Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fatpie42 · 12-18-2005, 06:27 PM

Okay could that guy make his mind up about what he wants to do in this film? For all the emotive music and images there isn't much substantial coming out of this film and it seems he wants to:

Criticise christian fundamentalism (good for him!)

Claim that christianity incites violence (fair enough, but what about other religions, what about facism, communism, animal rights activism? He seems to think just showing that Christians have been and are violent is enough to show that it incites more violence than normal...)

Claim that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a human on Earth (even though he claims Jesus must have actually been raised from the dead) and that no one had heard of Jesus at that time (even though Paul was persecuting Christians)

Just one of these is enough for an entire movie. Oh and who decided that Richard Dawkins is an expert on Christianity? Give me a break!

Oh and don't go thinking that any religious fundies would even begin to give this film any notice. They read the Bible inside out and back to front so when someone quotes Luke 19:27 as a sign of Christian violence:
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me"
they will know instantly that it is a quotation from a parable about a king, not a real command given by Jesus.

He might as well have put upside down crosses on the DVD cover.

Kosh · 12-19-2005, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

Did the speaker in this movie even have a script? He says 'uh' way too much.

I think that was for effect.

freigeister · 12-19-2005, 11:40 AM

Are the academics starting to wake up?

fatpie42 · 12-19-2005, 12:40 PM

What is so special about a 40 year gap? Jesus' followers were not writers. They passed on their knowledge the way any normal person would - word of mouth.

They were then persecuted, and one of their persecuters was Saul Of Tarsus who later called himself Paul. How would Paul have found out about Jesus? Through talking to those he has originally been persecuting.

Why doesn't Paul mention miracles or earlier events in the gospel story? Odd indeed? But definitive proof that Paul didn't know about these things - I'm not so sure.

These aren't unrealistic assumptions. They are perfectly reasonable assumptions. What I wish he'd spend more time on is that fact that no Jewish historians of the time mentioned Jesus' life. The only account is Josephus and that section is recognised to have been added later - presumably by Christians :s

Maybe the best idea he came up with was that the ideas in the gospel stories concerning Jesus' life and miracles are simply metaphorical and intended to explain theological ideas. (The gnostic gospels are recognised by Christians in exactly this way.) The idea that Jesus is God and that he died and was resurrected seems less likely to have been considered myth by Paul or any other Christians, but maybe it could be persued.

The fact is that people were crucified. Not for blasphemy perhaps, but they were crucified nonetheless. So perhaps it makes sense to presume that someone's actual crucifixion might have inspired all this mythology? The resurrection was only proclaimed by a few people and their accounts of it often (note: not always) sound like visions rather than actual encounters. If Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem by huge crowds we should expect it to be recorded somewhere. On the other hand, Jesus' death is often referred to and is harder to dispute (though the trial which puts the blame on Jewish authorities rather than Pontius Pilate has political apeasement written all over it).

Later writings about saints were often written with many amazing miracles. Some of them bizarre and weird (such as a whale who was converted and would allow them to celebrate easter on top of it!!!). These histories of saints' lives are sometimes recognised to have been written to mimic the life of Jesus, yet many people will take them to be as true as the Bible. It is even noted that St. Bridget of Ireland was actually a pagan Goddess who they changed into a saint in order to ease the conversion process.

So there is a good point to be made in all this. But not in the simplistic and arrogant way that it seems to be made in the clips we have seen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-18-2005, 06:27 PM	#51
fatpie42 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Britain Posts: 5,259	Okay could that guy make his mind up about what he wants to do in this film? For all the emotive music and images there isn't much substantial coming out of this film and it seems he wants to: Criticise christian fundamentalism (good for him!) Claim that christianity incites violence (fair enough, but what about other religions, what about facism, communism, animal rights activism? He seems to think just showing that Christians have been and are violent is enough to show that it incites more violence than normal...) Claim that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a human on Earth (even though he claims Jesus must have actually been raised from the dead) and that no one had heard of Jesus at that time (even though Paul was persecuting Christians) Just one of these is enough for an entire movie. Oh and who decided that Richard Dawkins is an expert on Christianity? Give me a break! Oh and don't go thinking that any religious fundies would even begin to give this film any notice. They read the Bible inside out and back to front so when someone quotes Luke 19:27 as a sign of Christian violence: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me" they will know instantly that it is a quotation from a parable about a king, not a real command given by Jesus. He might as well have put upside down crosses on the DVD cover.

12-19-2005, 11:40 AM	#53
freigeister Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 503	Are the academics starting to wake up?

12-19-2005, 12:40 PM	#54
fatpie42 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Britain Posts: 5,259	What is so special about a 40 year gap? Jesus' followers were not writers. They passed on their knowledge the way any normal person would - word of mouth. They were then persecuted, and one of their persecuters was Saul Of Tarsus who later called himself Paul. How would Paul have found out about Jesus? Through talking to those he has originally been persecuting. Why doesn't Paul mention miracles or earlier events in the gospel story? Odd indeed? But definitive proof that Paul didn't know about these things - I'm not so sure. These aren't unrealistic assumptions. They are perfectly reasonable assumptions. What I wish he'd spend more time on is that fact that no Jewish historians of the time mentioned Jesus' life. The only account is Josephus and that section is recognised to have been added later - presumably by Christians :s Maybe the best idea he came up with was that the ideas in the gospel stories concerning Jesus' life and miracles are simply metaphorical and intended to explain theological ideas. (The gnostic gospels are recognised by Christians in exactly this way.) The idea that Jesus is God and that he died and was resurrected seems less likely to have been considered myth by Paul or any other Christians, but maybe it could be persued. The fact is that people were crucified. Not for blasphemy perhaps, but they were crucified nonetheless. So perhaps it makes sense to presume that someone's actual crucifixion might have inspired all this mythology? The resurrection was only proclaimed by a few people and their accounts of it often (note: not always) sound like visions rather than actual encounters. If Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem by huge crowds we should expect it to be recorded somewhere. On the other hand, Jesus' death is often referred to and is harder to dispute (though the trial which puts the blame on Jewish authorities rather than Pontius Pilate has political apeasement written all over it). Later writings about saints were often written with many amazing miracles. Some of them bizarre and weird (such as a whale who was converted and would allow them to celebrate easter on top of it!!!). These histories of saints' lives are sometimes recognised to have been written to mimic the life of Jesus, yet many people will take them to be as true as the Bible. It is even noted that St. Bridget of Ireland was actually a pagan Goddess who they changed into a saint in order to ease the conversion process. So there is a good point to be made in all this. But not in the simplistic and arrogant way that it seems to be made in the clips we have seen.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.