Originally posted by obi-wan13
Woa there, let me just point out my faith was at a very strong point when I seen this movie. It just strengthened my faith even more. You can't have a strong enough level of faith.
Just because you're healthy, do you stop eating?
Sorry, that came out a bit more insulting than i intended. What i was trying to say was that on one hand we have people saying the bible is the word of god, his divine message, etc... and then others saying "yeah, but the film was better!". This just strikes me as odd. So basically a film by a guy from hollywood is more moving than the original text upon which a whole religion with billions of members is based?
Films can be a very visceral medium (sight, sound, directors playing with oyur emotions, etc..) but that doesn't mean that just because something was visceral, emotional and moving it makes it any more correct or real or true. I have seen films that made me cry when people were hurt or died, that doesn't make those characters that i cared for any more real or correct. The Nazis made deeply emotional and moving films about the power and correctness of their state and the evilness of the jews... that didn't make those films true or right, but they were involving and emotional for the people watching them.
Anyway, back to the bible. It is known that the bible was assembled from various writtings a number of years after the events depicted in them.
While i might, possibly, be able to accept that the writings by the saints and the disciples might have been divinely inspired (although i don't remember any evidence that god ever spoke directly to the disciples, or that they were infalible as they often showed human failings or missunderstood jesus's teachings), i don't see ANY evidence that the group of religious scholars who put the bible together were in any way divinely guided.
There is no mention even in the bible of an angel coming down to them and instructing them on what to include, or anything like that.
This means that this group of primitive men were effectively the editors of the bible, but they may not have fully understood the mesages within it, or may have allowed their own understandings and prejudices to influence what they felt was significant.
For example, there is a lrage amount of evidence of the existence of other gospels that were not included. There is also evidence that the accounts and opinions in these ofther gospels may not have exactly tied with those that were included. Maybe those that put the bible together didn't like what they saw in those gospels and so left them out. In particular i feel that the women in jesus life got a raw deal in the bible, possibly due to the existing prejudices of the time.
Do catholics (the largest group?) teach that the bible is the unaltered word of god? Curch of england and a lot of other significant christian religious factions don't teach any such thing.