I defaulted to politics on this one, I was torn.
 

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/about/index.html

FACTS

The Beast is currently in pre-production.

The cast and crew are legally sworn to secrecy.

The theory that Jesus Christ never existed, while largely unknown to most lay Christians, is gaining credibility among scholars. Historians do not consider the Gospels to be historically accurate accounts. The authors of the Gospels, writing 40 to 90 years after the supposed life of Christ, never intended for their works to be read as biographies. There are no credible non-Christian references to Christ during the period in which he is said to have lived.


BEHIND THE MOVIE

The Beast is directed by internationally acclaimed filmmaker Brian Flemming. Flemming's work has been called "a parallel universe" by the BBC, "jaggedly imaginative" by the New York Times, and "immensely satisfying" by USA Today. The Fox News Channel dubbed him "a young Oliver Stone." Flemming won the New York Times Claiborne Pell Award for Original Vision for his groundbreaking feature film Nothing So Strange, which was released theatrically in 2003 and is currently distributed on DVD in more than 200 countries.

Flemming is a former fundamentalist Christian. An in-depth interview with him is available in the first issue of The Beast newsletter. For a more extensive biography, see the Internet Movie Database.

Are you ready for the TRUTH?

Can you HANDLE the TRUTH?

How bad do you WANT the TRUTH?

[pee wee herman voice] That'll be be nine dollars and fifty cents please. [/pee wee]

:gray: :thumbsup:

Wow. That website is horrible. That was the most notable thing about it.

Yeah, a bit thin on content. I think that that is going to be their angle to get people to see it though.

The trailer is a complete eye-rolling joke as well. I checked this guy out on IMDB and he isn't exactly living up to the billing as indicated in TS' original post.

I have a feeling that what we have here is a mouse with a 200 megawatt bullhorn.

not so much content as style (or total and utter lack thereof, it looks like the graphics were done in 10 minutes in paint shop pro) and the......design....if you want to call it that. Whole thing reeks of amateurism, I've seen plenty of student films that look far, far more professional. Flemming needs to hire some decent post-production people.

I'm just wondering - why SHOULD there be credible references to Christ in any surving non-Christian documents?



From: Pontius Pilate
Jerusalem

To: Ceasar
Rome

Regional Report for April, 0 AD

Collected 30,000 pieces of silver in taxes

Quashed two minor uprisings, sustaining one Roman fatality and two wounded - both wounded expected to fully recover.

Held spring training for 2 Roman Legions - officers report the men are fit and in good spirits

Secured 200 horses for military use

Secured 400 swords for same

Executed 3 local jewish criminals by standard technique of nailing them to
crosses

The messenger who brings you this dispatch is also bringing along my personal gift to you of 10 virgins accomplished in exotic veil dancing techniques. I hope this humble gift pleases you, oh, Ceasar.

Sincerely,

Pontius Pilate

uh-huh. sounds like and attempt to cash in on the date June sixth, next year. Some hook.

June 6, 2006.

So, there's no Christ, but let's use the interest in the antiChrist to create interest in the story???

Somebody needs to think this through a little more.

Marketing and reason don't always go hand in hand.

Really? Please cite these scholars.

I'm in fact reading a book that says the scholars AND secular historians actually DO think the gospels are authentic, accurate, and entirely credible.

ok, before we get too far, let's acknowledge that
A) if you have already made up your mind that christianity is a farce, then absolutely no study in the world will convince you otherwise.
B) if you have decided that christianity is the real deal, then likewise, no study will convince you otherwise.

all new information we see has to be filtered through our own preconceived beliefs and skepticism. i've recently been reading The Case For Christ by Lee Sobelman. it is written in an interview format, using experts in their respective fields to establish whether or not Christ existed and if so, was He divine. While reading it i was struck with the idea that, although i'm ok with this study and publication, if i had already decided against the existence of Christ i would probably just write the study off as BS. - in the same way that i'm skeptical of projects such as the one that started this thread.

having an open mind is an extremely difficult thing to do.

Before we delve into the credibility of your scholars let us clarify something.

All I did was post a link to a movie and the text from the movie's splash page. I made no assertions of any kind.

The only text that was mine was "I defaulted to politics on this one, I was torn."

Ah. When you posted

FACTS

I assumed you meant these were your words, not the link.

I apologize.

And when you want the credibility of my scholars, I can post a list of their names and degrees and associations. It would take a while to type. Or you could pick up "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, and read what the scholars are saying.

There will always be people who and interpret the evidence differently (see evolution v. creation) but the fact remains there is evidence.

It's the teachings, not the being
 

Regardless of whether Christ existed or not, it's the teachings of Christ (or whomever) that are the important parts. Selflessness, kindness, and the golden rule are what to be gleamed out of the Gospels, not whether he liked pita, or was real or unreal. Wake up folks.

-Walrus

Wake up walrus.

The basis of Christianity is saving grace (redemption of sin, final sacrifice, etc) pivots on Jesus' existence, life, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Without that, the rest of it crumbles. If Jesus wasn't who he was, why listen to him? He was simply a heretical Rabbi.

Because good ideas will stand on their own merits. The ideas credited to him are some really good ones.

Someone can have good ideas without being divine. Selflessness, kindness, and the golden rule are good ideas no matter who Jesus' father was.

And persecuted heretics are more likely to have thought more deeply about the subject than orthodox people - they may or may not be more correct, but they have at least considered it deeply.

That's all window dressing and the dogma of it all. As a Catholic, having been read the Gospels at length, I saw the beauty of the words. The compassion it taught, the ability to love others who hate you, etc. There truly is no other work like the Gospels. To only try to pick apart the Gospels for the mystical aspects and the then debunk it is a bit short sighted. If that is all you saw, then you are blinded by a secular pesimism that has consistently thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

-Walrus

*blink*blink*

then you are blinded by a secular pesimism

This was the one I was dumbstruck by...

The comment was made in reference to the "herretical Rabbi" comment, not onyxcougar directly. If someone only saw the story that way, then its a short sighted pesimistic view in my eyes. The secular part is in reference to debunking anything religious, point out how none of it could happen based on "facts", regardless if the teachings are based on life and the better treatment of your fellow man. That's all. None of which takes into consideration the possiblity of the inherent value of the teachings. Furthermore, if Christ was real, do you really think he would want people only to treat others well because he said so, that goes against the entire concept of Christ. I reject Cougar's assertion of "why listen to the teachings then" mentality. If you can't just listen to the words and the morals they try to teach, and you need a lot of fire,brimstone and proof that Jesus was the son of God to scare you to be good, I feel sorry for you.

-Walrus

Gotta agree with Walrus on this one. Personally, I don't believe Jesus was the son of God. He had some great moral and ethical teachings to give, however. If the only reason people try to act as they are told to in the Gospels, then they are actually not following Christ's teachings at all. They are just children pretending to be good, so Dad won't get out his belt.

Me too.
It's like dismissing a post out of hand because it doesn't link an impressive expert. Read the words, ponder the thoughts, then if you disagree with the message that's your privilege. :)

I saw the beauty of the words. The compassion it taught, the ability to love others who hate you, etc. There truly is no other work like the Gospels.

2 John

1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Hebrews

10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

How did we get this far along without somebody remembering Gore Vidal's "LIVE, from Golgotha!"?

You want to start quoting the Bible now? Are you mad. First off I was refering specifically to the Gospels. Although there are moments in John that are a bit puritanical, there are many other instances, especially in Luke, Mark and Matthew that are beautiful treatises on compassion and good will. It's what one sees in anything is the issue here. Some see a bunch of holy rollers expressing self-rightegousness and damnation to all those who don't believe, but that's not what I see. As far as Hebrews is concerned, if you know anything about Judeo-Christian docrtine percieving the Gospels as part of the Bible, God is vengeful and Jesus is merciful, it's a balancing act. If you look closely the appearance of Jesus is signifigant because it rails against convential Jewish dogma as it stood at that time. Either a construction or fact, for one to read the Bible and constantly outline and highlight the parts of condemation is still short sighted and pesimistic. It's a matter of opinion obviously. Some brief examples of compassion and beauty: John 8:1-11 is in reference to Jesus' actions in saving Mary Magdalene from that famous stoning scene. Also LUKE 4:28-29 refers to Jesus' compassion in the stoning issue. MARK 5:21-30 64-65 - Where Jesus is touched by a woman with a terminial infriment and is healed, is also one of the most touching moments in the Gospels. MATTHEW 5 69-70 - Jesus sermon on the mount, how can you not be moved by this piece. As someone who has been through the Catholic school system, I should be the one tearing down Jesus, or God, but I refuse. I was taught the Bible since I was 5 or 6, and I still feel the same about it today. I was told by countless nuns that I was going to hell, many times quoting passages from John, but I refuse to submit to such condemnation. I do my best to treat people as noted in these religious teachings, not out of fear for my soul, but out of the compelling nature of the teachings and the way they touched my heart, plain and simple. Accordingly, if you look at the sum of Jesus' teachings, he wanted people to love each other because we are all God's children, in effect no different than him, only difference being he had to die for the sins of others. The pain and suffering of Christ is also an area of great inspiration, many condemed others in his name, but Christ always had mercy on those who "knew not what they did"


-Walrus

Please don't misunderstand. *I* don't think that way, but there are many secular folks who do, which is why I made the comment.

Many times people ask me

"If God is a loving God, why does he allow suffering?"

(this is one I get from Jews alot) "God is eternal and unchanging. If Jesus was really the Messiah, then by definition, God changed the rules. That is not who God is, so Jesus was not the Messiah."

"I can't get behind a religion that scares people into believing."


These are all examples of people who haven't read the material, or at very least have a poor understanding of it. What other reasons have you given (or heard) that people use as an excuse not to believe? (This does not include people who flat out admit they don't want to believe because they simply don't want to. I'm talking about people who say they are seeking but give excuses.)

The Holocaust. You can make every argument you please, but that one is the deal breaker for me. A personal god who presided over that is the devil and he gets no allegiance from me. BTW, WHOSE material? God's? On what proof, other than your belief?

You sure the big guy wasn't pissed at the Chosen People for turning their backs on his boy?*


* If I believed in Hell (rather than Hel) I would probably be burning in it for merely offering this suggestion ...

Others than the Jews met their ends - gypsies, the disabled, political prisoners, etc. So, the big guy had it in for them, too? :eyebrow:

He is a jealous god, or so I hear.

I quote the bible all of the time, as a matter of fact I used it extensively in an article I wrote about people trying to ban Harry Potter from public schools.

Am I mad? I'm not even mildly upset. As to the allusion to insanity, I've been called pathologically sane by some people. I guess they are referring to the fact that nobody else they know can be so dispassionate or unemotional. Who knows?

I will agree that those things can be found there, but you cannot deny the abuse, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination, misogyny, etc that they contain as well.

So you're saying that the religious doctrine changed to meet the political needs of the times.

*presto chango*

Either a construction or fact, for one to read the Bible and constantly outline and highlight the parts of absolution is still short sighted and optimistic.

So you're willing to admit to a great amount of intellecual inertia and naivete.

Why aren't willing to accept that the people who are willing to submit their lives to the doctrine you so willingly admit to may be right considering that they're whole life is qrapped up in discovering its mysteries?

They have the same, or better, resources to draw from, as well as more time to devote to such endeavors.

It does no good to only apply the warm fuzzy parts of your doctrine. It states very clearly and in many places how you are to treat the non-believer.

I haven't had to run anybody from my property for hurling stones yet.

As touching as it may be, it doesn't work for me on too many levels. I understand social engineering when I see it. I see ethnic ideological justification, and all of the other things I mentioned before.

If such a doctrine works for you that is fine, but I set higher intellectual standards for myself. I don't mean this as a condemnation (much) but if you want to have faith I'm happy for you. Don't try to rationalize it within the framework of your own doctrine. A word cannot be used in its own definition.

Let me preface by saying the Holocaust was a horrible horrible thing and I am not trying to minimize it in any way by the following thoughts.

Throughout Jewish history, from the Flood in Genesis and wandering in Exodus through present day, when Jews turned away from God, bad things happened to them. Every single time, more than just Jews were affected. This holds true for the Holocaust as well.

That's a teeny bit of the historical account of "why the Jews?".

That's a quote by Rabbi Shaul Rosenblatt.

If Jews can get past the Holocaust, so can you.

According to the Rabbi, then, God makes people do harm to others? I think not. Or, perhaps the Rabbi meant that, by failing to prevent the harm that a person intends to inflict upon another that God implicitly "made it happen." So, if I understand the Rabbi, he contends that either God makes people do bad things OR that God gave us free will but then disallows us to exercise it in a manner inconsistent with his wishes.

Since the Rabbi is a respected and learned theological scholar and I am anything but, I will assume that I do not understand his point.

Actually, no. Individual members of the Jewish faith may make whatever mental accomodations they feel they need to in order to reconcile a belief in a personal god along with the Holocaust.

I, however, do not. Any hypothetical supreme being is more than welcome to drop by the lab for a cup of bad coffee and a long talk in which he explains himself (or attempts to). Until such time, he'll get no belief from me.

Why do bad things happen?

This includes the Holocaust, Tsunamis, cancer, murder, accidents, birth defects, etc etc etc.

I could get all long winded about sin and free will and choice and all that stuff, but the bottom line is this:

Bad things happen because we live in a fallen world. We had our shot at paradise and Adam and Even blew it for everyone.

God "allows" bad things to happen because it is the consequence of original sin, which was disobeying him in the first place. "If you touch that, you will be burned. See? Told you."

Some people believe that the scriptures say that the "tribulation" is going to make the Holocaust look like a walk in the park.

I'm sorry you're mad at God. That doesn't make him less real.

Are you trying to ban Harry Potter or are you fighting against a ban of Harry Potter?

I'm against the banning of of the Potter books.

No, you've got that backwards. I don't think god is real. Therefore, there's nothing to be mad at except, possibly, man's inhumanity to man.

At any rate, believe away if that makes you happy. I make it a rule not to argue matters of belief, so I'm outta this part of the discussion. :cool: