"The God Who Wasn't There" by Brian Flemming (2005)

What initially seemed as something right up my alley - the Christ myth theory and possibility that the historical Jesus Christ was amalgam of different people trough the previous centuries - soon ended up as a very unenjoyable documentary. And all because of director's heavy handled, aggressive approach that I didn't care for, in fact it was quite obvious that he has an agenda and it slowly became infuriating. No doubt Brian Flemming probably see himself as a warrior for truth and let him think so, but please, let the other side finish their sentences and let them talk first, instead of taking the words out of the contest and portray everybody as a dangerous madmen. 

In theory, what Flemming claims here is more or less exactly what I think - that religion started as human attempt to explain natural forces (thunder, lighting, wind, rain, eclipse, etc) and trough time each culture elaborated previous stories until they got to certain religious laws and rules. That's all fine. I am even fine with explanation that Christ as such probably never lived, although this might be a bit far fetched - as Bart. D. Ehrman points, while its true that we have no physical proof or even contemporary witnesses, we don't have them for Pontius Pilate as well (we only found one stone with his name carved in 1961) - we can't simply reject the possibility that some ancient person actually lived because we have no physical evidence for it. What I found completely tasteless and wrong is the way director Flemming hammers his opinions against perceived enemies (believers) by distorting what they say, cutting the video clips to suit his agenda and basically making everybody looks like unhinged. Everybody can do that and its obvious - instead of letting his interviewees talk, he select only few sentences and points "HA! You see what a religious fanatic they are!" while at the same time giving much more space to fellow activists who are permitted to talk in length about opinions they share with the movie director. He even goes back to inquisition obviously equaling everybody who is religious with centuries old torturers. Since the documentary basically preaches to converts anyway, it is very strange that someone who is agnostic, like me, actually felt embarrassed to watch how Flemming treats his interviewees - attacking everybody head-on without letting them express what they think is just completely wrong and one sided. I particularly felt bad for a principal of Christian School who was obviously completely decent, soft-spoken and well-mannered person being tricked into the interview where Flemming was just mindlessly attacking him. This was not Flemming's intention but the movie left me with more compassion towards fellow people, no matter what private religion views they have. As for Flemming himself, I don't want to know about his life or work anymore, he obviously carries some personal issues that fuel his stone-throwing and if you think this is activism, think again - he might accuse others of being fanatics while not seeing himself in the mirror.