This Film is more Accurate than Apologists Think....

What is annoying when reading posts about films with a religious angle is that hardly anyone has bothered to read up on the subject before either denouncing it as inaccurate or praising it for its accuracy - always and only in order to put forth their own argument. Surely this is what google was invented for - verifying facts. So - please do go to the following websites:

https://faithljustice.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/agora-hypatia-part-i/
http://www.ancient.eu/article/656/

These are simple texts written by people who have done a lot of research on the matter and, if you are the type who likes to be informed, you will find that Amenabar has stuck fairly closely to available historical facts and used fictional flourish in the details rather than in the overall story arc and historical context.

It always comes as a frustration that those who are offended by these types of depictions have little interest in the history of their own religion. These were fascinating times when various groups were vying for dominance in the world. When politics and power were wielded through beliefs and how well the leaders of these beliefs were able to convince the people of their trustworthiness.

It seems that believers have a hard time reconciling that once upon a time their religion was insignificant and that its rise to prominence always involved political domination brought forward by violence and discrimination. Because religion was the main means by which rulers became rulers - it was the banner under which they campaigned, so to speak. And whoever convinced the most people and was politically the most cunning would prevail.

Amenabar has taken this period to comment on the current climate in the world seeing it as a remarkably similar development of politically motivated individuals using the zeal of the people as a way of manoeuvring their way towards greatness. And the winner gets the biggest religion. This particular period of the rise of Christianity is not the most flattering for the religion - but why shirk away from it? Why deny that in order to become so dominant it had to destroy what came before? This is of course true of all the dominant religions.

But in history we seem less sensitive about nationality than religion - generally Germans accept and learn from the World Wars, as do Brits about exploits in India, Africa and Australia, and Spaniards about Latin America etc., etc.. Why cannot religions equally learn from the ignorant, violent aspects of their past in order to not repeat it again?