So the devil's antics are based in human years? I don't understand how the greatest of ALL angels gets "willier" over the course of 2000 some years when his existence is outside the restraints of time and space.

Same thing with God and His evolution of ideals. The law and then forgiveness and blah blah blah; slaves, no slaves; anathema, no anathema; burn shit to the ground for sins, don't stone the "prostitute". It doesn't make sense. None. At all.

Unless God ISN'T omnipotent, omnipresent, and/or benevolent. He can't be all of those things and yet so ignorantly rule creation within the context of human civilization pre-information age. Sorry, but if you don't see this pattern, you're living in denial. Either that or the idea of these beings is true and the Bible is the Devil's work.

Oh SNAP, didn't think about that in all of your squabbling, did you? The arguments over what to canonize; burning of Biblical apocrypha; human courts judging anathema over naysayers who were believers in God themselves; King James' toying with the text; and the list goes on and on. Lies! If God be love, Jesus saves and by faith be known, these historical truths makes your "holy" text anathema!

My bet is that the Devil knows the Bible because the Devil orchestrated it. If I believed in that sort of thing, that's what would make the most sense to me. But I suppose reason plays no part in the smoke and mirrors of gods and monsters.

Agreed; Dante's "Inferno" and the expressiveness of the Old Testament and Apocrypha in general no doubt have inspired reams of artistic works. I suppose my point was we often don't think of the day-to-day lives of celebrated old artists... and how a church/state commissioned 'Lamentation of Christ' alter piece that is now seen as a masterwork was at one time seen as a safe bet to generate some income, which could fund experimentation with capturing more personal themes and illustration of the natural world.

(I should say "may have been seen as a safe bet to generate some income", as this is my own impression)

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> Undoubtedly true, but at the same time I think it would be wrong to say that none of the artists involved in creating great works were not genuinely inspired by their faith. I don't just mean the likes of the Sistine Chapel either, but lots of smaller non-commissioned work.
Although you could argue that that is art inspired by faith rather than religion.

That's what scares me about Jews, they only follow the old testament which is fucking scary ass book and God of the old testament was a mean jealous God. Thank "god" I didn't live in old testament times I'd be stoned, burned, banished, etc...

Course Christians believe that the new testament nullifies the old testament laws, when Jesus changed the laws and allowed the eating of pork and reversed all the old laws.

course it's also why Catholics kept the Apocrypha in their bible and Protestants removed the Apocrypha from the bible. The Apocrypha helped explain the changeover from Old testament law to New testament law much much better.

So western christians which are primarily protestant do not have the apocrypha to help better explain the change over of laws and how the Torah or Mosaic laws were never meant for Gentiles.

Even Jesus himself said Gentiles do not follow Jewish Mosaic law.


So even though I'm not religious, I'm fucking glad to be a gentile, or i'd be stoned long ago.

Also if you look up mosaic law, Jews see all Gentiles as dogs to be ruled over and manipulated. Which is why century after century Gentiles have attacked Jews in retaliation for their teachings that gentiles are dogs. It's even in the old testament that gentiles are dogs and should be treated as such. It's why Jews got their stereotype of ripping the gentiles off... they were taught to by mosaic law.


Anyhow nonreligious gentile about to be flamed, even though I probably wont ever see these comments again.

No they didn't. Almost everything you have said here is wrong. For instance, the earliest version of the New Testament that could be considered "canonized" consisted of ten of pauls epistles and a version of the gospel of Luke. It was only around 200 AD that the 27 books of the NT were decided to be the likely candidates for being wholly inspired works, which became agreed upon by the whole church by the middle of the 3rd century. There were 3 other books which were included in 397 as reading material, but they were not thought to be inspired. The catholic church included 11 more books in the 1500s, but no one else considered them inspired, including the jewish people who wrote them. They were finally taken out of bibles around the end of the 1800s, as you said.

These uninspired works were known as the apocrypha, and none of them ever belonged there in the first place. The fact is, the bible today matches what the early church had decided upon as inspired as early as 200 AD. Which brings us to the mormons, who claim that they have a special revelation from Jesus Christ, that He came and visted America and the indians, etc. The problem is, not excepting that there is no evidence for the claims it makes, or any precedent or prophecy that predicts it, that the claims of the book of mormon fundementally alters the truth of the gospels. It preaches a much different Jesus, as does Islam. Paul said this:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Both the mormons and the muslims received their revelations from angels. Scripture also says this:

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Scripture rejects it, and that is why they are considered a cult and not Christian.


>> ^joedirt:
Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website.
from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it. You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT. So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.
If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.

Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country though religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should eb a nation of Chirstians.
>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

We'll call this internet apocrypha. Found it in the following forum archive: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-298404.html

--

From the archive:

HEre's what I could find about the idiot:

"In this case, "Mullet" (as his friends call him), survived after a month in the hospital. When this video was actually new, there was a forum up where he came on to answer any questions about the accident... but when the thread was avalanched with slams towards Mullet for being such a ing dumbass, they eventually closed it.

There is still this thread where a moderator had the chance to talk to the kid that taped the whole thing.... you can find it here: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/sho...16&page=1&pp=25"

"Here are some of the highlights from the chat logs with the one guy who filmed the video:
A photo of the kid who hit the car with his face. Matt Lake a.k.a. (Mullet).

These chat transcripts are taken from another forum.

UPDATE: Paul, the video's cinematographer has left his AIM I.D. open for any questions you guys have. Pv8man999 is his address.

I contacted him, he couldn't really talk to me on AIM since he is being bombarded with IMs but he did send me a log of a previous conversation to answer any questions I might have.

----------------------------
Pv8man
Joined: Jan 30, 2005
Dear somethingawful forum posters
I am glad that the truth about the clip has been revealed.
As some of you may guess, I am the one who filmed the clip.
and yes I have tons of proof to back it up, such as the original full quality clip, and pictures and videos of Matt Lake (mullet). Also have pictures of mullet in the hospital which I will get from him problably within the next day or so.

I wasn't able to post on here because I didn't have an account until now.
Thank you so much for the account nailPuppy and also for chatting with me and posting the real info on here.
Sincerly

~Pv8man
http://www.pv8.20m.com

----------------------------
From the website:

8/19/2004
As some of you may know. There has been a tragic accident with Matt Lake (Mullet). Matt Lakes did not do it for the video, it was just a small prank gone horrably wrong. No one put him up to it, he did it on his own. But the good news is that he is recovering and is doing great.
----------------------------

Chat 1

Question: hello sir
Answer: hello
Question: I hear you're the chap whose friend's face was welded to a bumper
Answer: you're from the forum correct?
Question: that is correct
Answer: yes
Question: you should submit that tape to Max X or one of those shows
Answer: here is what really happend
Question: it'd be the GREATEST ONE EVER

Answer: I was the one who filmed it, me and my friends make videos, that day we were bored, and the person that fell out, named matt, nicknamed mullet. Saw one of the kids, that he knew, and what he liked to do as a joke was smack them in the back of the head, they always do it to each other. So I thought it would be funny to film it, he rolled down the window and was gonna reach out and smack him, but since the new cars windows only go half way down, he couldent reach. So he opened the door, and was hanging onto the door, but the kid on the bike swerved in closer, and mullet lost his balence after the door hit the back of his bike seat, and fell off. He didn't die.

Question: haha
Answer: he's still alive and well thank god
Question: was it ever in the papers or anything?
Answer: he was in the hospital for almost a month having lots of surgery
Answer: no
Question: haha why not
Answer: the only thing that was recorded
Answer: was the police report
Answer: because of the insurance info
Answer: because his door hit the other car
Answer: which is why it shut so fast
Answer: we got off lucky thank god
Question: haha yeah
Answer: it just bugs the **** out of me when people make all these false accusations
Answer: and I cant tell them anything
Question: eh what are you gonna do, it's 45,000 people on the internet
Question: I'd just ignore it if I were you
Answer: I know
Question: But you REALLY should send the tape to one of those shows
Answer: it was never ment to get out
Question: I bet they'd do a feature on the kid
Question: and pay mad bank
Answer: the only reason why I made the clip
Answer: was because the doctors and his mom needed to see exactlly what happend
Answer: I dont know how it got out
Answer: when I found out I just flipped
Answer: because no one else was supposed to know that it was recorded
Answer: for fear that they would think I put him up to it
Question: haha
Question: well it's famous on the internet now!
Answer: I know
Answer: unfortunatly
Answer: I guess there is no stopping it now
Question: I'd say fortunately, as it has brought many laughs
Answer: but I wish I would have put the web site address on there
Answer: we need visitors
Answer: we made our 1st movie a year ago
Answer: its very good
Answer: an hour long
Answer: and its downloadable off the site
Question: cool
Question: you could always release higher quality/longer versions of the clip, and put it on your site
Question: maybe in like full size xvid for maximum face-smashing glory
Question: Do you have any pics of what it was like afterwards?
Question: Hospital, stitches, etc?
Answer: mullet has them
Answer: no damage was dont to the rest of his body
Answer: just his head
Answer: yeah I saw
Question: No ****?
Answer: wanna know something else that was amazing
Question: Whats that?
Answer: he had his glasses on
Answer: and they werent broken
Question: Were there people in the car that his head impacted with?
Answer: no
Answer: it was parked
Question: What kinda surgery did he need?
Answer: what do you mean what kind?
Question: Did he need skin grafts or anything?
Question: That had to mess up at least his lips or something
Answer: but a big chunk of his upper lip was missing
Question: Kinda like a cleft lip?
Answer: yeah
Answer: basically
Question: What vendetta did you have against the kid in the red shirt?
Answer: I dont have anything against him
Question: Did your friends have a grudge?
Answer: he knows us for our movie
Answer: and friends with mullet
Answer: no
Question: Why did mullet hang onto the door?
Question: He could have let go, and he would have been fine
Question: Man....that sucks
Answer: you know what, I asked him alot of times
Answer: to this day he doesent know
Answer: he still can't remember much
Question: Did you keep filming after the end of the video?
pv8man: No, we didn't keep filming, at the end of the clip I run to the car to put my camera in it. If you see the clip, I get out to run to him but then go back to put my camera in the car.

Chat 2

antipop59: You and your friends are Internet Celebrities!
pv8man999: I still have the original clip
pv8man999: full DV quality, non-rendered. also footage of mullet.
antipop59: Is the one on the net edited in any way?
pv8man999: no
pv8man999: I serisouly thought he was dead
antipop59: you must have been traumatized
pv8man999: I got so scared
pv8man999: yes
pv8man999: very
pv8man999: to this day me and my friends don't like to talk about it
antipop59: were you guys smoking weed? Someone thought they spotted a cigarette or a joint in the passenger's hand I think
pv8man999: cigg
pv8man999: when I came up to him
pv8man999: he was still breathing
antipop59: was he just mangled?
pv8man999: but imagine every bone from your nose down broke
pv8man999: and 5 missing whole teeth on the street
pv8man999: no blood on the teeth
pv8man999: they ripped clean out
pv8man999: he was not conscious
pv8man999: so I had to keep him on his side so he wouldn't choke
pv8man999: the ****ing ambulance took 30 minutes to get there and the hospital wasn't far either
antipop59: what about the bike kid/kids? One of them looked like he got a first-hand look at the impact
pv8man999: yeah he was pretty freaked out
pv8man999: also
pv8man999: yes
pv8man999: this really wasn't meant to happen
pv8man999: it was just a freak accident
antipop59: lol I think that goes without saying
pv8man999: and for the rest of the people that say things like .."I'm glad hes dead he deserved what he got"...with out any facts...those people can go to hell
antipop59: well let's clarify one thing. The people who saw the video and made that kind of comment were under the [wrongful] suspicion that Mullet was attacking a random kid. If this had been the case, what would you think. I'm curious
pv8man999: well if that were the case if I were a random person and I KNEW that's what they were doing...I might have said something similar
antipop59: heh ok
antipop59: how does he look post-surgery?
pv8man999: he looks kinda the same exept fake teeth

chat 3

Question: The video shown is yours, am I correct, at the time you were playing the song "This Is The New ****" by Marylin Manson.
pv8man999: Yeah
Question: How is the kid doing?
pv8man999:He is back to normal.
pv8man999: As if nothing happened.
pv8man999: it wasn't in the papers.
pv8man999: He had both sides of his jaw broken, 5 missing teeth, broken nose, and also the jaw bracket that holds the front teeth in, and his eye got cut.
pv8man999: he was hospitalized in the university of chicago childrens hospital and he had to have lots of surgery
pv8man999: also the back of his skull was cracked and they had to stop the bleeding before anything
pv8man999: in his brain
Question: how old was the kid
pv8man999: 14
pv8man999: he's 15 now.
Question: The kid on the bike he slapped, i mean.
pv8man999: 12 i think
pv8man999: wait
pv8man999: no he was the same age
pv8man999: 14
Question: what was he trying to do to the kid?
pv8man999: he was trying to smack the kid
pv8man999: with his hand
pv8man999: he used to do it all the time

My wife tells me this apocrypha business is no problem for her as clearly god was writing through every author, printer and scribe and guiding the romans in their selection priority all the way until you get the exact edition of whatever it is we have on the bedside table.

You would think a mind that can accept that could understand the kind of small changes over a long period of time that are behind chimps evolving into Obama, but noooooooooo, we ain't no monkeys!

I find it slightly humorous you think me simple. It's evident that there really is no use in having a conversation with someone who has a hardon for blanket statements.

"And I hate it, me understanding you and all the other religious folks on the planet. You are simple"

I get it. You're jaded. We've all been there. Some abandon "faith" and some find renewal. That doesn't mean that either one of us is better than the other for it, however, it's painfully obvious that you think you are far superior than I because I still "believe in fairy tales".

Yes I've read the Bible in it's entirety. Many of the books I've read over and over.
Yes I've read non canonical books on theology. Tons of CS Lewis. Free Choice of the Will. City of God. The Gospel of James. Some OT Apocrypha in college and many, many more.
I was a theology major in college.

So who's guilty of presumptions? The difference is you went one way, I went another. That's it. Neither of us is more intellectually grounded than the other based on this.

But vent away, I'm listening.

1. Mr. Bungle - California
2. Radiohead - The Bends
3. Beck - Mellow Gold
4. Beatles - White Album
5. Bjork - Homogenic
6. Stereolab - Sound Dust
7. Aphex Twin - Come to Daddy
8. Ben Folds Five - Whatever and Amen
9. Snoop Dogg - Doggystyle
10. Stevie Wonder - Greatest Hits
11. EWF - Greatest Hits
12. Steve Reich - Sextet
13. Stravinsky - Rite of Spring
14. Portishead - Portishead
15. The Smiths - Louder Than Bombs
16. Depeche Mode - Violator
17. Rufus Wainwright - Poses
18. Prince - Greatest Hits
19. Secret Chiefs - Book M
20. Andrew Bird - Armchair Apocrypha
21. Brian Eno - Ambient 1
22. Boards of Canada - Music Has The Right To Children
23. Beastie Boys - Check Your Head
24. Ennio Morricone - Once Upon A Time In The West
25. Arcade Fire - Funeral
26. Autolux - Future Perfect
27. Miles Davis/Gil Evans - Porgy and Bess
28. John Coltrane - Blue Train
29. Bob Marley - Legend
30. Chet Baker - Best of Chet Baker Sings
31. Mose Allison - Allison Wonderland
32. Failure - Fantastic Planet
33. MSI - You'll Rebel To Anything....
34. Faith No More - Angel Dust
35. Fiona Apple - When the Pawn...
36. Fishbone - Truth and Soul
37. Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots
38. Foetus - Gash
39. Foo Fighters - Foo Fighters
40. Nirvana - Nevermind
40.1. Frank Sinatra - Greatest Hits
40.2. Frank Zappa -
40.3. Jellyfish - Spilt Milk
40.4. M.I.A. - Kala
40.5. Me'Shell Ndegeocello - Cookie
40.6. Michael Brecker - Michael Brecker
40.7. Miles Davis - All Blues
40.8. Patsy Cline - Greatest Hits (token country)
40.9. Philip Glass - Glassworks
40.91. Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
40.92. Bernard Herrmann - The Day The Earth Stood Still

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The below gnostic gospel, made notable in stigmata, provides that you can find "god" every where around you. All types of "god", the angry "god", the happy "god", the sad god. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
So in a way all church's are useless under the gospels words. I was raised catholic, until I grew up. Any organization that requires me to go to a 'Mass' of some sorts on a Sunday in the morning will not ever get my patronage. Not because I want to sleep, but because I don't want to be around all those people who I don't agree with.


The beauty to gnostic works is they are all of questionable origins. You can find them that say just about anything you like, but they hold about as weight as quoting the apocrypha. Unless a religion is willing to accept them as canon, then that argument is not valid because there is no way to ascertain the validity of the content. Even if the book is as old as it purports to be and was written by who it is credited it still begs the question of the creditability of the author.

>> ^MINK:
so then, given those facts, it doesn't make sense to defend mormonism by saying "mormons are mostly nice people" because then you are also defending a lot of other crazy organisations by implication.


I think we're stretching a bit here, we need to focus more on the big picture. I think the point of the argument follows the lines that you must check the result of something to determine weather it has been good or bad. I think I can safely say there were no nice guys to work at concentration camps, so there are not nice guys everywhere. Hitler may have hired many nice guys, but by the time the camps closed, I would say they certainly were not nice anymore. On the other hand, I have known many people who were not-nice guys decide they wanted religion and suddenly make the shift to the nice side.

So let's review: concentration camps produce bad things and bad people. I won't say all religion produces good things (crusaders were probably bad, for example), but producing good people is definitely a good start.

Well, it certainly seems that our friend Brian Flemming, while putting together an excellent presentation, has not done his research. Ready? Ok!

The statement about the solar system has already been refuted to my approval by a commenter above so I wont waste any time on it.

The next matter would be the statement about Hebrews 8:4... Brian quotes it as saying it was written by Paul as though Jesus never existed... he took this verse for one, out of context and we will find he does this quite often for the rest of his documentary when he refers to scripture... but he also chose ONE out of TEN translations of this verse. And the ONE he chose was the only ONE that said this. So rather than ignore it as a minority, he chose the verse that fit his position. http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B58C008.htm Check out all the versions at the above link and come to your own conclusion.

Next, Brian has someone saying that it is entirely improbable that the Jewish Council would meet on Passover to deal with Jesus... or that Barabbas would be set free by Pilate. Why? You have someone who the Jewish leadership thinks is going to start a rebellion and take away their power at any moment, any day. So why is it so hard to believe they would take drastic measures to prevent this? Why is it hard to believe Pontius Pilate would release a prisoner to the Jewish MOB that already had a history of rebellion and violence in order to placate them and avoid conflict?

Next Brian states that Peter in "The Gospel of Peter" says that Jesus was killed by Herod Antipas... The Gospel of Peter isn't even Canonical, meaning, it is not thought by scholars to be part of the Bible, it's not included in the Bible you will find the world reading.... go pick up something other than the Apocrypha when you quote Christian beliefs Brian.

Next, this Hero factor scoring system that some random Author employs in his interview as they try to show that other literary figures share some characteristics with Christ is made up by the Author in the interview. How does it have any bearing on the discussion of Jesus as a historical figure? We could make up the same system for past and present world leaders and probably find a lot of the same features, histories, beginnings etc. That doesn't mean anything relevant to the existence of Jesus. Also, something that separates mythical figures from Jesus would be the 1st and later century historians APART from the Apostles that record his existence.

Brian also quotes Justin Martyr... one of the first Apologists... someone who argues for Christ and the Gospels... as saying that Christians are not asking the Romans to believe in anything much different than what they already believe. This is taken out of context horribly. Justin was merely showing the Romans that Christ is similar to what they already believe but goes on to show some key differences.

Brian also lists many features and attributes and circumstances about Jesus that Roman and Greek figures or Gods did as well... but after listing these features and attributes.. he doesn't say who had what so we are taking his word for it. Also, as in a previous statement I made, Jesus was cited as a Historical figure by historians of the time... Hercules and the rest ARE NOT.

Brian states that Christians are obsessed with "Blood Sacrifice" because they chose the "Passion of the Christ" as their favorite Christian movie due to all of the blood in this movie. By this logic people are obsessed by whatever is depicted in their favorite movies.

Brian also makes it a point to make the statement that Mel Gibson went out of his way to emphasize the blood and violence associated with the trial and crucifixion of Christ. So what? Film makers, by definition, are going "Out of their way" by making a film about anything with anything in it because films are not exactly part of everyday life. Mel Gibson did his best to depict the way it really was when someone was Crucified, drawing upon Biblical and other Historical texts and accounts to keep the process accurate... and this, according to Brian, is bad. To be accurate is bad. He would rather have had Jesus bleed gum drops and instead of, as the Bible says, "Blood and water flow" when the side of Jesus was pierced, he would like for puppies to come out of his flesh. When you make a movie.. you try to make it as real as possible... that's what makes a good movie.. nobody got onto the makers of "Gladiator" for depicting the bloody Roman gladiatorial battles.
Brian said that "Mel Gibson could have made the movie any way he wanted, but he chose to make it this way". What way exactly is he talking about? The way it was? Because... well, that is the way it was according to what we know. This is like getting angry with the Director of "Saving Private Ryan" because he depicts the storming of the beaches as gory and as bloodily as he did because, well, that's the way it was. Sounds like Brian just doesn't like Mel Gibson.

Next Brian begins a tirade about how Christians hate gays and want to kill people and cause violence. He then, again out of context, cites Luke 19:27 "19:27 But those my enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." This is a Parable Jesus is speaking, not something Jesus said directly. It is most probable that Jesus is talking about the Jews of HIS time that KILL Jesus unjustly... because, as history shows... they were destroyed soon after when they rebelled against Rome causing Jerusalem to be sacked... and they had to watch Christianity.. which accepted the, as the Parable calls them, "pounds", prosper. Read the chapter yourself to get the full meaning, don't take Brian's misquoted, out of context slide-show for fact.

Brian also constantly shows far right radical leaders OF THE PAST in his footage as they make statements most Christians would refuse to back. Why is he not showing current footage as of the making of his documentary?

Brian makes the statement that the Inquisition was an "Expression" of the Bible. Meaning that what people did in the Inquisition with the Bible as their backup was actually what the Bible indicated they should do. This is again out of context in reference to the Bible. Brian himself makes the same mistakes the Inquisition made when he takes verses from here and there and uses them for his own purposes. The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not just one book or verse. To do other wise is non contextual and very common fallacy. Brian asks "What is Moderate Christianity then?, if the Inquisition is what real Christianity is supposed to be according to the Bible." Well, moderate Christianity is when people, as I just stated, take the Bible for it's whole, not it's parts.

Next Brian attacks the "Left Behind" series as though all Christians believe that series to be factual... they are NOVELS, not fact... and even though some Christians think that Christ will return in their lifetimes... that is a HOPE, not fact. For even Christ says that he does not know the time of his own return.. only the Father, God. So if even JESUS, the SON OF GOD, doesn't know... how can a human know? We can't... so these Christians that claim they do.. well, they are just wrong. That's okay.. we are human, it's OK to be wrong from time to time. Sorry Brian.

Next Brian talks about the "unforgivable sin" which is to Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Brian, instead of letting us come to a conclusion as to what that means, goes ahead and assumes we accept his views as fact. He believes that to doubt the Holy Spirit is to blaspheme against it... well, I have a better explanation. "Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" can be understood as a continued and persistently stubborn rejection of the gospel of salvation. This would be an "unpardonable sin" because as long as a person remains in unbelief, he voluntarily excludes himself from forgiveness of sin. Therefore it would not be a one time admission (as Brian makes at the end of the film) of "I doubt the Holy Spirit" or something like it, but rather a lifelong unto death denial of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel of salvation. If we study anything about Jewish history (the majority of the Bible) we see that to doubt God at times is often done, and is considered OK. Go read the book of Job and then read some books by Eli Weasel, the Jewish Holocaust survivor...he has a particularly enlightening one called "Messengers of God".

Next Brian misrepresents himself to a school administrator in order to gain an interview. In the interview he puts the man to the test with the question "What hard Scientific Evidence do you have that the World Works this way?". Well, with the same Historical evidence that Jesus existed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus, and if he existed we come to a fork in the roads. Either what he said was true or false. Either he was the Son of God and what he said stands... or he wasn't and what he said was the ravings of a lunatic. There is no middle ground as some would like where Jesus was just a great teacher, or his teachings are good things to live by, or he was a good man. If he existed, you go down one road or the other, what he said was true, or what he said was false.

In his interview with the school administrator Brian makes the statement that the Bible is from the First Century and before and is "Symbolic literature"... says Brian, the Documentary maker, not historians.

Finally, Brian WAS dishonest or at least misleading and manipulative in the way in which he got his interview with the administrator, showing a lot about his character.

I am sorry for my terrible punctuation in the above statements, but it is late and I write these paragraphs in a hurry for some sleep. Thanks for reading!