The "God Who Wasn't There" movie...
Offline After seeing the movie I am STUNNED that anyone would consider this a documentary. I would categorize it more as a high school film project than anything else (Though the interviews with Sam Harris and Robert Price were enjoyable). If anyone is interested in seeing it, I would suggest that you buy RRS archived pod casts instead. You will get far more out of them then you will from this movie. I would also add that in one of the RRS broadcasts someone, i believe it was Rook, said that there were no good refutations of the movie. Here is one that is filled with as much refutation as you can stomach http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87 Now let the hate and vitriol toward Uncle Mickey commence! =)
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
- Login to post comments
Flemming himself says the movie isn't about fairness, it's about making a case against the existence of Jesus.
Could you point me to a single (just one) high school film project that was as entertaining as his movie that deals with the topic of religion? I'd like to watch it.
Thanks for the compliment. I don't know anyone who would disagree that Flemmings movie is but a mere starter course into Jesus mythicism.
As Rook said, there are no good refutations of the movie. Liconas is piss poor. Carrier has done numbers on Licona at least twice, one is a DVD available for sale, another on the Infidel Guy. If you want to talk about "high school" read the first few paragraphs of Liconas "refutation." It's filled with the sort of pointles, off the mark immaturity you'd see in a middle schooler. Statements like this are simply ridiculous and have nothing to do with the films content, his immaturity makes it hard to read on
"For instance, in two interviews with Robert Price and David and Barbara Mikkelson, there is a distracting reflection of camera light and sunlight in their eyeglasses. In the interview with Price, the camera can even be seen in his eyeglasses, because it is directly in front of him." - Licona
I actually kinda like you.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I must admit that I'm kinda partial to it.
Yeah, me too.
Aside from the Jesus as a myth idea, I especially liked the commentary on the Passion of the Christ. I think all U.S. Christians should watch this documentary. Let them defend their bloody religion.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Oh yeah? Well according to Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There
I don't quite understand your point.
Interestingly, that's a link I check almost every day. The discussions page that goes with it can be fairly entertaining.
(Reposting link because the one in your post didn't work.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I echo Sapient in asking, what high school films are as good as this? High schools can't graduate people who can add fractions, but they can make (at least) decently produced (full length!) films? Is it that you don't think the film makes a cogent argument? What's it problem?
Yes, Harris and Price were great. But I also found the interviews with Christians leaving a Billy Graham crusade (if my memory serves me right) interesting. They seemed to be so high on faith that they couldn't even understand that the were being presented with evidence against Jesus' existence.
The old article had an opinion on why it's not entirely historically accurate, but is a good starting point for further research. Guess that was too POV.
Many mainstream secular scholars believe that Jesus was a real, historical figure in first century Palestine.
Much of the historical information presented in the film has been questioned for its accuracy. Areas questioned include: (1) uncritical use of 19th century claims regarding "pagan Christs" such as Beddru of Japan and Devatat, (2) use of early Christian writers like Justin Martyr, (3) a shallow understanding regarding the writings of Paul and early Christianity.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm
And there are those who don't believe Jesus was a historical figure. There's still a lot to be settled (if it gets settled at all).
This is a little off topic, but even if these secular scholars think Jesus was real, that in no way verifies the Bible's claims. These "believing" scholars (e.g. Ehrman) have done a great deal in persuading me not to accept Jesus' divinity.
I'm going to skip this bit. I'm not dodging, I just can't answer these right now. I'm sure someone else here can.
Yeah, that because someone has The True Understanding Of Paul (TM). This is special pleading. The critics have a shallow understanding, but the believers don't. Right.
GDON?! vomit.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Heh. What's even better is the link "Section 1: Misinformation: Errors in the movie" is 404'ed.
As someone with a Masters in Media Studies, I always am amazed with how many people think documentaries are objective. I've seen a lot of documentaries, and I've never seen one that was objective. That's not how documentaries work. You're thinking of journalism, which to fair, is rearely objective itself. Documentaries are like fiction films; they support the message the filmmaker is trying to send. There's been some contraversy lately about a documentary strictly about how biased Michael Moore's documentary. People have said that therefore, his films are not documentaries. And while I'm not always a huge fan of Moore's, his films are indeed documentaries in that they use non-scripted and/or archival footage. That's really all a documentary is.
So if you know any documentaries that are truly objective, tell me what they are. I'd love to know.
I thought there was evidence for Jesus as a real historical figure based on writings and legal documents of the time period. I guess not.
I'm confused. Are you trying to argue against or for the movie?
Outside of the context of the movie, I used to assume there was enough historical and archaeological evidence to support a historical Jesus.
This forum section would be the best place to talk about Jesus.
I didn't write anywhere in my post that I suggested that the movie SHOULD be fair or that documentaries are MENT to be fair. That was not the reason for my objection to it being called a documentary. I'm just saying that if I were to categorize this as a documentary I would also have to add Frank Millers "The 300" to that list. [Good movie BTW. REAL gory.
] I am no documentarian or great historian but that is how I see it. Take it for what it's worth.
As for the Licona comments of "....sunlight in their eyeglasses." these comments were not immature by any means. You forget to point out that Licona even DEFENDS Flemming on this point by starting the paragraph with "The filming is poor. This is most likely the result of Flemming's working from a shoestring Budget..." (though the following comment of "...lack of gifting." is, in my view, unprofessional). This particular comment was not ment to discredit the director it was a simple critique of how it was seen (The reflections in the lenses were annoying. Especially in the extra interview with Robert Price.).
As for the Christian interviews I'm not shocked AT ALL about there ignorance. I have nothing but huge admiration for anyone who has been able to muscle their way through the boredom of the Bible and finish reading it. I read voraciously on history and finance and I can't get past 10 pages of that book without going to sleep. Come to think of it I just now realize why my parents always had a Bible by their bed.
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."