Recently on the advice of someone whose opinion I greatly
respect, I watched Brian Fleming’s “The God Who Wasn’t There.” The film is right at an hour long and can be
viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE4qzFDCyCE
Firstly, hats off to Fleming for
attempting a very daunting task in a very short amount of time. Although the
compressed time frame did not help prove his case beyond all doubt, there is
plenty of content worth discussing.
Let me start by saying that I am no
theologian or professional researcher. I will do my upmost to not babble on
since this is by means a complete review. What I am is a believer who wants to
expand his knowledge of faith by studying the objections of atheists. Knowledge
is power.
I will start with brief overall impression
of the film. Then I will address the worthwhile issues raised followed by a few
of the mistakes the film makes. This is not an exhaustive list. I plan on posting
a 2nd entry to address a few more mistakes.
Fleming’s story is a common one. As
the old saying goes, “The Single Greatest Cause of Atheism in the world today is
Christians.” In a nutshell Fleming was brought
up in the faith but it is obvious the presentation of the life and teachings of
Christ he was subjected to growing up did more harm than good. The reason why teaching the Gospel of Christ
is more difficult than it should be is that we as humans take it, put our own
spin on it and pass it off as our own. This
is something I come across often- people don’t have a proper view of Christ
because they weren’t taught one.
They take a negative view or outright deny the existence of God based on
the so called “Christians” they have come across. Perhaps there is not enough
talk of everyone being a sinner in need of grace. People love to talk about
themselves and condemn others, just like the Pharisees. It is so easy then for
the Gospel to be preached in a vague, general sense that is short on specifics
and runs away from dialogue and debate.
Teaching the Bible and the story of
Christ to educated adults can be difficult but teaching it to young and
impressionable children is an exercise that must be done carefully. Too often churches will resort to the “shock
and awe” method, telling kids of all the miraculous (i.e. supernatural) things
God has done. Or they may decide to simply scare kids into coming into the
faith with threats of damnation. It is
easy to incorrectly imply that unless one is consistently experiencing radical
physical, mental and emotion transformations or revelations, one is not truly
communing with God. Of course often
times those things do happen, especially at the moment of conversion, but a
personal relationship with Christ starts as a result and it is that
relationship that sustains us. These amazing experiences may occur again and
again, or they may not. Regardless, after the shock and awe end, the teaching should
begin. Teaching should not consist of handing out a list of rules and leaving
it at that. Or shoving a bible in someone’s hand and walking away, assuming
everything will be fine. But instead it is essential to proceed with a slow, methodical,
in depth process that explains the history and spiritual significances. Yes, including scientific teachings. I fear
this kind of real teaching doesn’t happen much, to children or adults. Maybe it
didn’t happen to Fleming? If he didn’t receive biblical teaching in such a way
perhaps that led to where he is today? I don’t know.
It’s clear from the beginning that perhaps
Fleming’s main issue deals with Christians and Christianity and not with Christ
and his heavenly father, God. It might
be the claim that after Jesus’s time Christians distorted and changed his
story. They certainly twisted it for their own gain (the Crusades, the Inquisition,
hello?) but studying the scriptures will show that is not how Christ wanted his
people to treat others. I think that makes the title of the film a bit
misleading but that’s only an opinion.
If Fleming has an issue with
Christians he’ll have to get in line behind me before he can speak his
peace. People who call themselves
Christians have been responsible for blasphemy and false teachings for
centuries. However such actions are not limited to Christians only. Far from it.
Human beings are flawed creatures. Again, the point and focus must be on Christ
and NOT on his sinful, prideful, selfish and often misguided followers.
I applaud Fleming for
pointing out the obvious fact that few Christians know the history of the
Gospel in the context of the overall history of mankind. They read the Bible, they learn and preach
it but rarely do they look deeper. It is
not a prerequisite for salvation but if people are not keenly aware of certain
objections, guys like Fleming will make them look like mindless zombies,
members of a cult spending their lives in a perpetual haze. Christians have been and will continue to be wrong
or ignorant of certain facts but luckily they have put their faith in God who
has all the answers and is never wrong.
Point of Order: I thought it
had become almost common knowledge that Christ was NOT born on December 25th
but most likely in the springtime. In part December 25th was chosen
to correspond with the Roman holiday of Saturnalia (among other winter solstice
holidays) as a way to ease new believers into the fold. Would changing the date
help? I don’t know. I think there are more important issues to study.
The best thing about the film:
I thank Fleming for pointing out
the fact that the history of how the gospel was spread after Christ’s death is
not well known to many Christians- at least not the whopping 3 he interviewed.
But in all honesty it’s an area I myself need to expand my knowledge of. Luckily
you don’t have to pass a test to receive salvation. All thanks to the sacrifice
of Christ. But there is no reason for Christians to remain ignorant to the
claims this film makes and the responses they are entitled to give.
Yes, we are to live by faith
but the tradition of anti-intellectualism in the church has done and will
continue to do great harm to its members and by extension the world.
Now for my biggest objections to
the film:
1.
Which historical figures does Fleming list as top
examples of the face of Christianity? Charles Manson and David Koresh. Even a minimal amount of Biblical knowledge
would clearly show these guys as evil egomaniacs who do not live a
spirit-filled life. They decided to worship themselves. The type of false
prophets/teachers Christ warned about. Makes sense, it’s very easy to dismiss
people. God on the other hand… He also kindly referred to the Branch Dividians
as “crispy.”
2.
About 14 minutes in Fleming states the “fact”
that after Jesus died everyone “forgot” about his story “and then
remembered.” I’ve been going to church
off and on almost my whole life and I’ve never heard that. The Apostles travelled
far and wide telling the story of Christ and his teachings starting right after
his death. The writing and publishing of the Gospels and the writings of the
Apostle Paul are massive enough subjects to be mentioned in their own future
posting, probably by someone more learned than I am.
3.
Next he asks a few random Christians if they
know anything about a few mythical beings that supposedly share qualities with
Christ. The Christians are pretty clueless. First off these are mythical
beings, not historical. Among the mythical beings Flemings mentions as being
like Jesus are:
Dionysus- either a god or a half god who was conceived by the god
Zeus either by Zeus’s lightning bolts, his placing Dionysus’s physical heart in
the womb of his mother, his becoming a snake, or his becoming a human. The identity
of his mother is disputed. Some say Semele. Others say Persephone. In either case his mother did not give birth
to him, he was born out of Zeus’s physical thigh. Zeus was far from a virgin. So
called similar titles given to both Christ and Dionysus don’t match up. There
are other examples as well. I will say that Dionysus was said to have been
raised from the dead. However I was only able to find a few mentions of this
event and all were brief and short on specifics such as the names of witnesses.
Osiris/Horace- Egyptian deity. Can’t even decipher if these were two separate
beings or one. “He” was conceived by either a galaxy of stars or a non-virgin
mother along with a father whose identity is disputed. Supposedly he was
crucified but there is no evidence the ancient Egyptian practiced such a
method.
Mithras-
Roman or Persian god. Born from a rock
(not a human). Earliest evidence of his
existence comes from ancient sculptures. There are no known complete writings
from the age he supposedly lived in, only sparse fragments. He’s a being who
was not widely known until the publication of a book in the 1800s. Very little
has been written about him and those few writings list no consistent claims of
a virgin birth, crucifixion, etc. He supposedly rose from the dead from a rock
(just as in his birth). I DID find an article that said he has been widely
known as “the son of god” so there’s one similarity.
In case you were wondering if he does any such “man on the street”
interviews with your average atheist, he doesn’t. He asks well known scholars
instead. Odd. There are a plethora of Christian scholars he could have
interviewed. He chooses not to.
4.
About 23 minutes in a rather odd statement is
made about an “official position” of the church that exists to this day. This
is concerning early pagan objections to the description of Jesus as being too
close to the pagan mythological figures listed above. The church simply stated,
“Oh, well, this one is true. Satan counterfeited those others in advance in
order to cast doubt on Christ.” I have
never heard such an “official statement” but again, teachings on this subject
rarely occur. Therefore, I can’t say
it has never been said. So that’s not an objection perhaps but a case of
Fleming boldly stating a fact and not mentioning where it can from.
5.
At around 33 minutes in, he shows a very old
video of some guy named Bailey Smith (whom I’ve never heard of) spouting
outright blasphemy that God
does not listen to the prayers of people such as Jews. First off, this is
biblically incorrect, God hears all prayers. Secondly, who is this guy and why
is this video footage so old? Couldn’t Fleming find some contemporary video? In
all honesty, I bet there are a few poor individuals who currently proclaim that
crap. These are the words of a sinful man, not of Christ the son of God.
6.
Yes myths can become considered fact, but one
must concede that if the belief in God can be a myth so too can the belief that
there is no God. Perhaps this is what happened to the Council of Nicea? This
too is a massive enough subject for a future posting.
That’s all
for now. Thanks for reading and I believe there’s a way to leave comments on
here.
As I said, I
plan on future entries to address certain subjects in depth that were only
briefly mentioned here.
Keep asking
questions of each other everyone. Debate. Discuss. Listen!
Ben
For documentation purposes here are a few of the resources I used
for the discussions on the mythical figures.
“Mythology” by Edith Hamilton (I still had my
copy from 7th grade Latin class)
http://www.tektonics.org/