You can watch the trailer for "The God Who Wasn't There" by clicking here.

In general, BuzzFlash respects people of faith, as long as they use their faith to be inclusive, to not proselytize, and to make the world a better place.

So, we have no beef with any religion that brings a greater sense of life and love to people -- not exclusion, bitterness, and self-righteousness.

That being said, "The God Who Wasn't There" has gained somewhat of a cult following among those who oppose the Christian fundamentalists. Yes, it challenges the right wing "Rapture" drones, but fascinatingly it lays out a case that the historical Jesus, if such a person existed, was supplanted by a mythical Jesus composed of oral tales in the New Testament. In essence, Jesus -- to use contemporary parlance -- had excellent "packagers" who were the sources of the dramatic, fantastic storles in the Bible.

You can still believe in Christianity an allegory and parable that brings out what is best in us, but the fundamentalist claim to a literal Bible is cogently debunked by "The God Who Wasn't There." Of course, religion isn't rational, so people will watch this movie and either find it heretical (if they are fundamentalist) or rationally analytical if they are secularists.

It's about as controversial, personal (through the narrator's reflections)and thoughtful as one can get when it comes to understanding the evolution of the "story" of Jesus into a religion. We highly recommend it along with James Carroll's Constantine's Sword.

Together these documentaries provide an alternative historical understanding of Christ and put in context the modern extreme Christian movement in the United States.

This online review from a teacher provides a thoughtful insight into "The God Who Wasn't There":

As a teacher of world history at an alternative high school in the Four Corners region of the country, I was refreshingly amazed to discover a film that I can use to orient my students to an academically sound timeline of early Christianity. More importantly, the interviews that accompany the body of the film are profoundly valuable classroom resources to introduce students to authentic academic discourse as it takes place among lively and fearless scholars. My students do not have an opportunity to experience anything cut of an even remotely similar fiber. A huge majority of lay conversations in this area are dominated or directed by organized religion's right-wing zealots. Even at the local college, instructors are cautioned against subjecting this community's paper-thin sensitivities to intellectual examination. Because students have simply never been exposed to the breadth of intellectual consideration in which religion is couched, this film represents a rich introduction to the complexities and curiosities that drive science, social science, history, and literature.

Beyond that, it is time we wrested the lectern from the bullies in the pulpit. They are tiresome simpletons, broken records, who shamelessly use fear and terror to constrain the parameters of acceptable discourse. This film inspires me to continue to point out the nakedness of the emperor, the heartless rigidity of intolerance, and the need to educate kids on the broadest scale possible.