After viewing Christspiracy at my local theatre, I googled numerous reviews, and the one from a Roman Catholic publication had nothing negative to say about the film. This tends to negate the sensational suggestion that "the church" will not stop at any nefarious act to keep the message of "Christspiracy" from spreading. If there is a conspiracy to stop the message of Christspiracy, and if the film producers are being surveilled, it is most likely by animal agribusiness.
Overall, I found the film inspirational and provocative, although it totally misrepresented Mohammad's view of meat-eating. The film implied that Mohammad wanted his followers to stop eating meat, which is false. Mohammad did institute "halal" slaughter, which like kosher slaughter was intended to cause animals as little suffering as possible (though the rules are almost always ignored); and there are many beautiful passages about animals in the Quran, including about animals being nations to themselves and all of them worshiping Allah. However, Mohammad only wanted his followers to stop eating meat sacrificed to idols, and Mohammad himself was not a vegetarian or vegan. The filmmakers should have left out erroneous claims about Islam.
They also included specious stories about Leonardo da Vinci and quotations from Leonardo for which there are no source documents that I have been able to find.
I was pleased that the filmmakers called out certain prominent Buddhists for their self-serving misinterpretations of the First Precept of Buddhism, which is not to kill any sentient being. And I was glad to hear Maneka Gandhi's critique of the hypocrisy of Hindus being against cow slaughter but consuming vast quantities of dairy products - enabling cow slaughter to the magnitude that India is the world's largest exporter of leather and one of the largest exporters of beef (much of it to the Middle East).
The filmmakers' claims about Jesus being against animal sacrifice and the consumption of meat were well-researched and revealing. Revealed by a scholar is that the word translated from ancient Hebrew as "thieves" or "robbers" in the passages that describe Jesus driving out the sacrificial animals for sale and the sellers from the Jerusalem Temple actually mean "the violent ones." This is a critical piece of information.
A closer examination of the miracle of the loaves and fishes indicates that Jesus fed the loaves of bread to the assembled multitudes but not the fish. How do we miss such things, except that we are conditioned to believe as we are taught.
There was also something about the Last Supper, with Jesus describing the bread as his "body" and the wine as his "blood" that deserve further scholarship and analysis. It seems to confirm that Jesus consumed no meat or blood sacrifice. It might be taken as a refutation of the idea that Jesus gave himself as the "last sacrifice" as the "lamb of God," but as I see it, Jesus wanted animal sacrifice to end (as did Isaiah and some other prophets) and he was willing to die for it. Some may think there is an implied threat to the integrity of the sacrament of the eucharist, but I don't think it needs to be viewed in such a light. One can think of the eucharist (communion) as a holy and supernatural ritual of transubstantiation OR as a ritual that has been sanctified by its practice going back 2,000 years in the way of morphic resonance as described in the theories of Rupert Sheldrake. According to Sheldrake, when we repeat a ritual long enough, it is ingrained with a spiritual meaning.
The portrayal of Jesus rang true to me. Hopefully the film will cause serious discussion of the ideas presented. At the very least, it should create controversy that might cause individual Christians and others to re-evaluate their beliefs and conditioning about animals.
Overall, I found the film inspirational and provocative, although it totally misrepresented Mohammad's view of meat-eating. The film implied that Mohammad wanted his followers to stop eating meat, which is false. Mohammad did institute "halal" slaughter, which like kosher slaughter was intended to cause animals as little suffering as possible (though the rules are almost always ignored); and there are many beautiful passages about animals in the Quran, including about animals being nations to themselves and all of them worshiping Allah. However, Mohammad only wanted his followers to stop eating meat sacrificed to idols, and Mohammad himself was not a vegetarian or vegan. The filmmakers should have left out erroneous claims about Islam.
They also included specious stories about Leonardo da Vinci and quotations from Leonardo for which there are no source documents that I have been able to find.
I was pleased that the filmmakers called out certain prominent Buddhists for their self-serving misinterpretations of the First Precept of Buddhism, which is not to kill any sentient being. And I was glad to hear Maneka Gandhi's critique of the hypocrisy of Hindus being against cow slaughter but consuming vast quantities of dairy products - enabling cow slaughter to the magnitude that India is the world's largest exporter of leather and one of the largest exporters of beef (much of it to the Middle East).
The filmmakers' claims about Jesus being against animal sacrifice and the consumption of meat were well-researched and revealing. Revealed by a scholar is that the word translated from ancient Hebrew as "thieves" or "robbers" in the passages that describe Jesus driving out the sacrificial animals for sale and the sellers from the Jerusalem Temple actually mean "the violent ones." This is a critical piece of information.
A closer examination of the miracle of the loaves and fishes indicates that Jesus fed the loaves of bread to the assembled multitudes but not the fish. How do we miss such things, except that we are conditioned to believe as we are taught.
There was also something about the Last Supper, with Jesus describing the bread as his "body" and the wine as his "blood" that deserve further scholarship and analysis. It seems to confirm that Jesus consumed no meat or blood sacrifice. It might be taken as a refutation of the idea that Jesus gave himself as the "last sacrifice" as the "lamb of God," but as I see it, Jesus wanted animal sacrifice to end (as did Isaiah and some other prophets) and he was willing to die for it. Some may think there is an implied threat to the integrity of the sacrament of the eucharist, but I don't think it needs to be viewed in such a light. One can think of the eucharist (communion) as a holy and supernatural ritual of transubstantiation OR as a ritual that has been sanctified by its practice going back 2,000 years in the way of morphic resonance as described in the theories of Rupert Sheldrake. According to Sheldrake, when we repeat a ritual long enough, it is ingrained with a spiritual meaning.
The portrayal of Jesus rang true to me. Hopefully the film will cause serious discussion of the ideas presented. At the very least, it should create controversy that might cause individual Christians and others to re-evaluate their beliefs and conditioning about animals.