And the name of the new Christian propaganda film is...

[Faith No More]

Wow. Just wow. WTF is up with 2014 and shitty religious movies?

Well, this one is obviously due to the mid-term election, as the movie appears to make it quite clear that the message is that the faithful have to take control of the godless government. But I suspect the influx of cinematic abortions has to do with some good Christian capitalists creating a blossoming movie production company.

They've got a formula of making cheap movies that pander to Christians drooling at the thought of pleasing Jesus by paying to see a good Christian movie, and so they pump them out repeatedly and laugh all the way to the bank.

[Mudhammam]

Wow. Just wow. WTF is up with 2014 and shitty religious movies?

Well, this one is obviously due to the mid-term election, as the movie appears to make it quite clear that the message is that the faithful have to take control of the godless government. But I suspect the influx of cinematic abortions has to do with some good Christian capitalists creating a blossoming movie production company.

They've got a formula of making cheap movies that pander to Christians drooling at the thought of pleasing Jesus by paying to see a good Christian movie, and so they pump them out repeatedly and laugh all the way to the bank.

I loved the fact that the trailer flashes "Scandal" and "Surveillance" on the screen, two relevant issues in our day that could make for an entertaining movie...

But then of course, it's not about any relevant scandal or surveillance at all, it's about the government targeting... a Christian minister...for preaching the Gospel. LMAO. Sure. If it had been an imam, it would actually be somewhat realistic. But Christians persecuted in..America? Please!

[Polaris]

I heard that movie got a 0% on one of the ratings websites in America....Rotten Tomatoes I believe.

[Jackalope]

I heard that movie got a 0% on one of the ratings websites in America....Rotten Tomatoes I believe.

It did indeed.

[Minimalist]

In the Bible, Christians are promised by Saint Paul that they will suffer for Christ

My answer to him would be to go fuck himself.

[Rev. Rye]

Well, actually, the lowest Metacritic score ever was a 1, tied between "The Singing Forest" (a past lives, Nazi romance), "InAPPropriate Comedy" (the sequel to Vince Offer's previous contender for the worst sketch comedy movie of all time, Underground Comedy Movie), "!0 Rules For Sleeping Around," (which I never heard of until now), "Bio-Dome," (No comment), and "Chaos" (a movie that basically plagiarises "Last House on the Left," except more nihilistic.) So, while it's an absolutely dreadful score, it's nowhere near the worst-reviewed movie on the site.

[CindysRain]

Poor beaten down christians, tsk tsk.

[Minimalist]

As is customary, xtians are full of shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candida-mo...01880.html

Intriguingly, when we look at the ancient evidence for the treatment of early Christians a very different picture emerges. The vast majority of our ancient sources for persecution in the first century were written in the second century and beyond. The stories about the deaths of the apostles, for instance, were written as late as a hundred years later and modeled on the fanciful genre of ancient romance novels.

Even the earliest, most ostensibly trustworthy martyrdom stories have been edited and reworked. The authors of these accounts borrowed from ancient mythology, changed the details of events to make the martyrs appear more like Jesus, and made the Roman antagonists increasingly venomous. The motivations of these later authors and editors, who have gone unheralded by history but who shaped our understanding of the world, are arguably more fascinating than the martyrdom stories themselves. No doubt there are kernels of truth at the heart of some of some of the stories, but we do not have evidence of persecution.

The Roman evidence is also ambiguous. If Nero did target Christians after the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. -- and the are good reasons for thinking he did not -- his treatment of them stemmed less from a desire to harm Christians than it did from his need to deflect blame from himself. Ancient Romans who spread the story about Nero saw his actions as contemptible and unjust.

Archeological evidence reveals that on those occasions when Christians did die en masse it was the result of general legislation intended to defend and fortify the empire. Christians were not named directly in imperial legislation until the second half of the third century, and it was only from 303-305 C.E., in the reign of the Emperor Diocletian, that we see anything resembling the brutal persecution of popular imagination. Christians did die. And Christians were occasionally persecuted, but should two years of persecution under Diocletian lead to nearly 2,000 years of Christian persecution complex?

[Mudhammam]

Well, there are places in the world where Christians are targeted for violence. That said, and not in anyway to justify it, but a lot of it is direct payback for Christian colonial politics.

[Polaris]

Well, there are places in the world where Christians are targeted for violence. That said, and not in anyway to justify it, but a lot of it is direct payback for Christian colonial politics.

Weren't most colonies founded during the age of increasing secularism post 1648?