I was originally going to post the whole film, but it's been pulled from Google Video in the last couple of days. Found the link and replaced the trailer with it.. Here's the official website and it's IMDB entry.

This was well made. I hope Mel doesn't sick his dogs on this guy.

I watched this last year and it felt like the culmination and distilment of ideas and thoughts I reached a long time ago.

I saw this at a movie theater in St. Bernard (east of New Orleans), the summer of 2005. The theater flooded as did that whole area . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child.
Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. (1 Corinthians 13:11)

The guy narrating the movie needs to really calm down though...I mean...his delivery....it was...so...dynamic...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

OH, sorry. Dozed off there.

I thought it was a good film, with some interesting points and all, but I think it stumbles in places, like the first sentence "christianity was wrong about the solar system" isnt very accurate. The bible says to my knowledge little or nothing about workings of the solar system.

PEOPLE were wrong about the solar system,it was the fact that our outlook and perspective on the world had to change, which was just to scary to cope with for the forces that wanted to keep christianity intact. Unfortunatly, people still believe in the narrowminded rubbish anyways and think the bible has all the answers ,and in their own mind they adapt it to modern thinking. "Evolution is just gods WAY of doing it, blah blah" seems "humans, created in gods image" are really just micro-ants living on a tiny rock of nothing in the western spiral arm in one of the billions of galaxies, so we may not be the center of the universe after all.. makes you wonder just how many days he DID use..

In some ways, I actually respect the creationist, gay-hating, fundamentalist crackpots more than the washed-out "modern" christians, because atleast those extremists are consistent in their own wierd way.

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!

You make good points Wildkat, but I have a couple of questions:
Did you watch The Passion? you say Mel Gibson was trying to be as accurate as possible; REALLY? If I remember correctly, in the movie Christ's hands were nailed. Isn't that a medieval misinterpretation of the crucifixion? Is it not the nail supposed to go in the wrists?
On what basis do you argue that there is no middle ground for Christ's teachings?

I appreciate everyones thoughts on this...however, as a devout athiest and scientist (almost!) - I'd like to refute all of the above with one simple statement:

The bible is the only documentated proof that Jesus existed - this book has been disproven by archeology and other sciences (the only historical accuracy it contains is on the 3rd page: King James edition). There's a larger readership of the IKEA catalogue throughout the world than bible readers - what the IKEA customers read is actually more factual than the Christians' book (and most of that is made-up Swedish words!) Just because its readers believe it's true, doesn't make it any more real.

benjee:

Check out E.P. Sanders for a good intro of the historical figure of Jesus and the attempts by scholars to use scientific and historical method to parse the mythology from the historical figure of Jesus.

In the field, the minority view is that Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination. And the archeological proof (both canonical and non-canonical sources) seems to point more towards a historical reality of Jesus than the idea of an imaginary Jesus. Of course, your point about the interpretation of the sources reflecting more about the culture of a particular period rather than a higher Truth about Jesus is well-taken, but it doesn't meant that all of the papyrus is bullshit.

If you take a mistrust of historical textual sources too far (the it's all myth view), then perhaps Alexander the Great did not exist, or Plato, or Socrates. Jesus is actually "better-sourced" than all of these figures. In 200 years, maybe IKEA itself will be thought to be a figment of our cheap Swedish furniture dreams.

I'm hoping IKEA will become the next fabricated religion - at least I have respect for their furniture designs!

Yeah, but IKEA lamps are crap.
The cheap meatballs and breakfast, on the other hand, divine.

Thou shalt eat thine divine Swedish Meatballs...
IKEA 2206 catalogue: Book of Sven; verse 3:16.

Anyway, at least there's neutral & tangible proof that the Greeks ('Alexander the Great...Plato, or Socrates') existed (aren't these in-disputable figures in history?)...still waiting for the facts on Jesus Christ (who ironically enough: was black & jewish; if in fact, he existed at all!)

Hehe.

What is this 'neutral and tangible' proof? I have to trust Plato to believe in Socrates and I am NOT going to become a Platonist.

My consuming problem with the Holy Bible is that it gives Jesus superpowers and that it creates a need for church services (Zzzzzzz).

Furthermore, the only person that I have ever seen with superpowers is George W. Bush (no other way he was electable in 2000 and 2004).

Damn: I was tidying up my previous post when you typed that -~^ (obsessive compulsive with English language!)

Am trying to say: I believe that my education was fairly neutral and gave tangible evidence for their existence. The same education says that Jesus Christ did not, as there is no proof (unless you're a devout Christian - which I'm obviously not!) Don't get me wrong - reluctantly, I probably know more about the religious rather than historic figures being debated...hence my confidence with the former.

I have slightly more consuming problems with the 'Holy Bible' (other than I refuse to capitalise it!) - but your comments hard to beat; plus I think my opinions pretty clear above & elsewhere on the Sift.

Just so long as you damned atheists don't take my place of worship (the ball pit at IKEA) away.

To Mauz15, thank you for your compliments. However, you make the argument that Mel Gibson had the movie putting stakes through the hands of Jesus and not the wrists of Jesus. Yes, I stand by the statement that Mel Gibson used so much blood because he was trying to stay historically accurate... but the semantics of if the nails were in the hands or the wrists really holds no relevance other than a simple mistake, if it is that, due to the fact that if I put a stake in your hand OR your wrist... you will still bleed copiously from both.

Benjee writes "The bible is the only documentated proof that Jesus existed - this book has been disproven by archeology and other sciences (the only historical accuracy it contains is on the 3rd page: King James edition). There's a larger readership of the IKEA catalogue throughout the world than bible readers - what the IKEA customers read is actually more factual than the Christians' book (and most of that is made-up Swedish words!) Just because its readers believe it's true, doesn't make it any more real."

Well, I have your sources of proof.

Gnostic texts

Gnostic texts date to the mid second century at the earliest, and show a lack of attention to history, generally avoiding the standard historical narrative in favour of sayings framed in the structure of a private, and often secret revelation, and therefore emphasize allegory. The Gnostics' opinion of Jesus varied from viewing him as docetic to completely metaphorical, in all cases treating him as someone to allegorically attribute gnostic teachings to, his resurrection being regarded an allegory for enlightenment, in which all can take part. Nonetheless, some scholars consider these texts valuable as they were generally not subject to the influences of Christian orthodoxy.

Early Church fathers

The early church fathers, such as Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius and Jerome, wrote of Jesus. Papias preferred to rely on surviving witnesses who had known one of the twelve disciples, rather than what had been written in books. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4)

Flavius Josephus

(c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it Jesus is mentioned twice, notably in the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Antiquities 18:3.3:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. Josephus later, in chapter 20:9.1, refers to the trial and execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Tacitus

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117) wrote a paragraph in the Annals on the subject of Christianity and possibly Christ in 116. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, Tacitus stated that this group, originating from Judaea, derived its name from "Christus/Chrestus", who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate"[19][20] Tacitus, in keeping with the Imperial edicts concerning Christianity, described it as a "most mischievous superstition" and "evil".[21] Some note that this makes it improbable that the text was interpolated by later Christians.

Tacitus simply refers to "Chrestus", a possible misspelling of "Christus", the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held—prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect.It is also possible that Pilate held both offices, which was common.

Some scholars suggest that Tacitus is merely describing Christian beliefs that were uncontroversial (i.e., that a cult leader was put to death), and that Tacitus thus had no reason not to assume as fact, even without any evidence beyond that spiritual belief. Theologian Karl Adam, argues that, as an enemy of the Christians and as a historian, Tacitus would have investigated the claim about Jesus' execution before writing it.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign. We learn nothing, however, about the reason for this execution, or about Jesus' life and teachings."[22]

Others

Although Celsus, a late second-century critic of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer, he never questions Jesus' historicity even though he hated Christianity and Jesus.[23] He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".[24] Furthermore, there is a passage of debatable significance by Lucian of Samosata, which credits Jesus as the founder of Christianity.[25]

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.

Many scholars, such as Michael Grant, do not see significant similarity between the non-Abrahamic myths and Christianity. Grant states in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a FABRICATION from its midst is very hard to credit."

Benjee also writes "P.S: Taking things out of context? Surely, the bible is taken out of context with its millenia's of 'translations' or 'editions' and without the rest of the removed sections...E.G: Dead Sea Scrolls anyone? in your own words, DirtyWildkat: 'The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not just one book or verse' And don't even get me started on the anti-semitic inclusion of The Crucifiction by the church a few hundred years ago. Surely, if the bible is the true word of god, then the entirety of it must be true and followed 'religously'...therefore editing it must be the ultimate blasphemous act!? "

The problem with this statement about translations and what not are that we have original documents to TRANSLATE from. Yes, over the years as our knowledge of these ancient languages developed some words or phrases have changed, but scholars have basically come to an agreement now. Learn greek, as I had to in school, and read the greek New Testament for yourself, or learn hebrew and read the Old Testament. The meaning is there. And when I said the Bible has to be taken as a whole book to be in context, I think you misinterpreted my meaning. I am arguing that the Bible is a progressive work telling the story of a God and his people and their development over millenia of time that is written by men. Are there certain to be small spelling errors in Hebrew and Greek that get translated incorrectly? Yes,HUMANS WROTE THE ACCOUNTS, there will be minor errors but the message still stays the same, the basic meaning does not shift.

You also mention the Crucifixtion as something added by anti-semites later... since when? I've already given writings by non Christian ancient historians that record Jesus as being crucified.

Whew.

If this is trollery (and it probably isn't), then at least it is academic trollery.

One of the finest things ever written about the historical Jesus ironically came from a thoughtful and funny atheist:

"He was man who got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change".

--Douglas Adams

Nah, I'm voting trollery. Copy-paste much from Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Just provide a link. Don't copy their shit and claim it as your own.

WildKat:
what about my oher question:
On what basis do you argue that there is no middle ground for Christ's teachings?

Number one, to Gervaise.... I don't claim any of that as my own. Do I cite my sources exactly? No. Nor do I have to in an informal online discussion. Thanks for doing it for me though! I could have written the information I provided about the historians and articles that support the claim that Jesus is a historical figure as I have a degree in Religious Studies (golf clap) but for the purpose of this discussion, simply copy and pasting it from an online source is much more efficient professor, I promise I won't plaguerize my next paper. Now, back to the TOPIC... the one you seemed to ignore.

As for Mauz15, hey again! Glad to see you are still around. My basis for that statement has already been made. You would of course, have to explain to me what your definition of "middle ground is". My point, however, was that either Jesus was real or he wasn't. If he was real then he was either a raving madman claiming to be the Son of God... or he was the Son of God. There is no middle ground... he's either insane or the genuine article.

But why couldn't he merely be a son of God without being insane or blessed with superpowers. In other words, not substantially different from other radical historical religious figures?

I know. Because Jesus is Magic.

I think it is a fallacy to believe that if Jesus is real then he is either the Saviour or a Nutter.

There is definitely no middle ground on the issue of whether Jesus was a great athlete, though.

http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html

Rickegee,

Jesus claims to be the saviour... so if Jesus existed... then either what he said was true... or false. How is there any middle ground there where some of the time he was speaking the truth and it's good to follow his teachings, but some of the time he was a nut claiming to be the salvation of the world and the Son of God? I'm basically putting those who try to ride the fence on Jesus to the test. If he was in his right mind and was wise and great and good... then you have to believe what he was saying was the real deal... otherwise you are talking about a schitzophrenic personna claiming to be the Son of God come to save us... pick one and stick with it.

dwk

"How is there any middle ground there where some of the time he was speaking the truth and it's good to follow his teachings, but some of the time he was a nut claiming to be the salvation of the world and the Son of God?"

Because he was alive. I am advancing the idea that the historical Jesus was like any other living, breathing, existing person on this planet. Which is to say, some of his ideas were and remain extremely valuable and visionary and some of his ideas were like my Videosift comment threads -- full of typographical errors and drivel. I realize that every blinding truth that I type is leavened by some lie or fumbled misquote from Wikipedia.

So Jesus was entirely in his right mind but a bit of a shameless self-promoter. The strain I distrust most in traditional Christianity is the doctrine of infallibility, whether you choose to posit that someone like the Pope (Christ stand-in) is infallible or the historical Jesus. Although I realize that it would be a contentious issue to most Christians, I believe that one could find value in the teachings of Christ without ever believing that he was the the son of God or even believing that there could ever be sons of a paternal/maternal God. It is a relativist viewpoint to be sure, but I do not think that anyone here has a monopoly on divine truth. Even the beloved Richard Dawkins has some ugly pimples. (*Siftblasphemy!)

It just seems to me that you are advancing a constricted fundamentalist view of Christ. Either he is divinity or he is nothing. The historical study of Jesus seems to me to be the middle way around that kind of thinking.

I don't feel the need to debate my anti-religous opinions...in the same way DirtyWildkat doesn't debate his (just quote it). So here's another video, by a Christian academic theologian:Dr Robert Bedford's 'Who Wrote The Bible?' (107mins).

Jesus was either a really good magician or he was paul daniels, there's no middle ground. How about david blain, do you think he would be seen as the son of god if he did that levitating malarkey 2000 years ago? Benjee lad, give me some html for paul daniels, people need to see

it's painfully obvious that he did not go looking for Jesus. sounds to me like he went looking for reasons to mock jesus and his followers. it's been done.

with a billion people claiming to be followers, it's not hard to find some deranged person who does something crazy for Jesus, not hard to find a power-hungry political figure who uses Jesus.

this is a series of lame cheap shots strung together with cheesy Jesus movies.

Wow, there's a lot of ideas about this video. If I'm assuming correctly, the sides are either, 1. What Brian is saying is true and Christianity is false, or 2. Brian is wrong and Jesus is who he says he is. Am I correct?

I just want to ask one question for those who are Atheists here.
Read carefully. First off, if you're an Atheist, then what is it that you are denying?

Something that I didn't add earlier. For those that say, "I don't believe Jesus to be the Christ but say that he was only a good man, a good teacher, or a good prophet," are liars.
Because if you don't believe what Jesus says to be true and take it that the disciples were elevating Jesus to a Godly form, then what you really are saying is that, "Jesus is NOT a good man, because he lied." You'd say, "Jesus is not a good teacher, because he lied about who he was and is." You'd say, "He's not a good prophet because he lies therefore a FALSE prophet." You cannot say Jesus is a good man, teacher, and prophet and yet disagree with him. It's contradictory to use that kind of argument. You cannot call Jesus a good man and teacher if you think what he said were lies.

All . . . right, jcchang. Now plug in "Mohammed" in place of "Jesus" to your last posting. Or "The Pope." Or "Martin Luther." Or "Richard Dawkins."

I fail to see why any historical assessment of the worth of Jesus' teachings requires that you accept that he is the Son of God. Or that a failure to believe in the magical powers portion of the Gospels means that one thinks that Jesus was a filthy liar. Even a person of faith can be a skeptical and critical thinker . . correct?

Or do you have to swallow it all without critical thought to be a true Christian? And what exactly do you need to swallow then? Paul's interpretation? Peter? Matthew? Luke? Gnostics? King James?

I believe that 3) Brian is wrong and Jesus was not magic.

Rickegee, you're contradicting yourself which is why your arguments don't make any sense. You cannot have faith in something and yet be a skeptic at the same time. It's one or the other.

Why is it so hard to belive that Jesus is who he says he is? What else do you need?

Why is it so hard for you to believe in facts, facts that say the earth is not 6000 years old or whatever rubbish you can come up with. What do I need? I need a life without delusion. A life without an excuse to not live this life to the full because there is something better coming. I need all religion to be sided so the only excuse to hate is earthly and therefore something we must deal with. I need people to stop telling me some david fucking blaine of 2000 years ago was the son of god and my saviour, I can save myself. Now i think of it the religious have the advantage here. If I'm wrong they can laugh as I burn in hell forever. If I'm right, no one will have an after life, meaning I can't gloat, bollocks.

as an atheist, there is nothing to deny. i am without religion and no god(s) exist in my world making it extremely easy NOT to live in denial.



In reply to your comment:
“ First off, if you're an Atheist, then what is it that you are denying?”

Well said ladybug Atheist doesn't mean deny theology, as you so elegantly put it, it means without theology. I missed what was being implied there.

I second that (to above 3 comments).

Hi benjee

A'rightNicky P!?

not bad, I felt like a rant then, you like?

Absolutely, was a good one...took the words right outta' my mouth (or thoughts from my head!)

So for the atheists commenting, if there is no higher being or moral law giver, there's no moral law, if there's no moral law, then that means there's no such thing as right and wrong. So if I believe in Christ as who he says he is, am I wrong? And for you atheists, to you, life is meaningless, so how can you tell me what I believe about the bible is false?

You don't make any sense, and could not be any more wrong Chang:

Athiest's lives are more meaningfull, as we know this is it. There's no heaven or hell...we have just a few decades to understand ourselves and each other before nothingness. We have to take responsibility for ourselves, exactly because there is no 'higher power' to "forgive us of our sins"...just our own conscious and society!

Because we're not constrained by millenias old ideology; we can think for ourselves and realise the true value of people, honesty, history & science. Not the indoctrinated political creations of various empires and movements over a comparatively more recent time. Instead of me attempting to understand grammatically void comments of no meaning, can you guys just watch either of my above two linked vids, or any of the below before posting (will save me plenty of futile typing):

Richard Dawkins responds to Jerry Falwell's students
The Root of All Evil with Richard Dawkins - pt 1
BBC interviews Richard Dawkins about "The God Delusion"
Why do Atheists Care? One man's thoughts
The doomsday code: documentary (one off, 1:41)
Horizon - A War On Science (BBC Documentary, 49mins)
Biologist Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (1:57)

what benjee and ladybug said. Oh yeah, nickyP too. My guess is that JesusChristChang also goes by "jozeph."

Anyway jc, If you gaze haphazardly at almost any work of philosophy or even texts from other faiths for a moment, you may realize that there can be moral thought without Christianity or even without Richard Dawkins.

"We are all co-authors of this dancing exuberance, where even our inabilities are having a roast! We are the authors of ourselves, co-authoring a gigantic Dostoevsky novel starring clowns!
This entire thing we’re involved with called the world, is an opportunity to exhibit how exciting alienation can be.

Life is a matter of a miracle, that is collected over time by moments flabbergasted to be in each others’ presence.
The world is an exam, to see if we can rise into the direct experiences. Our eyesight is here as a test to see if we can see beyond it, matter is here as a test for our curiosity, doubt is here as an exam for our vitality.

Thomas Mann wrote that he would rather participate in life than write a hundred stories. Giacometti was once run down by a car, and he recalled falling in to a lucid faint, a sudden exhilaration, as he realized at last, something was happening to him.

An assumption develops that you can not understand life and live life simultaneously. I do not agree entirely, which is to say I do not exactly disagree. I would say, that life understood is life lived. But the paradoxes bug me. And I can learn to love, and make love to the paradoxes that bug me. And on really romantic evenings of Self, I go salsa dancing with my confusion."

-- Speed Levitch

Benjee, you say that life is more meaningful being an Atheist. And you said that this happens because "we know this is it, there's no heaven or hell or afterlife."
So is what you're saying meaningful? If this is it, then why is anybody going to listen to you? You contradict yourself by saying life is meaningful but yet, this is it. If this is it, how is what you do meaningful? Because if this is it, then nothing matters, and there's no right and wrong.
And also you haven't established what "more meaningful means."

And Rickegee, I didn't make fun of you at all. I'm trying to really have an intelligent conversation and discussion. Please don't try to start irritating people.

JCChang18, But how is it anymore meaningful to put your belief in a book put together by mankind as a way of trying to understand the world he inhibits? You claim that being atheist would mean to lack morality, yet countless studies have shown that in reality people are just inherently good. Due to genetics and the propagation of the species.

*documentaries

Adding video to channels (Documentaries) - requested by Fedquip.

*deader than a dead thing

Invocations (dead) cannot be called by Fade because Fade is not privileged - sorry.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

Awarding xxovercastxx with one star point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jwray.

mauz15 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no star awarded because mauz15 was awarded too recently.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by mauz15.

Awarding mauz15 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

I loved the I AM NOT AFRAID at the end. Fear IS a fundamental aspect of Christianity. I was raised Christian and all my life I was TERRIFIED of even the doubt I had about whether or not it was right.

I'm not saying Christians are wrong. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying all Christians only believe out of fear. But I am saying to Christians: LET GO OF YOUR FEAR. You can't truly believe anything if you've never allowed yourself to doubt or explore it.

In reply to this comment by jcchang18:
So for the atheists commenting, if there is no higher being or moral law giver, there's no moral law, if there's no moral law, then that means there's no such thing as right and wrong. So if I believe in Christ as who he says he is, am I wrong? And for you atheists, to you, life is meaningless, so how can you tell me what I believe about the bible is false?



You are wrong in saying atheists have no moral ground. In fact, many atheists would consider themselves of higher morality than you. Because atheists do not believe in a next life, they focus on THIS life. So they don't believe that you are just forgiven for lies, cheating, and murder. Atheists believe that what you do in this life MATTERS; not that you can get away with anything if you confess your sins or if you just believe some guy existed.

And we don't care if your wrong. We don't care what you believe in. Unlike Christians, Muslims, and Jews, we aren't going to persecute ANYONE for their beliefs. We just want to live our lives. Life is not meaningless. Life has more meaning than you could probably ever allow yourself to ponder.

And for the question of "Where does your morality come from (if not from God?)", what you call morality simply comes from knowing what is good for the greater community. Obviously, you and I have no right to hurt or kill somebody else. That's not productive to the community. And lying or cheating may help ourselves, but if we care about more than ourselves, then it is not helpful to others and we probably shouldn't do it.

Animals have been shown in studies to NOT do something if it does not serve the rest of their herd/pack/etc.

We don't need someone to necessarily tell us what is right or wrong (although that is obviously done through parents, teachers, etc.). I think that morality is instilled in us all (like an animal's instinct).

So no, all atheists are not horrible, godless, murdering, amoral people who don't care at all about life. In fact, I think history has shown a lot more of those people were raised in religion.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by xxovercastxx.

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #3572 (supplied by member xxovercastxx) - video declared dead by member xxovercastxx.

*length=1:00:41

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:00:41 - length declared by xxovercastxx.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by xxovercastxx.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by xxovercastxx.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by xxovercastxx.

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #4757 (supplied by member xxovercastxx) - video declared dead by member xxovercastxx.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

Awarding Barseps with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=1:0:40

The duration of this video has been updated from 1:00:41 to 1:00:40 - length declared by Barseps.