Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Strong and Moving!

One of my all time favorites.

Admirable film.

I have come out of Christianity too but did not like many tactics Brian used to make this film. Man made dogma has created many problems as far as controlling and misleading people. Just because man-made dogma is wrong does NOT mean God does not exist. You can sense Brian's bitterness in this film. I was mad at first too when I discovered, after much study of the scriptures, the error in the NT. Most of us do not know the Tanach well enough to detect them other than we recognize the verses when they are used as coming out of the Tanach, but normally there is no reference so it cannot be checked easily unless you make the effort, much like Brian's mistake. How many of you got your Bible and checked out his use of some quotes? One was Luke 19:17, where Brian implies Jesus is speaking about his enemies, but if you go back in the chapter to the beginning, Jesus is talking about a nobleman in a PARABLE who makes this statement, yet Brian wrongfully implies it is Jesus, talking about his enemies. Now, I am sorry, but I find that hypocritical because I think he would have known he took it out of context while making a film of this nature. Also Hebrews 8:4 was somewhat misleading, but that might be debatable, depending on how you look at it, since my husband & I both came up with a different understanding of it. I have removed the NT from the Tanach in my bibles(the Hebrew Scriptures, what Jesus used, OT, Original Text, I do not like to call it now what Christians do since it is disrespectful. How would Christians like it if Muslims added the Qur'an to the NT and started calling the NT the Old NT and that the Qur'an was now the currant word of God. I do not think they would like it at all. Each faith should stand on their own if you are going to choose to follow one.) I do not like labels, they divide us. I think we should all learn to say "Perhaps," even the Atheists, that way we are not demanding everyone believe as we do and that they are wrong and we are right and visa versa.I think if you want to get the attention of Christians, you need to be more respectful and address the misconceptions and quotes out of context with concern and seriousness, not sarcasm, such as I picked up on in the film. Again, I can understand the sarcasm but it is not helping while addressing Christians. Brainwashing is a serious state of mind and you are challenging someone who has been taught to love that teaching so if you want to introduce truth, extend some grace and be factual but gentle. I believe it is actually God who brings people out of the man-made dogma and points them to truth. One has to have an open mind and a teachable spirit. Often our ego gets in the way because we do not want to believe that we have been taught wrong and willingly accepted that error. There are "fear" verses used to control them as well. Very sad. Again, if Brian wanted to make progress in educating people, sarcasm probably is not the best approach. God is most important in my life but not as man has created Him, nor as Brian has lost sight of him in the movie . Seek God, Seek to Improve YOUR Spirit and harm no one in the process. God will look at your heart and mind, not your label. Do your own research. We are accountable for what we believe. It will affect the decisions we make and the outcome of your life.

In terms of its content, this film really discredits serious atheists. Several "facts" are simply wrong and manipulated to serve the main argument. Educated people who see through these fallacies are bound to lose any trust and respect for the narrator/filmmaker. For instance, at the very beginning Flemming asserts that the Christians got the geocentric astronomical model wrong. Actually, this model originates in ancient Greece, so it is not a Christian invention (even if they persecuted heretics who proclaimed the heliocentric model).The hyped and sensationalist way in which arguments and "facts" are presented is detrimental to any serious point the director is trying to make. I have no problem with the collage-like and playful tone and visual style of this documentary, which is inspired by "Bowling for Columbine" and "Supersize Me". However, unlike Moore and Spurlock, the way this style is used to represent the topic and themes is infantile. The animations and graphics in combination with his voice-over is highly patronising and seems to address either uneducated people or children. It is also highly exploitative to do vox-pops with devoted Christians and ask them intellectual questions about historical facts or apologetics and get ridiculous responses. This pseudo-Socratic approach is expected to create tension and cheap TV, NOT to make people think (whether the audience or the interviewee). In "Religilous" Bill Maher uses a much less Socratic approach in which he doesn't just question people's views, but also expresses his opinions. This is much more self-reflexive and honest, which makes Maher a much more respectable narrator and presenter, and we are more likely to trust him.What is the focus of this documentary? Is it to debunk Jesus's existence? Flemming doesn't offer any argument against the actual existence of Jesus. The arguments about the mythical character Jesus do not deny that someone of this name might have really existed (for which there are historical clues, even if not strong evidence). Most of the film, though, is not about Jesus's existence but about debunking Christian doctrines.Is the focus to promote atheism (which I was hoping)? It is certainly not, because the few atheist arguments Flemming uses are ridiculous and not even used by serious atheist apologists. For instance, the institutional aspect of faith (such as Christianity) is not a valid argument against a super-natural being, simply because most atheists and good theologians agree that religions are human constructs. In TGWWT Sam Harris offers an excellent argument paralleling pathological conditions (such as delusion and psychopathy) with religious belief. However, instead of developing this argument further (like Bill Maher does in Religilous) Flemming cannot wait to go back to his infantile MO, playing a frustrated anti-Christian and neurotic crusader who wants to overcome a childhood trauma of religious indoctrination.Flemming's declaration in an interview that he is a "Christian Atheist" shows that he doesn't really know what he is talking about, plus, he is more interested in media hype than a serious documentary (with "serious" I mean a documentary that connects to an audience and actually makes people think, not "serious" in tone. "Religilous" is a comedy but still a serious documentary). If he would look at the etymology of "Christianity" and "Christ", he would understand that it implies exactly what an atheist is not. So, instead of labelling himself with an oxymoron just for shock-value, he should rather do some reading and not pretend that ignorance is a virtue.Would I recommend this film? Yes, for film students who want to learn of how not to make a documentary (in every aspect). No, to people who want to get some insight into atheism, apologetics or history.

When Christians are asked how Christianity is spread, many cite "Pentacost" because (if you will take time to read it) Jesus bestowed His power on them to go forth, preach, and heal.A central component to Christ's ministry was faith. The concept is mentioned numerous times from Jesus telling his Disciples during a storm they had little faith, to the woman "in red" who touched his clothes and became healed... "Woman, your faith has healed you."So here we are again, when did the spread of Christianity start. I agree with most: by sending out his Disciples to the public, Jesus was empowering them to spread the good news. It is in that same fashion that a Christian seeks to discover their unbelieving brother, and help them realize the glory of God.

The notion that there never existed a personage known as or modeled after a "Jesus Christ" is intriguing to say the least and deserves a better made "documentary" than this. I, too, have come to believe there never was such a person and have read some of Earl Doherty's discussion on the matter at his website so I was all gung-ho to see a film presentation of all the evidence, spliced in with commentary from the many great thinkers that agree with the premise. Boy, was I let down! This film is poorly made and -to put it bluntly - boring! The director clearly did not do his homework. Interviewing people on the street about Jesus was pointless, too. Why not talk to theologians? for example. There is so much ground to cover and so many, many talking points to explore but the director wastes precious minutes by, among other things, visiting the Christian school he attended as a youth followed by a poor imitation of ambush-style journalism in an interview with the schools director. This is a subject that deserves serious consideration and I await the filmmaker that deals with it as such.