I was watching a video on Youtube and one of the suggested videos caught my eye. It was a young woman who used to be a Christian now explaining that the Bible is false and Jesus was a lie. She quoted several random items from the Bible and explained how they could not be inspired because they are not supported by modern science. She also stated that Jesus was a myth copied from Horus, Vishnu, and Mithra. The connections between them she provided were sketchy at best such as Christ and Mithra both being born on December 25th. Records of children born in stables who were being hunted by a king don’t tend to be that specific. Other information was taken straight from Bill Maher’s movie Religulous. Really? If the sum total of rebuttal to the word of God is sourced from a movie that was an effort to make money by bashing religion in general, how is that compelling? If I publish a paper or article and I quote a fact about Bill Maher and do not have verifiable evidence for it I can be sued. If I state something as factual that cannot be verified about another religion, I will be discredited. Bill Maher or this video blogger can get away with any poorly sourced to completely false allegation and it is acceptable. Just because you can form an opinion does not mean it is truth.
I am not trying to bash this blogger. She obviously had some legitimate questions that were answered poorly in the name of God. I get that and it is on us as Christians to do a better job. But people like Bill Maher are just out to make money. The budget for the film was 2.5 million and it grossed 23 million. I am sure his part of that made more of an impact on the information presented than actual truth.
I get having questions. I have questions. But there is a huge difference between seeking an answer and just giving into politically correct popular opinion. I have been studying religion, the Bible, Christianity, ancient history and languages, church history, and hermeneutics for the better part of the last 40 years and feel like I have barely scratched the surface. How can a viable view point be made from reading a Wikipedia page and watching a movie? I understand if a person chooses not to know the truth. I don’t understand adopting someone else’s view and claiming that is the truth because it is popular.