Talk:The God Who Wasn't There

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2005. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

This article contains some material from the presskit for the movie. The material was explicitly placed into the public domain by the author, in a disclaimer on the movie's website.
 http://www.thegodmovie.com/press/press_kit/press_kit.html

Contents

[edit] Wot it sez in da Bible

This article is not the place for a theological discussion. I am well aware that Christians possess the amazing ability to "interpret" the Bible to mean pretty much anything they want it to mean. But here we simply report facts.

Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. ~ Luke 12:10

It could hardly be any clearer.

Laurence Boyce 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also the "There are people..." phrase is a classic example of weasel word usage. Who are "these people"? Or "most scholars"? [1]?
The issues brought up in those additions would be better suited for the Holy spirit and Blasphemy articles anyway.
--George100 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

These things need to be seen in context. And in context you see that the people Jesus said committed this sin did something else. They saw miracles take place, and attributed the miracles of the Holy Spirit to the devil. Is Wikipedia going to be a encyclopedia that does not accept views that differ from the views of those that have the most time to hang out there and change things others have written? Funny thing is that whoever I would quote you would probably not accept that persons authority because that person would be a christian, while anyone you quote, I would have difficulties with accepting... I think Wikipedia should be a place where different views can be presented so people can make up their own minds, not blindly accepting interpretations made by the Rational Response Squad. Rasmus Rimestad 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Rasmus, it's more that this is simply not the place for such arguments. I could argue that the phrase "the only unforgivable sin according to the Bible" should be "interpreted" as being the viewpoint of the Rational Responders. I think I would be on much firmer ground with my "interpretation" than you are with yours, seeing as the stuff you mention about miracles and the devil does not appear anywhere in Luke 12 (though it may appear in some of the parallel texts). Please remove the phrase if it really offends you, but please do not add a counter viewpoint because that just takes us way off topic. Laurence Boyce 12:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Anyone going to this page would understand that the article is talking about an interpretation which the Ration Response Squad uses. If all possible views on things should be included in all articles, wikipedia would be thrice the size it is now :)
Rasmus Rimestad 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good point. In fact, I changed "according to the Bible" to "according to RRS", to ensure that it is understood that blasphemy meaing "deny existence" is the RRS interpretation. The Bible doesn't say "deny existence" even in Luke 12. In fact, the Greek "blasphemeo" means "to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate" -- given that the Holy Spirit is God's active principle in the world, given that the word "Holy Spirit" is used in the first place instead of "God", and given the parallel texts which are clear in that the problem is assigning God's work to Satan, I don't think there is any doubt on what the passage says. But I bow to others interpretations here. Still, the Bible clearly doesn't say "deny *existence* is the unforgiveable sin", so if that is to be in there, it should be clearly stated that this is someone's interpretation.
GDon
Wonderful! Thanks!
--Ader78 09:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, someone thinks the Bible says that the sin is to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. Since it only says that it is to "deny the Holy Spirit", using "deny the existence" is an interpretation of the RRS. Probably better to take out the "Blasphemy Challenge" parts, since they aren't related to the movie. Laurence, I'll remove it, but if you are okay with that, please reinstate and I won't touch it. I don't see how the "Blasphemy Challenge" relates to the movie, though. Should a link to the "Challenge Blasphemy" site by the theists be included here as well?
--GDon

[edit] Links

For the umpteenth time, I have removed some links to private websites. The problem with such links are that they are liable to be insufficiently authoritative, accurate, stable, or accountable. Laurence Boyce 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think by now this should be considered vandalism, but I don't know enough about wiki rules as to how this should be handled. -George100 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You may report it here if you like, but the admins will probably give the vandals the benefit of the doubt. Laurence Boyce 13:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

These links have been added yet again. Some of these links are to personal web pages and should be removed, but others seem semi-valid. (At least, as valid as Christian apologetics possibly can get) Should we divide up the external links into two sections (favorable and critical)? - Big Brother 1984 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were already divided? Critical websites and non-critical or whatever they should be called. I would say that these links are no less sufficiently authoritative, accurate, stable or accountable than the movie itself :)
--Ader78 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If that is how you feel about the film, then you should raised an AfD. But it's been tried before and failed miserably. There is no symmetry between the the film and its crticis in the context of this article, because this is an article about the film. Laurence Boyce 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying the article should be removed. It's about the film, not about what is true and what's not. My comment was more meant as something of a joke than the start of a heavy discussion. Don't mind it! --Ader78 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul of Tarsus

Paul_of_Tarsus#Paul and Jesus iterates a message of this film, that "little can be deduced about the earthly life of Jesus from St. Paul's letters. He mentions specifically only the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23ff), his death by crucifixion (1 Cor :2:2; Phil. 2:8), and his resurrection (Phil. 2:9)."

Should this film be mentioned in some form in such articles as reference to point out some's (eg. Flemming's) secular interpretation regarding Paul's lack of details on Jesus? Shawnc 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers the labelling of this film as "propaganda" to be faintly ironic. The movie begins with a survey of the life of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament. Then various scholars and writers are interviewed who clearly speak their own opinions. We are encouraged to follow up on their books if we so wish. Flemming also expresses his own opinion along the way, but in an entirely open and accountable manner. He ends up interviewing his old head teacher, giving him ample opportunity to defend himself, an opportunity which ultimately the teacher declines.

By contrast, I take "propaganda" to be a form of advertising. It's when viewpoint is expressed as if it were fact, and we are merely expected to take information on trust without any point of historical, scientific, or philosophical reference. A good example of propaganda would be the New Testament or, more generally, the entire project of religion.

Laurence Boyce 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"A good example of propaganda would be the New Testament or, more generally, the entire project of religion."

Wikipedia doesn't need your bigotry Alicewr 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And we don't need your rudeness to an editor that made a good faith analysis - you may not agree with it but it deserves a polite reply. Sophia 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but he can speak for himself and explain on what grounds he thinks bigotry consists of politeness. Alicewr 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collective effort and any editor may comment in any thread. Laurence will no doubt respond to your comments in time but comments such as the one you made can above poison the atmosphere of a talk page so must be avoided. Sophia 07:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He poisoned the atmosphere of the talk page when he attacked people for their religion which is a textbook example of bigotry. Alicewr 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, "bigotry." For certain no religionist was ever guilty of that. Laurence Boyce 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for further proving my point. Alicewr 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You had a point? Laurence Boyce 12:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

that's right keep showing your hate towards theists. Alicewr 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the edits of Sophia here and on other articles, let me say that yours is an unfounded accusation. If you have comments about the content of the article, make them; If you have comments about other editors, please keep them to yourself. Such comments do nothing to help your case here. -- Pastordavid 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to make an accusation about Sophia. Alicewr 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be bit a worrying theme over the last few days - editors accusing others of hating Christians just because they differ in opinion [2]. Are you two in the same church or something? One that espouses tolerance and a "love thy neighbour as thyself" attitude no doubt. Sophia 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You assume I'm a Christian. Alicewr 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I loathe these slow edit wars I have logged a request for comment about this issue. Let's see what other editors think. Sophia 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
To the average person this film doesn't have a clear political message and so categorising it as a Propaganda film fails the main category of usage. Propaganda can obviously have a non-political message but simply because the content is partisan doesn't make it propaganda as it is unclear what the new message is that people are supposed to believe in. The film is presenting (quite valid) questions about Jesus not pushing some other mystic message. Ttiotsw 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So is protocols of the elders of zion not propaganda? Alicewr 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has a well documented history as a forgery and an article of political propaganda having influenced the policy and politicians of both pre-revolutionary Russia and post-ww1 Europe. Drawing parallels between a documentary such as The God Who Wasn't There and this politically motivated work of forgery, the ultimate legacy of which was (arguably) the rise of political anti-Semitism and the holocaust itself is somewhat specious and certainly an immense over reaction on your part Alicewr. To my mind this documentary could not possibly be viewed as propaganda; yes the documentary is secular in message but its interpretations seem (to me) driven by rational objectivity which is a world apart from the subjective distortions inherent to propaganda pieces. You may well hold a world view in conflict with the overall message of the piece and if that's the case then so be it, however this, in and of itself is not enough to label it propaganda.
~~ Lee 21:16, 9th March 2007 (UTC)
The definition of "propaganda" is "information, allegations, or opinions that are deliberately and methodically disseminated to promote or attack a particular doctrine, movement, nation, or the like". On the main page of TGWWT article, it says:
"According to the film's official website, the aim of the documentary is to hold "modern Christianity up to a merciless spotlight." The documentary's website goes on to claim it "...asks the questions few dare to ask. And when it finds out how crazy the answers are, it dares to call them crazy... Christian leaders are reluctant to teach early church history... Moderate Christianity makes even less sense than a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian doctrine... Christian doctrine is contradictory."
To me, it sounds like an opinion piece -- and that's according to the information on the main page itself. I think it pretty clearly falls into the category of propaganda.
~~GDon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.206.93 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Antagonistic atheism

Comments at the AfD are requested from the editors of this page [3] as I'm sure it will end up being referenced here if not deleted. Sophia 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RfC

In response to the RfC, I would say that it is inappropriate to put this into the "propaganda" category. The fact is, if you construe the definition of propaganda wide enough, it could include any and every documentary as they all advance a theory -- indeed, by the widest definitions any movie about the Gospels and the Gospels themselves could be considered propaganda.

However, I think it is a bad idea to start down that road of the broader definition of propaganda. We have a connotation of propagada that is largely (1) negative, and (2) political. This is evidenced by the Category:Propaganda films, which are all political propaganda. Further, our understanding of propaganda often assumes that it uses deceptive and misleading info. As far as I can tell, the facts presented in this film are niether. I may disagree with the interpretation of those facts and the conclusions drawn; but my disagreement about the conclusions does not mean that the facts are lies/deceptions.

Based on the standard of what is in the category now, I would say do not put this in Category:Propaganda films --- and if you do, then be prepared to also put the Jesus Film, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and many other religious films into the category. -- Pastordavid 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • In respose to the edit summary of "the film is being left in churchs with the intent of promoting an idea. That's propaganda". Yes, under the broad definition of propaganda, it is. But so is most Christian evangelism, and indeed, any attempt at proslytizing by any religion -- indeed, any academic advancing a theory is guilty of "propaganda" by the broadest definition. Please do not re-add the category, the consensus on this talk page -- including the opinions of 2 editors brought in by the request for comment - is that it is inappropriate. -- Pastordavid 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, under the broad definition of propaganda"

thank you for agreeing. BTW if a Christian leaves Chick Tracts in a Mosque yeah that's propaganda as well. Alicewr 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alicewr - you have been reverted by 4 separate editors - please stop trying to force your view on the article. Wikipedia works as a collaborative effort which is why I lodged the request for comment - to get other unconnected views on the subject. So far one has kindly taken the time to comment but lets wait to see what others think. At the moment there is no support for that category on this article so please stop adding it. Sophia 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with other editors from the RfC. Controvercial, certainly... "propaganda" no. It may be being used by some people for propaganda purposes, but the film was not created for propaganda purposes. Blueboar 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. As stated above, this is not propaganda in it's narrow (ie. useful) definition. First, it is not political; second, it is not based on lies or distortions of the truth, as far as I can tell, not having seen it. Makerowner 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary? "Mockumentary"

Not sure who else has seen this entertaining work but I must say calling it a Documentary is a bit of a stretch. No? (→Netscott) 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaaa!!! Not another category argument! Laurence Boyce 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a documentary. --MattShepherd 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's definitely a documentary. Even though you may find this film funny, that is not the intent. Makerowner 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 16 States

In support of verifiability, the 16 states (from the official film web site) are: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cat Whisperer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There_cf6c.html"