelings have added to our marriage, but I do not base my marriage, or any relationship upon feelings. If that were the case, I would be divorced living as a hermit. Feelings are a result of love, not the other way around.
Love is a choice (which Jesus demonstrated on the cross), but too many people think love is a feeling. And that's why so many marriages end in divorce. And that's why our marriage has endured hardships where other marriages have faltered. Because when times got hard, and those "feelings" weren't there, I knew I still loved her. And because of that, those feelings grew again.
steve,
Oh. A double standard. I see. You live your life one way, but preach it another. I got it....
If you check that message again, you will see that I was writing about you (I get the feeling....) in relation to conclusions you had reached about me.
My next message is in reply to your writing on not trusting your feelings in relationships(how sad)otherwise you will go off the rails etc...
So its both actually and thankfully due to that I am stable..
Be weary of a man who quotes out of context
Book of Steve, chapter 1 verse 1
steve,
Remember your own advice..."my advice to you (and its up to you if you take it) is to not always trust your feelings."
Sounds like you're talkin out both sides of your mouth. You say "don't trust your feelings" and then turn around and say "My wife and I have a good relationship because we trust our feelings for each other."
Well, which is it?
"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways..."
If the idea is that everybody will embrace Islam etc...what is the diffrence between that and the NT assertion that every knee will bow and every tounge confess Jesus is lord, they seem very much alike to me.
Steve
hlerwin,
sounds like the mumbo-jumbo of a high priestess or the rosary of some ecstatic. All religions have these mantras
no, Islam has some other mantras, "Force them to embrace Islam or kill them all, kill them infidels, kill Americans, kill Europeans, kill Australians"
Feel free to comment
Prophet
I'm sorry your feelings have nothing to do with your relationships with others. My wife and I have a good relationship because we trust our feelings for each other, I can honestly say that our feelings have made our marriage great. It is my feelings for her that stop me acting in particular ways sometimes. You feel free though to do it your way if you don't think feelings help in such things.
BW
Steve
But what does feelings have to do with my relationship with God? Or my wife? Or anyone?
If I lived by my feelings I'd be divorced, drunk, a sex addict, probably some kind of STD, and broke. So I guess it's a good thing I put my trust in something above myself and my feelings. Someone eternal, perfect, loving, and holy.
Steve,
I agree. That's why I don't. I trust God.
"Law of Biogenesis"
This applies to that life, as far as we know, can't spontaneously poof out of no where. Nor can it be formed from dirt or a rib apparently. However, when we consider what the basics for 'life' are, chemistry and all, we are left with essentially the most primitive forms of life - replicating molecules. Quite similar to bacteria, only more primitive, and wouldn't you know it this was the first signs of life on Earth some 3.85 billion years ago, and it remained microbial till at least around 620 million years ago.
"So if it is impossible to get living things from non-living matter, isn't naturalism a supernatural position? "
No, it's not impossible, it occurred 'somehow', evident by the fact that here we are talking about it, and that some how is what science is intent on discovering how. If you want to fill the void of ignorance with 'god did it' and then later have science demonstrate how it's done naturally, then you're basically taking the same position some took with respect to the orbits of celestial objects who retorted it as 'gods domain' and something he controlled directly. Then that dirty materialist Newton ruined everything and described bodies of mass moving in relation to one another according to a principle known as gravity.
Ao said, "No, it's super natural b/c it defies THE laws of physics and other NATURAL laws that all govern material objects and determine how they should behave, anything out of the ordinary and undefined according to natural laws would thus be defined as - supernatural. Supernatural ism is a thus a synonym for magic. The unexplainable, now explained via magic!"
Wouldn't naturalism fit that description as it pertains to the origin of life. The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from living things. So if it is impossible to get living things from non-living matter, isn't naturalism a supernatural position?
Well prophet, my advice to you (and its up to you if you take it) is to not always trust your feelings.
Best wishes
Steve
Personally, I choose to cease from practicing sin because I love God. He loved me so much that He sent His own Son to die, so that I wouldn't have to. That, in itself, is a good enough reason to want to follow God.
Steve,
Well, that's a choice we make. Kind of like speeding. We can choose to obey the speed limit because it's the right thing to do, or we can do it because we don't want to face to consequences.
I get the feeling that you want a world and religion where you don't have to face the consequences of your actions and decsisions. That's the thought process of someone who is irresponsible.
"God's (Y'weh, Jehovah, the God of Abraham and Jacob, the One and only true God, the Lord of lords, King of kings, the creator of all the universe, the everlasting to everlasting)"
....sounds like the mumbo-jumbo of a high priestess or the rosary of some ecstatic. All religions have these mantras.
I think you are completely right when you consider the threats that go along with it, who wants to burn for eternity?
Steve,
You can quantify all you want. God's (Y'weh, Jehovah, the God of Abraham and Jacob, the One and only true God, the Lord of lords, King of kings, the creator of all the universe, the everlasting to everlasting) Word will never die. Other god's words will. But His never will.
tpique1
"It's SUPER natural for a reason, because it defies your narrow constraints of it. "
No, it's super natural b/c it defies THE laws of physics and other NATURAL laws that all govern material objects and determine how they should behave, anything out of the ordinary and undefined according to natural laws would thus be defined as - supernatural. Supernatural ism is a thus a synonym for magic. The unexplainable, now explained via magic!
"It seems to me, if someone were "scientifically minded" they would want to explore all avenues of research not just those that fit in their box"
Well, sorry but you'd be wrong. The scientific method produces results (unlike say appealing to supernaturalism and magic) b/c its founding principle is based around only using the natural world to explain natural phenomena. The result of this is the removal of unneeded magic garbage which doesn't explain anything in he first place. In other words, people aren't allowed to use magic/supernaturalism/god/faries/pixes, etc. to explain things in the natural world. it's called scientific methodology for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
believer, Absolutely!
scits, wouldn't the fact that everything is relative be an absolute????:)
tpi Well, almost anything is possible I suppose, even the supernatural. My world is in science, the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. I see scientific evidence everyday, cant say the same for the supernatural, so I dont concern myself with it. I am a religious agnostic, dont know if there is a creator nor the nature of that creator should it exist. There might be a creator, might not, dont have the data to say that there is or is not. There might be ghosts, there might not be, dont have any data to say that there is or is not. I know there is the fossil record, can see the evidence, I know there are atoms and molecules, can see the evidence. Show me the data.........
You seem to deal in absolutes, my friend there are no absolutes, its all relative....
scitsonga,
So, in your scientifically "balanced" opinion you've already dismissed the supernatural as even being plausible which exposes your bias against even the POSSIBILITY! Which tells me only ONE thing! It isn't Truth you're after; your position is only an excuse so you don't have to acknowledge God.
The fact is there are plenty of supernatural occurrences both within Christendom and outside of it that are NOT explained by natural causes. Just dismissing them out of hand is not very "scientific" of you is it? Using the "fairy tale" argument isn't very convincing either.
I heard once someone say that the difference between regular people and an archeologist is that when they see a hole a regular person wants to get out of it and an archeologist wants to go in deeper.
It seems to me, if someone were "scientifically minded" they would want to explore all avenues of research not just those that fit in their box. If God is a viable option for origins, and we are truly "honest" in our quest to find Truth, would we not explore ALL options?
This of course is a rhetorical question. I'm fully aware of the answer already. The answer is an emphatic NO!
The point is we go into our research with certain biases. And frankly despite the halos that researchers try to paint over their heads (that they are unbiased) everyone has biases. And bias affects research.
That's why a naturalist can NEVER and will never find the Truth. They aren't after Truth, they're after forming and fashioning a worldview that best supports their position. And for the most part most scientists are atheistic in their biases and therefore that is the lens through which they interpret data.
Yep, I totally agree with you, though would qantify your statement to "the diffrent words of diffrent Gods"
steve,
You said "To balance the books, that most likely also goes for you prophet (and me as well)."
Right. But God's Word will endure forever.
tpi, "Sorry I don't play by your rules or explain life according to your corrupt and finite criteria."
OK then, I didnt know my criteria is"corrupt and finite", thanks for letting me know, I will try to do better in the future......LOL.
"Answer me, how do you use naturalism to explain the SUPER natural? "
I dont, science explains the world around me, not magic, superstition nor the supernatural.........
scitsonga,
Here, I'll get you started. (Since I know really, that you have absolutely no desire for evidence anyway, but just so you can't argue that I never presented you with anything)
http://www.worldwideflood.com/
Word of warning fellow Christians. The Bible was always right. It is the pride and arrogance of man's heart that keeps Him from God, not evidence. Strong evidence is there, it's that the skeptic DOES NOT WANT IT, unless of course it somehow feeds his carnal desire to live for himself apart from God. And THAT is what the real debate boils down to: "
John 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, AND MEN LOVED DARKNESS rather than light, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL. For every one that doeth evil HATETH THE LIGHT, neither cometh to the light, LEST his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
The issue has never been an "evidence" problem; it's always been a "heart" problem - a clinch-fisted heart problem. And that is evident!
scitsonga,
Sorry I don't play by your rules or explain life according to your corrupt and finite criteria. Answer me, how do you use naturalism to explain the SUPER natural? It's SUPER natural for a reason, because it defies your narrow constraints of it. God does not fit in your tiny little box. Your little box defines everything by naturalism. God is not limited by naturalism. When HE DOES decide to deposit His hand in the natural it is called SUPERnatural. WHY? Because it can't be explained nor defined by the limitations of naturalism. Therefore, it's YOU who is out of touch with your approach. Your criteria and approach to God is flawed coming out of the gate. You're trying to take a pop gun to a gun fight. You'll lose every time.
Now, does that mean that there is no NATURAL evidence of God stepping into history and leaving a fingerprint of His handiwork? is there no natural proof to substantiate the Bible? Of course there is! And even a child can find resources to that end by simply Googling the internet.
i saw the movie.................and in the midst of it,i remebered how boring maher could be when he got on his soap box. however as a stand up comic, he's pretty sharp.
when he challenged beliefs thru humor it made me realize how ridiculously serious we believers take some of our beliefs.
(it brings to mind the woman at the well speaking of the different places of worship, and which one was the right one)
belief is a human attempt to explain and be part of what is of spirit. sometimes they are right on and sometimes they are way out in left field.
i remember in the fifties how in credibly important it was to eat fish on friday and to not do any work on sunday, so much so as to create major division.
the one thing i experienced in watching the movie was to be able to see some of my own beliefs thru humor, thru my own laughter. it reminded me that it wasnt belief that brought me to christ but faith, that thru faith i would be part of the love and life that is the essence of the triune god, and that in faith he would live in me.
also it was thru faith, rather than belief, that made me trust my whole life to christ.
and as far as all the other details involving different beliefs go............................ they are really incidental compared to what i receive thru that faith.
and beliefs cetainly become meaningless and even counterproductive if they in any way come to contribute to the division of gal5 or come against the fellowship of 1john1.
tpi "absolute undeniable validity of the Bible"
Wow, absolute, thats a bold claim.. Can you back that up with scientific data. For example, is there scientific data to show validity of the ark/flood story and the earth is less than 10,000 years....
I'd just like to know when Christians are going to start using their resources to NOT JUST COUNTER this garbage but start producing films that show the absolute undeniable validity of the Bible and its claims. Why do we always have to play clean up to these reprobate types?
One of the best shows on tv is on TBN (of all places) - a Drive through History. It takes a practical approach to history and the Bible. Why don't we stop making 10,000 'B' movies about the rapture and start making films that are actually useful?
hlerwin "You folks just love that judgment part, don't you? I truly don't see what appeal it holds."
Many religions are all about the post life eternal torture theme. I suppose it brings a level of confort to those that think the "bad" non-believers will be punished for an eternity..
"And 20 years from now, no one will even know you made this comment."
To balance the books, that most likely also goes for you prophet (and me as well)
hlerwin,
Better, smarter, and more powerful people than you have said the same thing for the past 2000 years. Look where it's got them. Nowhere. We're still here, flourishing, growing. And 20 years from now, no one will even know you made this comment.
You folks just love that judgment part, don't you? I truly don't see what appeal it holds. This brand of religion is slipping away and will be viewed in years to come as the neurosis it actually is.
People who purposefully lead others away from God deserve what they will get. But I wish for their sakes and the sake of others that they would not lead others astray.
pinochos "Bill Maher is the perfect example of a liberal democrat. I'm just thankful to God that he'll get his due."
Get his due? You mean the eternal torture thing? Will that bring you great joy in heaven knowing the likes of Maher will get tortured for an eternity by your loving god? Is that what christianity is all about?
So your god is sending liberal democrates to the eternal torture chambers?
OR
Perhaps you mean something other than that when you say "get his due", and I have misinterpreted you.
But I'll post it again. Maybe I should post a list of the tens of millions of people who the atheists killed in the name of "not letting people practice their faith". The atheists have a really bad track record of humanitarism....
It annoys me when people can't handle the truth and flag you. I had hoped that people were more mature than that, but I guess I was wrong.
We went to see Maher's movie this weekend. Mostly it offends middle-class sensibilities. Maher is a doubter, especially about the "supernatural" stories told in the scriptures of the three chief monotheistic religions (which are the ones which, according to Maher, cause the most trouble in our world as they clash with one another). He gives no credit to the enormous good that is performed every day in small and large ways by the adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I wonder what he thinks is the source for all this humanitarian good. But back to the "stories," Maher asked one woman if she had been raised to believe that Jack and the Beanstalk was true, and Jonah and the Whale was just a fairy tale, would she today be defending the Jack story as vehemently as she does the equally preposterous Jonah story? There were some really funny moments in the film, but there was lots of nervous laughter, too. It's true that Maher picked some "fringe" types for interviews, but you and I have seen all these people (some of them in our own congregations), so the movie was not really as distorted as I had expected. It might be salutary for a certain type of today's suburban American Christian to see this film, but if you skip it, don't worry. It has its merits, but you won't be missing too much.