"The God Who Wasn't There": Blatant Lie in an Othe
...Decent to Great Film.
When the film refers to the verse about Jesus commanding his followers to bring any disbelievers to his feet and kill them is utter bullshit.
If you simply read Luke 19:11 and the next few verses up until that selectively used line it becomes transparently obvious that Jesus was conveying a parable and the "He" he's refering to is a powerful king.
I did like this film a lot and I watched it three times in two days, but discovering this blatant abuse of argumentative "evidence" has made me seriously reconsider my feelings about it.
I would recommend "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris over this film anyday.
Here's what Flemming selectively used without any explanation of the context:
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them?bring them here and kill them in front of me."
-Luke 19:27, NIV
And here is the context (its even TITLED as a PARABLE)
The Parable of the Ten Minas
?11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
?14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
?15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
?16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
?17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
?18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
?19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
?20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
?22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
?24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
?25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
?26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them?bring them here and kill them in front of me."
For someone who supposedly prides himself on honest, rational, evidence providing discourse and arguments he REALLY fucked up badly with this deceptive move. Its just bad film-making, and a bad argumentative style all around.
"The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." -Friedrich Nietzsche