The God Who Wasn't There

[anEinherjer]

Anyone seen this documentary yet? I'm honestly getting sick and tired of hearing about religion all the damn time, but this looks like it could be pretty sweet.

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

I'd be curious to see the response of religious experts like Matt after viewing this - this documentary makes a lot of claims, I'd be interested to see how many are true.

[rob on the job]

Gosh.

An atheist film featuring atheists.

How stunning.

[twosheds]

Well, there are enough religious films featuring religious nutcases already. Time for something different. Time for something true. :D

[rob on the job]

Well, there are enough religious films featuring religious nutcases already. Time for something different. Time for something true. :D

Then have fun at this flick, TwoSheds.

Something tells me you aren't going to have to deal with "Passion of the Christ"-type crowds waiting in line.

[anEinherjer]

So wait, the length of the line of people waiting to see a film is the measure of its worth? Interesting...

[rob on the job]

So wait, the length of the line of people waiting to see a film is the measure of its worth? Interesting...

No, I'm just betting that you guys won't have to fight your way through mobs to get to the flick.

That's all.

You're inferring something in my comment that wasn't there, anEin.

[anEinherjer]

The only mob I've ever had to fight my way through to see a movie was for SW Episode I... what a letdown. Anyway. I think it's good for Christians to be exposed to the facts behind their belief now and then. Seems to me most of them pay no attention to the actual history of their "words handed down from God" or whatever you want to call it...

I don't blame Christians from running away from information like this - it'd be as uncomfortable for me to sit thru that silly Passion movie.

South Park's tribute to the founding of Mormonism is a good example of what I mean.

[Crinoline]

The opening page references a Michael Moore flick. This movie just lost all credibility.

[rob on the job]

The only mob I've ever had to fight my way through to see a movie was for SW Episode I... what a letdown. Anyway. I think it's good for Christians to be exposed to the facts behind their belief now and then. Seems to me most of them pay no attention to the actual history of their "words handed down from God" or whatever you want to call it...

I don't blame Christians from running away from information like this - it'd be as uncomfortable for me to sit thru that silly Passion movie.

South Park's tribute to the founding of Mormonism is a good example of what I mean.

I'm not running away. In fact, I just read an interview with Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins -- the man who said that teaching creationism was "child abuse" -- that was interesting, even if I agreed with almost nothing he said.

I just have no interest in this flick. No matter if you think I should be compelled to see it ... I don't demand that you sit through "Passions" or read a book by Pope John Paul II, or ridicule the fact that you aren't willing.

Geez, for a libertarian, you sure seem to want to make others conform to your way of thinking.

[matthew94]

Here is my limited impression from the trailer:

1. The trailer starts with some quotes and stats intended to make Christianity sound very militant, non-compassionate, and uncaring about the contemporary world.

RESPONSE: Actually, I also reject some of the mindsets represented in those quotes and declared by those statistics. In my recent observation, a lot of the problems that people have with Christianity are directed at modern practice of Christianity that isn't essentially Christian in nature.

For example, people have a problem with the idea of a theocracy. So do I! The New Testament doesn't call for Christians to take over their governments and countries. It very clearly tells Christians that they are citizens of heaven (philippians 3:20) and part of the new kingdom of God. While we are on earth, however, the Bible tells us to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-5) so long as they don't force ungodly activity. In other words, God doesn't call His people to create a theocracy via human governents, but simply calls His people to obey Him in the midst of their human governments.

Another reference in the trailer is to the 'this generation' return of Jesus. Many non-christians observe (accurately) that a high percentage of Christians believe Jesus will return in our lifetime and so they don't care about the environment and similar issues. They also observe these Christians siding with Israel completely in regards to the violence in the middle east w/o noting violence on that side of the fight. The school of eschatology that produces these thoughts is known as dispensationalism and it wasn't even invented until 1830. So, once again, the 'problem' with Christianity is with modern practice, not the historic Christian faith (at least those are the problems used to create buzz for the film).

Lastly, the film mentions Christian support for capital punishment, but Scripture doesn't take a stand for capital punishment. Again, the Bible declares that human governments are free to make their own laws and declares that Christians should submit themselves to the laws of their land. Personally, I wouldn't fight for or against capital punishment, I'd simply submit to the law of the country/state I live in.

2. Next, the trailer moves toward the common argument that Christianity is just another myth and that the Gospel writers were just writing symbolic stories to convey their religious beliefs.

This simply showcases a pre-supposed bias so extreme that it impacts one's ability to read literary by its genre. There is every indication that the Biblical writers were writing history. This is plain to see for anyone who reads their accounts. Here are some example:

Luke 1:1-4
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 4:20
For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.

1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

The gospels are in the literary form of 1st century jewish biographies and the book of Acts is simply a history book of the early church. To put it simply and boldly, the continued existence of the church is based SOLELY on the historical resurrection of Jesus. If the 500+ witnesses to the resurrection (1 corinthians 15:6) didn't truly believe they had seen the risen Savior, then only a few 1st century historians would even be aware of Jesus of Nazareth. History shows that 40 years after Jesus death there were about 150,000 Jews that believed He had risen from the dead. Symbolic interpretations of the resurrection came later, in the middle of the 2nd century in the gnostic thought. Rightly or wrongly, but undisputedly, the earliest Christians believed in the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3. The trailer suggests that Christians just ignore the issues raised by this film

This is simply false. There are whole fields of Christian ministry aimed at responding to such claims. The field of apologetics respond to critiques of the Christian faith (arguments from atheists and other religions) and the field of polemics responds to critiques from within the scope of Christianity (gnostic interpretations, etc). Thousands of resources are available in response to these critiques.

[twosheds]

Then have fun at this flick, TwoSheds.

Something tells me you aren't going to have to deal with "Passion of the Christ"-type crowds waiting in line.

I doubt they'll even show it here.

[ticatfan3]

I to am sick of religion, it should be banned until people can show some responsibility. 75% of the problemsion this planet is religion,the other 25% is the media.

[ckg68]

The opening page references a Michael Moore flick. This movie just lost all credibility.

But Fox News,and the New York Post....now THERRRRRRRRRRRRE's some beacons of cred for you!

Uh,not really.

[anEinherjer]

I'm not running away. In fact, I just read an interview with Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins -- the man who said that teaching creationism was "child abuse" -- that was interesting, even if I agreed with almost nothing he said.

I just have no interest in this flick. No matter if you think I should be compelled to see it ... I don't demand that you sit through "Passions" or read a book by Pope John Paul II, or ridicule the fact that you aren't willing.

Geez, for a libertarian, you sure seem to want to make others conform to your way of thinking.

:rofl: settle down Beavis, I'm not suggesting you be compelled to do squat, and I hardly ridiculed anything you said... don't be so sensitive.

[anEinherjer]

Matt, thanks for the excellent response. It's good to hear that there are (a few, at least :D) Christians who realize that the watered-down stuff served up warm every Sunday morning these days doesn't really resemble the original stuff... I do have a couple questions though:

Lastly, the film mentions Christian support for capital punishment, but Scripture doesn't take a stand for capital punishment. Again, the Bible declares that human governments are free to make their own laws and declares that Christians should submit themselves to the laws of their land. Personally, I wouldn't fight for or against capital punishment, I'd simply submit to the law of the country/state I live in.

Aren't there a number of references in the bible to stoning people for doing things wrong? Like adulteresses or something like that? Wouldn't that argue for capital punishment?

2. Next, the trailer moves toward the common argument that Christianity is just another myth and that the Gospel writers were just writing symbolic stories to convey their religious beliefs.

This simply showcases a pre-supposed bias so extreme that it impacts one's ability to read literary by its genre. There is every indication that the Biblical writers were writing history. This is plain to see for anyone who reads their accounts. Here are some example:[/quote]

Hang on though. If you're writing down what someone else saw a while after the fact, and you want it to sound "authentic", you're going to use words like the ones you underlined. Witness testimony is proven unreliable, I think your absolute belief in the veracity of that testimony is at least as extreme a bias as you attribute to the anthropologist argument.

The gospels are in the literary form of 1st century jewish biographies and the book of Acts is simply a history book of the early church. To put it simply and boldly, the continued existence of the church is based SOLELY on the historical resurrection of Jesus. If the 500+ witnesses to the resurrection (1 corinthians 15:6) didn't truly believe they had seen the risen Savior, then only a few 1st century historians would even be aware of Jesus of Nazareth. History shows that 40 years after Jesus death there were about 150,000 Jews that believed He had risen from the dead.

Again, I'm not sure how you can use this as absolute fact unless your bias is complete. And maybe that's what "faith" is all about, I don't know. Consider how many millions believe Lee Harvey Oswald had help. Consider how many believe aliens landed in Roswell in '48. Then consider we live in an "age of reason" and I can't help but think any sort of mystical mumbo-jumbo would be able to fool nearly anyone in those days.

3. The trailer suggests that Christians just ignore the issues raised by this film

This is simply false. There are whole fields of Christian ministry aimed at responding to such claims. The field of apologetics respond to critiques of the Christian faith (arguments from atheists and other religions) and the field of polemics responds to critiques from within the scope of Christianity (gnostic interpretations, etc). Thousands of resources are available in response to these critiques.

Of course resources are available, but it's also obvious that "apologetics" and "polemics" are only known to a bare minimum of Christians. The vast majority of 'em just go to church on Sunday, murmur the same prayers week in an week out (even been to a Catholic church? Holy shit, if that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is...), and completely ignore any sense of history or curiosity. Like I said, it's good to hear that there are some out there with a sense of place in the overall scheme, but it's obvious most of the "believers" are just sheep...

[sukie]

I'm going to hell. Anyone need anything?

[matthew94]

I'm a pastor, so by definition I have to be long-winded :)

Aren't there a number of references in the bible to stoning people for doing things wrong? Like adulteresses or something like that? Wouldn't that argue for capital punishment?

You are correct that, in the Old Testament, God directly ruled the nation of Israel and called for capital punishment for various offenses. But this doesn't speak to the issue of capital punishment today for 2 reasons.

1. In theological circles we speak of 'progressive revelation'. Simply put, it means that God treats the whole of mankind as a child growing to maturity. I'll illustrate it this way, when I was a lil kid my parents spanked me when I misbehaved. As a teenager, however, it only took a disappointed look from my father to discipline me. Now that I'm a young adult, he just gives me advice. what we find in the Bible is somewhat like that. God's discipline of mankind changes as mankind changes.

2. Capital punishment was the law for national Israel under a theocracy. but Christians are not commanded to attempt to make the United States a new theocracy. The USA isn't God's kingdom. The church is. The church is to follow the pattern of Jesus. When confronted with a crowd wanting to stone a woman caught in adultery, He stopped them (John 8:3-11). This teaches us that Christians shouldn't execute anyone. In Romans, though, it says that human governments do not bear the 'sword' in vain (Romans 13:1-4) and that Christians should live under the law of the land they live in.

Hang on though. If you're writing down what someone else saw a while after the fact, and you want it to sound "authentic", you're going to use words like the ones you underlined. Witness testimony is proven unreliable, I think your absolute belief in the veracity of that testimony is at least as extreme a bias as you attribute to the anthropologist argument.

The trailer, though, seemed to be arguing that we should view the gospels as symbolic, not history. You are making a different argument about whether or not the gospels are 'reliable' history. To be honest, your argument is way better than theirs. My new testament quotes show their argument to be quite stupid, but your argument is worthy of a response.

My response to your argument would be that the Gospel accounts were written too early to be legendary or false. There is quite a lot of evidence that the gospel accounts were written prior to AD70. if Matthew, Mark, Luke or John tried to pass some myth about the resurrection of Jesus within 40 years of the event, they simply would have been laughed out of the room. Instead, the New Testament writers ENCOURAGE their readers to ask eye-witnesses. For instance, when Paul mentioned the 500+ witnesses to the resurrection, he said something very interesting:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

In other words, he was telling them, 'if you don't believe me, go ask anyone else who saw Him, most of them are still alive'. Also it should be noted that 2 of the 4 Gospels (matthew & john) were written by eyewitnesses themselves, not just by people who knew eyewitness (mark & luke). Mark knew Peter. Luke knew Paul.

Again, I'm not sure how you can use this as absolute fact unless your bias is complete. And maybe that's what "faith" is all about, I don't know. Consider how many millions believe Lee Harvey Oswald had help. Consider how many believe aliens landed in Roswell in '48. Then consider we live in an "age of reason" and I can't help but think any sort of mystical mumbo-jumbo would be able to fool nearly anyone in those days.

First off, I have always admitted my bias. Personally, I believe I have a real life relationship with Jesus Christ so I'm biased toward believing the guys He appointed as His representatives (the Apostles). That being said, I've always been of the persuasion that everyone is biased.

Secondly, Its confusing to talk about faith/fact at the same time. I'll try to explain what I mean by this. I, being a Christian, believe the resurrection of Christ is a historical FACT. I believe it actually happened. BUT you cannot PROVE it as an absolute fact, so faith plays a role in believing in the resurrection. BUT it's not a blind faith. It's faith based on evidence (the empty tomb, the eye-witness accounts, the growth of the early church despite persecution, etc).

Thirdly, you mention the example of millions believing in aliens. Fair enough. I'd respond in two ways.

1. What is the quality of the evidence? I believe the quality of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is superior than the quality of evidence for aliens having visited planet earth. Some may think otherwise.

2. How many alien believers would die for their belief? The early Christians were persecuted by the Jews AND Romans for their beliefs. They were willing to die. Why die for a lie? But the problem is greater than that. The suggestion is that the earliest Christians KNEW they were faking the resurrection. Why die for a lie that you KNOW is a lie? Some people in history have been duped into dying for lies, but I doubt very many have willingly died for a lie that they knew was a lie.

Of course resources are available, but it's also obvious that "apologetics" and "polemics" are only known to a bare minimum of Christians. The vast majority of 'em just go to church on Sunday, murmur the same prayers week in an week out (even been to a Catholic church? Holy shit, if that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is...), and completely ignore any sense of history or curiosity. Like I said, it's good to hear that there are some out there with a sense of place in the overall scheme, but it's obvious most of the "believers" are just sheep...

It's kinda funny, you're quote here sounds somewhat similar to what I hear pastors saying at conferences! (although they tend to leave out the 'shit') :)

I haven't been to a catholic service, but I watch it on tv at times. I agree with you and I think the Bible speaks directly against that type of prayer. Consider the following verse:

Matthew 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

But I guess I'm getting off topic. Anyways, I guess I'm trying to say I agree with you. I will tell you, though, that there is a movement in evangelical christianity right now to get back to the historic roots of our faith. Maybe the most popular Christian author right now is a guy named NT Wright and that's what he's all about. Also, more and more seminaries are offering a masters degree in apologetics. Hopefully, we'll live to see Christianity fleshed out more than any time in recent history. Hopefully, we'll live to see the church become deep and not just wide.

[anEinherjer]

I'm a pastor, so by definition I have to be long-winded :)

Long winded? Around here?

My response to your argument would be that the Gospel accounts were written too early to be legendary or false. There is quite a lot of evidence that the gospel accounts were written prior to AD70. if Matthew, Mark, Luke or John tried to pass some myth about the resurrection of Jesus within 40 years of the event, they simply would have been laughed out of the room. Instead, the New Testament writers ENCOURAGE their readers to ask eye-witnesses. For instance, when Paul mentioned the 500+ witnesses to the resurrection, he said something very interesting:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Okay, a couple things I thought of reading this. First, 40 years doesn't really matter. 40 years later people believe all kinds of "legendary" stuff about JFK's killing. Urban legend is rampant today (and referring back to what you wrote, often culturally symbolic, if you buy into what Joseph Campbell sold), and like I said we're supposed an "age of reason". What makes you think (other than your faith) that eyewtiness accounts of people who had absolutely no sense of skepticism would be anything other than symbolic?

I really think you're projecting your 21st century ability to reason (thanks, Enlightenment!) on to people who just didn't have it. For a very cool (for Hollywood) example of what I mean, watch the 13th Warrior. (One of the bst movies, btw, if anyone else is reading this :)) The Vikings in the movie were filled with superstition and believed all kinds of crazy stuff. Like you said, humanity's grown up a lot since then.

The other question I have is, where was he when he said this? Let's say he's in Rome or something. People aren't buying what he's selling, so he says "Yeah, go ask 'em!" knowing full well there's very little chance anyone he's speaking to can make that trip to the middle east.

Where is the written testimony of 450+ of the other eyewitnesses. You'd think if something this astounding actually happened you'd have reams of documents describing it.

First off, I have always admitted my bias. Personally, I believe I have a real life relationship with Jesus Christ so I'm biased toward believing the guys He appointed as His representatives (the Apostles). That being said, I've always been of the persuasion that everyone is biased.

Given this paragraph, you can't then discount what other people say "because they're biased".

Thirdly, you mention the example of millions believing in aliens. Fair enough. I'd respond in two ways.

1. What is the quality of the evidence? I believe the quality of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is superior than the quality of evidence for aliens having visited planet earth. Some may think otherwise.

I threw the aliens thing in off the top of my head. But really, people believe all kinds of false stuff. The list would never end. To my mind, this is no different. You're fairly rare among your brethren, that's for sure. :)

2. How many alien believers would die for their belief? The early Christians were persecuted by the Jews AND Romans for their beliefs. They were willing to die. Why die for a lie? But the problem is greater than that. The suggestion is that the earliest Christians KNEW they were faking the resurrection. Why die for a lie that you KNOW is a lie? Some people in history have been duped into dying for lies, but I doubt very many have willingly died for a lie that they knew was a lie.

I'm not suggesting anyone knew anything was a lie (well, not purposely). My feeling is that as a superstitious lot, they'd have totally believed whatever was supposedly going on. We also don't generally kill people for their beliefs (well, the Muslims do... that's another story for another thread), so there's little chance we can test your proposition that noone would die for believing something else today - that pretty much invalidates your point from a logical point of view, but I'm not sure logic belongs in a discussion like this. ;)

It's kinda funny, you're quote here sounds somewhat similar to what I hear pastors saying at conferences! (although they tend to leave out the 'shit') :)

See, if they tossed in a HOLY SHIT! now and then, they'd get a lot more young people interested. :D

I haven't been to a catholic service, but I watch it on tv at times. I agree with you and I think the Bible speaks directly against that type of prayer. Consider the following verse:

You should try one once... it's brain-dead. At least the Moravians seem to be more "awake" when they're doing their thing. My wife's family is Catholic so I've had to sit through some. Oh man, it's no wonder they're having "issues".

Hopefully, we'll live to see Christianity fleshed out more than any time in recent history. Hopefully, we'll live to see the church become deep and not just wide.

Hopefully, we'll live to see humanity cast off the need for a cultural security blanket; the old "Why are we here?" question really doesn't have to be answered. There doesn't need to be a "higher purpose" for life, and I really think if you could remove that imperative from people's heads it'd be a lot easier to get along with each other.

Anyway, thanks. Now that we've bored everyone else to tears, Nehemiah sleeps with monkeys!! :ladyrangers:

[Crinoline]

But Fox News,and the New York Post....now THERRRRRRRRRRRRE's some beacons of cred for you!

Uh,not really.

Can you show me anywhere on this board where I endorse either of those two?

[matthew94]

Okay, a couple things I thought of reading this. First, 40 years doesn't really matter. 40 years later people believe all kinds of "legendary" stuff about JFK's killing....

That's fine. I wasn't saying people don't believe legendary stuff after 40 years (or 1 day for that matter). I'm only saying that there's either evidence for their belief or not. In the case of the resurrection, I believe the evidence is strong.

like I said we're supposed an "age of reason". What makes you think (other than your faith) that eyewtiness accounts of people who had absolutely no sense of skepticism would be anything other than symbolic?....I really think you're projecting your 21st century ability to reason (thanks, Enlightenment!) on to people who just didn't have it....

I think it's a vast overstatement to say they had no sense of skepticism. Every indication is that they were TOO skeptical! Most of the Jews rejected Jesus despite miracles (even non-biblical sources admit Jesus performed marvelous feats). They didn't believe too easily, they doubted too easily. In fact, I'd go so far as to say 1st century Judaism and 21st century westernism are quite similar. We're just copies of doubting Thomas.

The other question I have is, where was he when he said this? Let's say he's in Rome or something. People aren't buying what he's selling, so he says "Yeah, go ask 'em!" knowing full well there's very little chance anyone he's speaking to can make that trip to the middle east......

While this question is good at first glance, it isn't nearly as relevant when one considers the historical context. The passion week was during a significant Jewish holiday and so Jews (who had been scattered all over the Roman world) were present. Less than 2 months later, Jews from all over the world were gathered again in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit descended on the believers and then, once again, returned to their homes all across the Roman Empire. As a result, there were eye-witnesses to the events of the passion week and the coming of the Holy Spirit spread all over the Roman Empire. That is why Christianity spread so quickly in the 1st 40 years of the church. It grew from 1 to about 150,000 Jews in a time w/o much quickening technology.

Where is the written testimony of 450+ of the other eyewitnesses. You'd think if something this astounding actually happened you'd have reams of documents describing it.....

The Bible makes it pretty clear that God does not reward unbelief. Of the believers, however, that saw the risen savior, many of them wrote accounts of it (Luke mentions these writings in the introduction to his gospel). But it was never denied by Jews or Romans that the tomb was empty (how could they deny plain fact). They came up with alternative theories to account for Jesus' absence. And the historians that did write at that time admitted that the Christians believed Jesus had risen for the dead.

Given this paragraph, you can't then discount what other people say "because they're biased"......

I agree. I don't discount them. I consider them. I find Christianity to be the most intellectually satisfying worldview available.

Hopefully, we'll live to see humanity cast off the need for a cultural security blanket; the old "Why are we here?" question really doesn't have to be answered. There doesn't need to be a "higher purpose" for life, and I really think if you could remove that imperative from people's heads it'd be a lot easier to get along with each other.

This is probably where we disagree the most. In my observation 'purpose driven' people are the most effective people on the planet. To me nothing is more important than the potential answers to the big 'why' questions because my belief about the way dictates how I live my life.

The argument usually used against the significance of those questions is that it takes the focus away from loving and helping people, but in my life it's the exact opposite. It is BECAUSE God made me and saved me that I'm motivated to love and help people.

[Gibby]

Other than agreeing with Matt, all I can say is that I'm very sorry that the maker of this cd could not look at the world, could not look at the historical record, and could not look at the bible and see how very present God is.