Anyone seeing God's Not Dead this weekend?

[Prairie~Phlox]

We're going tomorrow. It looks like a great film.

[SpecialClassical]

We are going tomorrow as well. I'm hoping the acting is good and the debates are logical. Too much to ask? 😀

[Tammi K]

My 16 and 13 year old saw it yesterday with the youth group. The youth pastor bought all of the tickets (Score!) so all we had to do was show up at the church - and DH did that so I got to stay put. (Double score!)  The kids both liked the movie so I guess that makes it  - Triple score.  

 

Actually, I didn't get a big report as dd came home with a migraine and went to bed and ds mentioned he liked it as he passed by went off to shoot aliens. But, I did hear that 'It was good.'

[Ipsey]

I went to read at Rottentomatoes to get a summary.

I have to wonder if this atheist professor actually understood Nietsche's point when he said "God is dead." It would be a pretty sorry thing if a philosophy professor for some reason presented it as being some sort of face-value claim about the existence of a deity, when any high school sophomore who has a foundation in philosophy should know better. And if that's that the film does. . . dang.

I'm not interested enough to spend the money to find out though.

 

 

ETA:

This didn't answer my question, but it was a review of the movie from one Christian's perspective.

 

I hope someone will watch and answer my question about how the philosophy professor explains "God is dead" and how it turns into an argument about God's existence.

 

[SarahW]

I went to read at Rottentomatoes to get a summary.

I have to wonder if this atheist professor actually understood Nietsche's point when he said "God is dead." It would be a pretty sorry thing if a philosophy professor for some reason presented it as being some sort of face-value claim about the existence of a deity, when any high school sophomore who has a foundation in philosophy should know better. And if that's that the film does. . . dang.

I'm not interested enough to spend the money to find out though.

 

 

ETA:

This didn't answer my question, but it was a review of the movie from one Christian's perspective.

 

I hope someone will watch and answer my question about how the philosophy professor explains "God is dead" and how it turns into an argument about God's existence.

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

I saw an ad for this, and the whole premise made me go  :huh:  :huh:  :huh:  :huh:  :confused1:

 

Is the movie really based on a major plot hole?

[Ipsey]

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

I saw an ad for this, and the whole premise made me go  :huh:  :huh:  :huh:  :huh:  :confused1:

 

Is the movie really based on a major plot hole?

 

:)

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's based on an old Christian email forward that has a Christian kid taking down an atheist professor. In one incarnation the Christian concludes by saying that according to the professor's teachings the professor doesn't actually have a brain because he can't see it.  

 

I hope any movie is an improvement on that, but I don't know.

 

Here was the review, from a Christian site that I meant to post in my previous post but messed up  *derp*

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/gods-not-dead-movie-review.html

[AnneBlessedx4]

Saw it.  Loved it. 

[ThisIsTheDay]

I too saw it yesterday and loved it.

 

It's not based on an email.  It's based on the numerous times similar "requirements" have happened in college classrooms over the past several years that resulted in lawsuits against the schools. A list of lawsuits, and their outcomes, runs at the end of the movie. The student in the movie also does not "take down" the professor at the end.

 

For those who were concerned that the entire movie revolves around a false premise, it's explained very early on by the professor that "God is dead" is an expression.  He uses a few more, simple to understand words. I just didn't take notes or remember the exact quote, but I did think at the time that anyone who questioned the plot would be satisfied.

 

After seeing the movie, I read saw that harsh Crosswalk review online.   I certainly question the reviewer's agenda, and I can't imagine what crosswalk has to gain by publishing the review.

 

 

 

 

[KarenNC]

I went to read at Rottentomatoes to get a summary.

I have to wonder if this atheist professor actually understood Nietsche's point when he said "God is dead." It would be a pretty sorry thing if a philosophy professor for some reason presented it as being some sort of face-value claim about the existence of a deity, when any high school sophomore who has a foundation in philosophy should know better. And if that's that the film does. . . dang.

I'm not interested enough to spend the money to find out though.

 

 

ETA:

This didn't answer my question, but it was a review of the movie from one Christian's perspective.

 

I hope someone will watch and answer my question about how the philosophy professor explains "God is dead" and how it turns into an argument about God's existence.

 

Psychology Today's blog posted a detailed review from a philosophy professor. We're going to work on a unit about informal fallacies this summer, and I plan to include this review as part of that:

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201403/god-s-not-dead-neither-is-philosophy?quicktabs_5=0

 

(Warning: if you don't want spoilers, don't read the review---it is extremely detailed)

 

Unfortunately, it sounds like the movie relies on two dimensional stereotypes rather than solid storycrafting, based on both the reviews (I haven't seen the  movie, we may watch it on dvd as part of the study I mentioned), which is, also unfortunately, very common in "issue" movies of all types, religious/political/environmental/what have you. It's a shame many writers and directors seem to think that audiences are so limited in understanding that everything must be presented in the starkest dichotomy and entirely on the surface, that the "message" has to be painted with roller rather than a fine-tipped brush. Would that more "message" folks took the approach of something like "Chariots of Fire" http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/chariots-of-fire-1981.

[KarenNC]

After seeing the movie, I read saw that harsh Crosswalk review online.   I certainly question the reviewer's agenda, and I can't imagine what crosswalk has to gain by publishing the review.

 

My guess would be to create a demand and support among Christian audiences for movies on the subject of Christianity that are better crafted than the latest sitcom---something more nuanced than a 2x4 whacking paper targets. It can and should be done (and, more rarely, has been). The topic and the target audience deserve it. Yes, a surface movie can be a lot of fun and I've gone to my share, but it's unfortunate that the majority of mass media tends to treat *everything* as if it has to be done in stark black and white and about a nanometer deep or audiences will be bored. It would be nice to have options and the subject of this movie could have lent itself to such.

[ChristusG]

We saw it last night and loved it! My husband, 18 year old nephew, and 9 year old DD also loved it. Love seeing a movie with other believers and hearing everyone cheer on God :)

[Lady Florida.]

I went to read at Rottentomatoes to get a summary.

I have to wonder if this atheist professor actually understood Nietsche's point when he said "God is dead." It would be a pretty sorry thing if a philosophy professor for some reason presented it as being some sort of face-value claim about the existence of a deity, when any high school sophomore who has a foundation in philosophy should know better. And if that's that the film does. . . dang.

I'm not interested enough to spend the money to find out though.

 

 

ETA:

This didn't answer my question, but it was a review of the movie from one Christian's perspective.

 

I hope someone will watch and answer my question about how the philosophy professor explains "God is dead" and how it turns into an argument about God's existence.

 

Apparently he did not. Nor did he, a philosophy professor, understand most aspects of philosophy.  :confused1:

 

At least according to this review. It does contain spoilers. In fact it contains the entire plot including the conclusion.

 

 

ETA: Sorry. I scrolled through the responses but somehow missed Karen's reply. My link is the same Psychology Today review that she linked.

[KarenNC]

I realize that there can be a feeling of "you don't get it because you're not one of us" in this sort of discussion, but I came across a similar critique from a definitely "in-group" source (Creationism apologist), for balance (again, spoilers):

http://creation.com/gods-not-dead-review

 

To be fair, both the Psych Today reviewer and the Creation.com reviewer are coming at this from similarly academic perspectives, just different sides of the argument.

[Susan in TN]

Ds18 and dd15 saw it on Sunday.  They both said it was pretty good and led to some discussion in their youth group, though ds said he felt many of the "arguments" presented on both sides were fairly weak.

[WishboneDawn]

I too saw it yesterday and loved it.
 
It's not based on an email.  It's based on the numerous times similar "requirements" have happened in college classrooms over the past several years that resulted in lawsuits against the schools. A list of lawsuits, and their outcomes, runs at the end of the movie. The student in the movie also does not "take down" the professor at the end.

From the Psychology Today article and about the list of lawsuits, "The movie actually lists a number of court cases, in the credits, as the “inspiration” for the movie, to leave the viewer with the impression that this kind of thing happens all the time. In reality, of course, they are largely just the aforementioned “Christian-email-forward boogeymen.” Take the case of Raymond Raines, who Christians claim was picked up by the scruff of the neck and yelled at by his teacher and principal for praying over his lunch in public school at the tender age of five. In reality, he was ten (not five), he got detention (not picked up and yelled at), and it was for fighting in the cafeteria (not praying over his lunch). It’s all just part of that victimization narrative. The standard movie disclaimer says it all: “All characters appearing in this work are fictitious.”

It makes me question the rest of the list and wonder what truth have been bent and stretched to fit that list.
 

For those who were concerned that the entire movie revolves around a false premise, it's explained very early on by the professor that "God is dead" is an expression.  He uses a few more, simple to understand words. I just didn't take notes or remember the exact quote, but I did think at the time that anyone who questioned the plot would be satisfied.
 
After seeing the movie, I read saw that harsh Crosswalk review online.   I certainly question the reviewer's agenda, and I can't imagine what crosswalk has to gain by publishing the review.

 
Why do you think the reviewer has an agenda and what do you think that agenda is? I don't understand why the matter of an agenda is even brought up. If you disagree with his review that's great, but debate the review, don't imply there's some hidden agenda driving it.
 
I can imagine what Crosswalk has to gain, a reputation for critical and intelligent journalism regarding faith. What should they strive for if not that? 
 
The movie, from the reviews linked to here, seems like a perfect example of why I generally stay far, far away from most contemporary Christian media. In general the music and films being produced these days seem small and insular, more intent on making Christians feel satisfied and smug about their Christianity rather then communicating anything good about the faith to outsiders or demanding more of Christians. It's...Masturbatory. It feels good (maybe) in the moment but how does it inform our faith for the better? How does it help us treat those around us better and live our lives in a manner that communicates the Good News especially when the movie seems full of stereotypes that only demonize non-Christians? 

 

I think it's fair to walk out of the theatre feeling like you're had a good experience. But whether that experience was actually Good in any meaningful way, nourishing, enriching, expanding, depends on more then the after-movie feeling. What about that movie was nourishing, enriching and expanding? How will it improve anyone's ministry out in the world? Or will it just feed the myth of persecution that seems so prominent in many Christian circles?

 

ETA: I think the best way for the point to be made would be for people to watch The Ledge. It's the same kind of message-heavy film but with atheism rather then Christianity at it's roots. Sometimes it's easier to learn to recognize this stuff when it's not your own.

 

 

[Ipsey]

From the Psychology Today article and about the list of lawsuits, "The movie actually lists a number of court cases, in the credits, as the “inspiration” for the movie, to leave the viewer with the impression that this kind of thing happens all the time. In reality, of course, they are largely just the aforementioned “Christian-email-forward boogeymen.” Take the case of Raymond Raines, who Christians claim was picked up by the scruff of the neck and yelled at by his teacher and principal for praying over his lunch in public school at the tender age of five. In reality, he was ten (not five), he got detention (not picked up and yelled at), and it was for fighting in the cafeteria (not praying over his lunch). It’s all just part of that victimization narrative. The standard movie disclaimer says it all: “All characters appearing in this work are fictitious.”

It makes me question the rest of the list and wonder what truth have been bent and stretched to fit that list.
 

 
Why do you think the reviewer has an agenda and what do you think that agenda is? I don't understand why the matter of an agenda is even brought up. If you disagree with his review that's great, but debate the review, don't imply there's some hidden agenda driving it.
 
I can imagine what Crosswalk has to gain, a reputation for critical and intelligent journalism regarding faith. What should they strive for if not that? 
 
The movie, from the reviews linked to here, seems like a perfect example of why I generally stay far, far away from most contemporary Christian media. In general the music and films being produced these days seem small and insular, more intent on making Christians feel satisfied and smug about their Christianity rather then communicating anything good about the faith to outsiders or demanding more of Christians. It's...Masturbatory. It feels good (maybe) in the moment but how does it inform our faith for the better? How does it help us treat those around us better and live our lives in a manner that communicates the Good News especially when the movie seems full of stereotypes that only demonize non-Christians? 

 

I think it's fair to walk out of the theatre feeling like you're had a good experience. But whether that experience was actually Good in any meaningful way, nourishing, enriching, expanding, depends on more then the after-movie feeling. What about that movie was nourishing, enriching and expanding? How will it improve anyone's ministry out in the world? Or will it just feed the myth of persecution that seems so prominent in many Christian circles?

 

ETA: I think the best way for the point to be made would be for people to watch The Ledge. It's the same kind of message-heavy film but with atheism rather then Christianity at it's roots. Sometimes it's easier to learn to recognize this stuff when it's not your own.

 

I've been looking all over to see if I can find that list of cases, but I haven't found it yet. I'd like to look into it myself.

 

I got curious about something else. I was in a very Evangelistic Christian group when I was doing my undergrad at a major state university. Christian groups far outnumbered any other group.  I just checked the first FOUR pages listing the religious organizations that are on campus now. There were 33 Christian organizations, 2 meditation groups, and 2 Jewish groups, 1 Pagan Group, the LDS group (forgive me, LDS ladies, if you'd prefer to be in with the Christian organizations, but I do have some friends who prefer not to), and a Muslim group. There were 3 more pages that I didn't bother to skim.  

[KarenNC]

I've been looking all over to see if I can find that list of cases, but I haven't found it yet. I'd like to look into it myself.

 

I got curious about something else. I was in a very Evangelistic Christian group when I was doing my undergrad at a major state university. Christian groups far outnumbered any other group.  I just checked the first FOUR pages listing the religious organizations that are on campus now. There were 33 Christian organizations, 2 meditation groups, and 2 Jewish groups, 1 Pagan Group, the LDS group (forgive me, LDS ladies, if you'd prefer to be in with the Christian organizations, but I do have some friends who prefer not to), and a Muslim group. There were 3 more pages that I didn't bother to skim.  

 I went to Wake Forest (large LAC), which used to be religiously affiliated but the denomination cut it loose in 1986 and it is not known as a "Christian" university on anyone's scale, AFAIK, now or then. The religious atmosphere on campus seemed very available to me at the time if one wanted it (I was a practicing Protestant Christian at the time), with a good-sized Baptist church meeting in the main auditorium every Sunday and offering chapel during the week (couple of hundred attendees weekly), an InterVarsity chapter, Baptist student group, local churches offering to bus students to their services and providing lunch, etc, but equally not if one didn't. You piqued my curiosity, so I went out to see what's on campus now, some 30 years later.

 

From my point of view, the amount of overt support for Christians on campus to practice their faith has actually increased substantially over the last 30 years. I found:

Christian student orgs: Baptist, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic, Christian a capella ensembles (one for men, one for women) , Episcopal, a gospel choir, InterVarsity (Christian), Christian drama troupe, Lutheran, Orthodox Christian, Presbyterian, Reformed, Student to Student ministry, Wesley Foundation (Methodist), Baptist church still meets on campus.

Other religions: 1 Jewish, 1 Muslim, 1 Ba'hai, an interfaith council

 

So, three active proselytizing Christian groups (Campus Crusade, InterVarsity, and Student to Student) rather than one, plus multiple denomination-based associations, etc.

 

Out of curiosity, I also looked at UNC-Chapel Hill, the school with the rep as the most liberal and secular in the state (ranked 34th in "most liberal colleges in the US" on one site--Wake was 1257 on that site), to see what was offered in support of the religious student. 

Christian: Adventist, Agape (outreach), Alpha Omega (outreach), Campus Christian Fellowship (outreach), Chi Alpha, Christian 

Apologetics club, Christian Legal Society, Christian Medical and Dental Assoc, Christian Pharmacists Fellowship, Christians on Campus, Christians United for Israel, College Life (outreach to high schools), Cooperative Student Fellowship, Delta Sigma Theta, Episcopal, Ever Nation campus ministries (outreach), Fellowship of Christian Athletes, graduate level InterVarsity, Hanmaum English Church ministry (outreach), InterVarsity (outreach), Journey Christian Fellowship, LDS, Lutheran, New Bethel College ministry (outreach), Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Presbyterian, 2 Christian a capella groups, Pursuit, Reformed, Student-Faculty Christian Fellowship, Triangle Church campus ministry, God First (outreach), University Bible Fellowship, Victory in Praise dance ministry, Wesley Foundation, Carolina Nurses Christian Fellowship, Grace Church, International Friends (focused on outreach to international students), Phi Beta Chi

Other groups designated as religious: 2 Muslim, 1 Ba'hai, 1 Pagan, 4 Jewish, 1 UU, 1 Hindu, 1 for religious pluralism

 

It appears to me that the stereotype of Christian students not having any access to religious support on non-religion-specific campuses or the likelihood of being the only one in a class of 80 who's ever heard about Jesus isn't exactly supported, at least not in our area.

[Hen]

 
The movie, from the reviews linked to here, seems like a perfect example of why I generally stay far, far away from most contemporary Christian media. In general the music and films being produced these days seem small and insular, more intent on making Christians feel satisfied and smug about their Christianity rather then communicating anything good about the faith to outsiders or demanding more of Christians. It's...Masturbatory. It feels good (maybe) in the moment but how does it inform our faith for the better? How does it help us treat those around us better and live our lives in a manner that communicates the Good News especially when the movie seems full of stereotypes that only demonize non-Christians? 

 

I think it's fair to walk out of the theatre feeling like you're had a good experience. But whether that experience was actually Good in any meaningful way, nourishing, enriching, expanding, depends on more then the after-movie feeling. What about that movie was nourishing, enriching and expanding? How will it improve anyone's ministry out in the world? Or will it just feed the myth of persecution that seems so prominent in many Christian circles?

 

ETA: I think the best way for the point to be made would be for people to watch The Ledge. It's the same kind of message-heavy film but with atheism rather then Christianity at it's roots. Sometimes it's easier to learn to recognize this stuff when it's not your own.

 

up front here- I haven't seen the movie yet, not sure if I will.  Dawn, your post made me think of discussions we've had with our kids after watching a video series on youtube called "The Restless Church"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V-JQ7UUVg8 and many points you wrote about are discussed in the series.  We found it very thought provoking about thinking more deeply about exactly what we are doing - are we really "changed" by a radical worship conference?  what changed?  are we preaching to the choir?  Do we want more?  Anyways, left the link.  I don't know the background of the group, but I love the narrator's accent.
 

[sheryl]

We saw the movie this past weekend and it was one of the best films we've ever seen.  When it comes out on dvd I plan to buy a copy. 

 

 

[WishboneDawn]

We saw the movie this past weekend and it was one of the best films we've ever seen.  When it comes out on dvd I plan to buy a copy. 

 

But why was it one of the best films you've ever seen?

[WishboneDawn]

up front here- I haven't seen the movie yet, not sure if I will.  Dawn, your post made me think of discussions we've had with our kids after watching a video series on youtube called "The Restless Church"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V-JQ7UUVg8 and many points you wrote about are discussed in the series.  We found it very thought provoking about thinking more deeply about exactly what we are doing - are we really "changed" by a radical worship conference?  what changed?  are we preaching to the choir?  Do we want more?  Anyways, left the link.  I don't know the background of the group, but I love the narrator's accent.
 

 

Thank you! I'm going to watch that as soon as I get a chance. I mentor an EFM (Education for Ministry) course and it's from that and when I first took the course myself that I started asking those questions. I just get suspicious of anything Christian that's basically cheerleading and saying, "Yes! We ARE better then everyone else!" I mean, that's exactly the point at which Jesus or Paul would come into a room and give everybody a slap upside the head. With a big stick. A BIG stick. They challenged, they weren't cheerleaders.

[KarenNC]

Thank you! I'm going to watch that as soon as I get a chance. I mentor an EFM (Education for Ministry) course and it's from that and when I first took the course myself that I started asking those questions. I just get suspicious of anything Christian that's basically cheerleading and saying, "Yes! We ARE better then everyone else!" I mean, that's exactly the point at which Jesus or Paul would come into a room and give everybody a slap upside the head. With a big stick. A BIG stick. They challenged, they weren't cheerleaders.

 

That's an excellent program. I did three years of it about 25 years ago and I still have the books. I think there were 4 years and I don't remember why I didn't finish it out.

[sheryl]

But why was it one of the best films you've ever seen?

Hook, line and sinker - ok, i'll take the bait.  Why not?

 

Here's my answer: why would it "not" be considered one of the best films "ever"?

[Mommy22alyns]

I saw it and loved it.  Plan to buy  when the DVD comes out too.

[Garga]

We saw the movie this past weekend and it was one of the best films we've ever seen. When it comes out on dvd I plan to buy a copy.

But I really want to know. I'm not the one who asked you originally why it was one of the best films, but I was looking forward to your answer. Instead you answered, "Why wouldn't it be?"

I am a staunch Christian and I find that a number of Christian movies are mediocre. I want to know why this movie was good. I'm curious and am interested. I also wanted to know why everyone thought Frozen was so good and Avatar, back it its day. If someone says that something is one of the best movies they've seen, I want to know why.

I'm not being snarky. I am genuinely curious.

Or anyone else, for that matter, who has posted that you loved the movie. Why?

[KarenNC]

Hook, line and sinker - ok, i'll take the bait.  Why not?

 

Here's my answer: why would it "not" be considered one of the best films "ever"?

 

 

Well, we've cited reviews, including two from Christian sources, that went into great detail about why they felt it would not, so evidently it's not inconceivable. Surely you have some criteria for your statement that it is? What makes it better, for instance, than other movies about Christianity? Say, "The Encounter" from 2010, "Billy" about the early years of Billy Graham's ministry, "Courageous," or "Fireproof," all of which are listed as very effective apologetics tools by http://www.amovieministry.com/Apologetics.htm? Movies/miniseries like "Jesus of Nazareth," "The Passion of Christ," "The Bible," "The Ten Commandments," "The Greatest Story Ever Told," "Amazing Grace"?

[WishboneDawn]

Hook, line and sinker - ok, i'll take the bait. Why not?

Here's my answer: why would it "not" be considered one of the best films "ever"?

Because I've seen to many movies to assume they're all the best films ever until proven wrong. :D

I'm curious about what made it such a great experience for you. I haven't seen it, I'm going by unflattering reviews and summaries. Is like to hear the other side. It may be it did something for you that it didn't do for the reviewers. I've also loved movies that got panned. Sometimes we can find redeeming stuff in films that others miss.

I was also wondering whether you might have been engaging in some hyperbole. Maybe you enjoyed it but we're intentionally overstating the matter to deliver some snark you those of us who've gotten a little, er, enthusiastic in our takedown of the movie? I probably d deserved that if that was the case. ;)

[WishboneDawn]

That's an excellent program. I did three years of it about 25 years ago and I still have the books. I think there were 4 years and I don't remember why I didn't finish it out.

You should take it again.:D We've got new texts, not the written-in-house binders anymore and on the while they're excellent. Year four is a whole lit meatier now because of that change I think.

[WishboneDawn]

But I really want to know. I'm not the one who asked you originally why it was one of the best films, but I was looking forward to your answer. Instead you answered, "Why wouldn't it be?"

I am a staunch Christian and I find that a number of Christian movies are mediocre. I want to know why this movie was good. I'm curious and am interested. I also wanted to know why everyone thought Frozen was so good and Avatar, back it its day. If someone says that something is one of the best movies they've seen, I want to know why.

I'm not being snarky. I am genuinely curious.

Or anyone else, for that matter, who has posted that you loved the movie. Why?

It's been a pretty one-sided discussion. I'd like to see the other side as well.

[dakarimom5]

We saw it a few days ago. I enjoyed it as the acting, IMO, was better than Fireproof. Best movie ever....no. But it was good.

[Word Nerd]

After seeing the movie, I read saw that harsh Crosswalk review online. I certainly question the reviewer's agenda, and I can't imagine what crosswalk has to gain by publishing the review.

Credibility? Sharing different viewpoints? What is the point of a review if it isn't the reviewer's honest opinion?

[acsnmama]

I just went to see this with my husband last night. No, it is not the best film ever. However, I'd like to own the movie when it comes out.

Why? Because it displayed how strongly some non-Christians feel. It made very good points about Christ/Bible. It brought me to tears in parts. It displayed someone who cared more about standing for Jesus than anything else in life, regardless of what others thought. That's what Christ wants for those who love him! The movie displayed the statement "I'm not ashamed to be a Christian"

Could the acting have been better? Absolutely. Was some of the movie predictable? Yes, some. Was everything that had to do with Nietzsche correct? I don't know much about Nietzsche but my DH does and he didn't mention anything.

I personally thought it was very good!

[WishboneDawn]

I just went to see this with my husband last night. No, it is not the best film ever. However, I'd like to own the movie when it comes out.

Why? Because it displayed how strongly some non-Christians feel. It made very good points about Christ/Bible. It brought me to tears in parts. It displayed someone who cared more about standing for Jesus than anything else in life, regardless of what others thought. That's what Christ wants for those who love him! The movie displayed the statement "I'm not ashamed to be a Christian"

Could the acting have been better? Absolutely. Was some of the movie predictable? Yes, some. Was everything that had to do with Nietzsche correct? I don't know much about Nietzsche but my DH does and he didn't mention anything.

I personally thought it was very good!

 

Thank you for sharing! I appreciate that. 

 

Now I'm going to disagree. :D

 

I think the bolded is probably why I would not enjoy the movie. I don't think Christ wants us to stand for him, I think he wants us to stand for love, His commandments to love God and love our neighbours. Who are our neighbours? With the Samaritan story the answer was everyone. Jesus is only the message, only the point, if we remember the message He Himself stood for. I'm reading a pretty good book (the Christian Moral Life by Timothy Sedgwick) right now that would likely argue that standing for Jesus only for the sake of standing for Jesus might be an exercise in idolatry. Sort of a radical thought but might make for interesting discussion :D

 

So stand up for Jesus? He's God, He's quite fine. Stand up for the idea that we should love the rude professor, not seek to prove wrong, but love? I think that was more the message of Jesus, not stand up for Jesus but stand up for and live his message. Is that an idea that's explored? I'm handicapped because I haven't seen it (it's not playing here at all right now so I have no chance to for the time being) but it would seem not to be. Especially if the idea of Christian love is about reaching out, sharing the Good News, I'm not sure how it could be about that when the professor (the muslim father, the asian father) seem to be cast in stereotypical and negative lights. 

 

As for being ashamed to be Christian, that just seems to be the situation for which the message to turn the other cheek is meant. Being ashamed is a choice WE make and not an idea, I think, that a movie needs to talk us out of. We should turn the other cheek. When we don't, we concern ourselves with ourselves and others become, well,

Other rather then part of the larger community of humanity and creation. The love we're supposed to live and extend is limited, even denied. Is an atheist going to go to that movie and see the Good News? Is a muslim or a philosophy professor going to see an offer of love?

 

Is it going to convince those who see it to extend that message of Jesus to others or is it going to simply makes us feel better about being Christians and send us home satisfied?

 

I should make it clear that the questions I'm asking are for myself as well. This thread and the Sedgwick book have been a happy coincidence that have had me asking questions of myself since I first saw this thread. :)

[Iskra]

The acting was mediocre, many of the characters were very shallow and poorly developed.  The dialogue was trite.  I honestly think that movies made by Christians are embarrassingly poorly made most of the time.  The only exceptions I can think of at the moment are Mel Gibson movies.

[WishboneDawn]

The acting was mediocre, many of the characters were very shallow and poorly developed.  The dialogue was trite.  I honestly think that movies made by Christians are embarrassingly poorly made most of the time.  The only exceptions I can think of at the moment are Mel Gibson movies.

 

I can't wait to see Noah. It's supposed to be exceptionally well done and full of interesting theology.

 

And it was directed by a secular Jewish man who's an atheist. Maybe the great Christian movies are the ones Christians don't make. :D

[acsnmama]

Thank you for sharing! I appreciate that.

Now I'm going to disagree. :D

I think the bolded is probably why I would not enjoy the movie. I don't think Christ wants us to stand for him, I think he wants us to stand for love, His commandments to love God and love our neighbours. Who are our neighbours? With the Samaritan story the answer was everyone. Jesus is only the message, only the point, if we remember the message He Himself stood for. I'm reading a pretty good book (the Christian Moral Life by Timothy Sedgwick) right now that would likely argue that standing for Jesus only for the sake of standing for Jesus might be an exercise in idolatry. Sort of a radical thought but might make for interesting discussion :D

So stand up for Jesus? He's God, He's quite fine. Stand up for the idea that we should love the rude professor, not seek to prove wrong, but love? I think that was more the message of Jesus, not stand up for Jesus but stand up for and live his message. Is that an idea that's explored? I'm handicapped because I haven't seen it (it's not playing here at all right now so I have no chance to for the time being) but it would seem not to be. Especially if the idea of Christian love is about reaching out, sharing the Good News, I'm not sure how it could be about that when the professor (the muslim father, the asian father) seem to be cast in stereotypical and negative lights.

As for being ashamed to be Christian, that just seems to be the situation for which the message to turn the other cheek is meant. Being ashamed is a choice WE make and not an idea, I think, that a movie needs to talk us out of. We should turn the other cheek. When we don't, we concern ourselves with ourselves and others become, well,
Other rather then part of the larger community of humanity and creation. The love we're supposed to live and extend is limited, even denied. Is an atheist going to go to that movie and see the Good News? Is a muslim or a philosophy professor going to see an offer of love?

Is it going to convince those who see it to extend that message of Jesus to others or is it going to simply makes us feel better about being Christians and send us home satisfied?

I should make it clear that the questions I'm asking are for myself as well. This thread and the Sedgwick book have been a happy coincidence that have had me asking questions of myself since I first saw this thread. :)

Christianity is about love, but also to not deny God. This student in the movie was asked to deny God or else fail the class. It wasn't an issue of loving others! We should stand for Christ. There was no lack of love being shown. Those in this movie who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior were being asked to choose between their faith or something else, and in this situation the college student was choosing Christ over passing a class by denying God's existence. He was challenged by this professor, and if anyone was unloving, it was definitely those who overtly refused God, when in fact, no one was shoving God down their throat.

That's what I meant by how some non-Christians can be. I have family members who are bothered by myself and my DH just knowing we believe a that God is the only one true king. We typically don't talk to them about it at all because we know it's not accepted well, but they throw digs at us every now and then that are random and unprovoked. We love them dearly, even though they have unbelief and we don't force anything, or even mention it to them, but still get grief in passive ways.

Christ should be our idol. We're supposed to worship him and him only, we are to have no other gods other than him. He is supposed to be our entire being when we follow him. Does that mean that our every breath has to say Jesus, Christ, God, a Holy Spirit, etc? No, but ultimately, everything we do is supposed to be for the glory of God. We are supposed to stand for Jesus, and that is certainly not unloving! I didn't say, nor did this movie portray that Christianity should be used as something to convince people otherwise. In fact, this movie portrayed those who were Christians were being ASKED about their faith, and they answered honestly.

Sure the acting wasn't the greatest (much better than Fireproof or Facing the Giants) but if went into the movie knowing that may be the case, I loved the message!

[SpecialClassical]

From the Psychology Today article and about the list of lawsuits, "The movie actually lists a number of court cases, in the credits, as the “inspiration” for the movie, to leave the viewer with the impression that this kind of thing happens all the time. In reality, of course, they are largely just the aforementioned “Christian-email-forward boogeymen.” Take the case of Raymond Raines, who Christians claim was picked up by the scruff of the neck and yelled at by his teacher and principal for praying over his lunch in public school at the tender age of five. In reality, he was ten (not five), he got detention (not picked up and yelled at), and it was for fighting in the cafeteria (not praying over his lunch). It’s all just part of that victimization narrative. The standard movie disclaimer says it all: “All characters appearing in this work are fictitious.”



It makes me question the rest of the list and wonder what truth have been bent and stretched to fit that list.

Whether the truth was bent or not, it happens. I was in a holocaust class in the 90's in which the professor declared that God was not a reality. My daughter, about 20 yrs later, was in a history class in which the professor railed against the Christian faith and did his best to present it as a myth.




Why do you think the reviewer has an agenda and what do you think that agenda is? I don't understand why the matter of an agenda is even brought up. If you disagree with his review that's great, but debate the review, don't imply there's some hidden agenda driving it.

I can imagine what Crosswalk has to gain, a reputation for critical and intelligent journalism regarding faith. What should they strive for if not that?

The movie, from the reviews linked to here, seems like a perfect example of why I generally stay far, far away from most contemporary Christian media. In general the music and films being produced these days seem small and insular, more intent on making Christians feel satisfied and smug about their Christianity rather then communicating anything good about the faith to outsiders or demanding more of Christians. It's...Masturbatory. It feels good (maybe) in the moment but how does it inform our faith for the better? How does it help us treat those around us better and live our lives in a manner that communicates the Good News especially when the movie seems full of stereotypes that only demonize non-Christians?

I think it's fair to walk out of the theatre feeling like you're had a good experience. But whether that experience was actually Good in any meaningful way, nourishing, enriching, expanding, depends on more then the after-movie feeling. What about that movie was nourishing, enriching and expanding? How will it improve anyone's ministry out in the world? Or will it just feed the myth of persecution that seems so prominent in many Christian circles?

ETA: I think the best way for the point to be made would be for people to watch The Ledge. It's the same kind of message-heavy film but with atheism rather then Christianity at it's roots. Sometimes it's easier to learn to recognize this stuff when it's not your own.

In your post above you seem to doubt that these situations exist. My daughter and I both experienced similar situations in classes we took at a the same large state university. We took those classes about 20 years apart. My daughter's professor was especially snide and dismissive of Christian beliefs.

[albeto.]

nevermind.

 

:) 

 

[WishboneDawn]

In your post above you seem to doubt that these situations exist. My daughter and I both experienced similar situations in classes we took at a the same large state university. We took those classes about 20 years apart. My daughter's professor was especially snide and dismissive of Christian beliefs.

I don't doubt they exist. I'm just not sure why movies should be made about them. Rude, dismissive professors happen and I'm not sure there's a great or important message about our faith in there.

I would like to review g the list of lawsuits at the end of the movie though. That I do wonder about.

[Ipsey]

Christianity is about love, but also to not deny God. This student in the movie was asked to deny God or else fail the class. It wasn't an issue of loving others! We should stand for Christ. There was no lack of love being shown. Those in this movie who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior were being asked to choose between their faith or something else, and in this situation the college student was choosing Christ over passing a class by denying God's existence. He was challenged by this professor, and if anyone was unloving, it was definitely those who overtly refused God, when in fact, no one was shoving God down their throat.

That's what I meant by how some non-Christians can be. I have family members who are bothered by myself and my DH just knowing we believe a that God is the only one true king. We typically don't talk to them about it at all because we know it's not accepted well, but they throw digs at us every now and then that are random and unprovoked. We love them dearly, even though they have unbelief and we don't force anything, or even mention it to them, but still get grief in passive ways.

Christ should be our idol. We're supposed to worship him and him only, we are to have no other gods other than him. He is supposed to be our entire being when we follow him. Does that mean that our every breath has to say Jesus, Christ, God, a Holy Spirit, etc? No, but ultimately, everything we do is supposed to be for the glory of God. We are supposed to stand for Jesus, and that is certainly not unloving! I didn't say, nor did this movie portray that Christianity should be used as something to convince people otherwise. In fact, this movie portrayed those who were Christians were being ASKED about their faith, and they answered honestly.

Sure the acting wasn't the greatest (much better than Fireproof or Facing the Giants) but if went into the movie knowing that may be the case, I loved the message!

 

 

I think this may be part of the reason that the movie gets such poor reviews overall.

 

This is a message movie.  It's not the acting or writing that people praise, it's the message. For Christians it entails standing up for Jesus in a world that Christians see as persecuting them. It's a movie where Christians get to "cheer for God" as one poster put it. It seems to follow the traditional narrative that non-Christians are incapable of true love and human decency and that becoming a Christian is the only way their lives can have meaning and that they can become whole humans. Not to mention the stereotyping of Muslims and Chinese that motivates some of the fear and the mission outreach (respectively) to these groups among conservative Christian circles.

 

The message is the key to this film. It makes or breaks.

 

Those Christians who have a more moderate take on the faith, and for unbelievers, the message is . . . er, icky, and unrealistic. And where all other movie-making elements (character development, screenwriting, directing, etc.) are weak, the limited scope of the message can't redeem it. (So to speak) ;)

[albeto.]

That's what I meant by how some non-Christians can be. I have family members who are bothered by myself and my DH just knowing we believe a that God is the only one true king. We typically don't talk to them about it at all because we know it's not accepted well, but they throw digs at us every now and then that are random and unprovoked. We love them dearly, even though they have unbelief and we don't force anything, or even mention it to them, but still get grief in passive ways.ge!

 
 
Is the "throwing digs every now and then" what you meant by "how strongly some non-Christians feel"? But not the part about being put on the spot to deny Christ? I've not seen the movie, but as someone who is not shy about her lack of faith and less than amicable opinions about the Christian religion, this caught my attention. I've seen, and been involved with many conversations in which one's faith was explained (defended, a la 1 Peter 3:15), but never heard of anyone demanding someone reject their belief. Is that something you've witnessed yourself? I suspect from the point of view of your family members, the comments are not unprovoked at all. Perhaps you could ask them next time what inspired them to say that. 

[WishboneDawn]

Is the "throwing digs every now and then" what you meant by "how strongly some non-Christians feel"? But not the part about being put on the spot to deny Christ? I've not seen the movie, but as someone who is not shy about her lack of faith and less than amicable opinions about the Christian religion, this caught my attention. I've seen, and been involved with many conversations in which one's faith was explained (defended, a la 1 Peter 3:15), but never heard of anyone demanding someone reject their belief. Is that something you've witnessed yourself? I suspect from the point of view of your family members, the comments are not unprovoked at all. Perhaps you could ask them next time what inspired them to say that.

There is also the possibility that one has simply encountered a jerk. Jerks happen. But they happen in relation to all kinds of issues whether it's Christianity or homeschooling or veganism or sexuality or which hockey team one likes. The hallmark of a true jerk is that they really don't need provocation beyond knowing you are our you do something they disapprove of.

*sigh* And that last sentence has me thinking of a lot of Christians especially with the recent thread on AT I and Vision Forum.

[Hyacinth]

I'm aware of one of the lawsuits mentioned at the end. A jury just last week ruled in favor of a professor, Mike Adams, who alleged that his Christian views prevented him from earning promotions. (He converted from atheism after he was hired.)

I can't link from my phone but you can find the ruling (and all kinds of partisan commentary from both sides) easily enough: University of North Carolina and Mike S. Adams.

[Ipsey]

I'm aware of one of the lawsuits mentioned at the end. A jury just last week ruled in favor of a professor, Mike Adams, who alleged that his Christian views prevented him from earning promotions. (He converted from atheism after he was hired.)

I can't link from my phone but you can find the ruling (and all kinds of partisan commentary from both sides) easily enough: University of North Carolina and Mike S. Adams.

 

Thanks, Hyacinth!

[albeto.]

There is also the possibility that one has simply encountered a jerk. Jerks happen. But they happen in relation to all kinds of issues whether it's Christianity or homeschooling or veganism or sexuality or which hockey team one likes. The hallmark of a true jerk is that they really don't need provocation beyond knowing you are our you do something they disapprove of.

*sigh* And that last sentence has me thinking of a lot of Christians especially with the recent thread on AT I and Vision Forum.

 

But the "message" of this movie isn't One Christian Confronts One Jerk, is it? Isn't it more along the lines of Christians Are Being Persecuted For Their Beliefs But You Don't Have To Be Intimidated? I've read a few reviews of the movie, and it seems to me like a modern morality play where the student plays Every[Christian]Man and the professor plays All Atheists, the Muslim father plays All Muslims, the girlfriend plays All Lukewarm Christians, etc, etc. The end of the movie, from what I've read, is an emotionally charged reminder that no matter what happens, God is not dead and we'll all find that out one day. My question for acsnmama, although it's for anyone really, is if they've actually encountered this kind of bullying that's been portrayed, the kind that demands the believer to reject his or her belief. 

[WishboneDawn]

But the "message" of this movie isn't One Christian Confronts One Jerk, is it? Isn't it more along the lines of Christians Are Being Persecuted For Their Beliefs But You Don't Have To Be Intimidated? I've read a few reviews of the movie, and it seems to me like a modern morality play where the student plays Every[Christian]Man and the professor plays All Atheists, the Muslim father plays All Muslims, the girlfriend plays All Lukewarm Christians, etc, etc. The end of the movie, from what I've read, is an emotionally charged reminder that no matter what happens, God is not dead and we'll all find that out one day. My question for acsnmama, although it's for anyone really, is if they've actually encountered this kind of bullying that's been portrayed, the kind that demands the believer to reject his or her belief.

Okay, I missed the point. :)

My answer is no. I have some atheist friends who I imagine are no less shy then you and they have never asked me to reject my belief. We've certainly gotten into heated discussions but that happens over any number of things, not simply religion.

[katilac]

Hook, line and sinker - ok, i'll take the bait.  Why not?

 

Here's my answer: why would it "not" be considered one of the best films "ever"?

 

Because movies generally aren't considered one of the best films ever by default? I really don't understand this response.  

 

I don't doubt they exist. I'm just not sure why movies should be made about them.  

 

Coming soon - a movie based on the "God said, I believe it, that settles it" bumper sticker. 

 

I'm aware of one of the lawsuits mentioned at the end. A jury just last week ruled in favor of a professor, Mike Adams, who alleged that his Christian views prevented him from earning promotions. (He converted from atheism after he was hired.) <snip>
 

 

I might have to read up on this one. My mind is boggled at the thought of North Carolina being a hotbed of atheism. 

[Saddlemomma]

In your post above you seem to doubt that these situations exist. My daughter and I both experienced similar situations in classes we took at a the same large state university. We took those classes about 20 years apart. My daughter's professor was especially snide and dismissive of Christian beliefs.

 

My eldest DD was also told in a science class that she (the professor) would make sure my DD wasn't a Christian by the time the class was over.  Got right up in her face about it.  Talk about proselytizing.

 

Another class she had was comparing a book of the Bible with some other book (can't remember what it was).  When she turned in her paper, she was told she couldn't site what she did in the Bible passage they were comparing.  What?!  Then why compare the other book with the Bible in the first place?  Anyway, these particular professors were very snide, rude, and dismissing of anyone and anything Christian. It was tough for her.

[katilac]

My eldest DD was also told in a science class that she (the professor) would make sure my DD wasn't a Christian by the time the class was over.  Got right up in her face about it.  Talk about proselytizing.

 

 

I don't doubt this at all. I definitely think that Christians will run into teachers, and many other people, who are rude and dismissive of their beliefs.

 

However, it's a two-way street. I also definitely think that many Christian teachers (and others) are equally dismissive of beliefs that vary from their own. Being a jackass crosses all denominations and beliefs. To some extent, I think people need to learn to suck it up and deal with it. Extreme cases need to be dealt with. Cases that simply make one angry or uncomfortable? Eh, you will run into that again and again in life. Move on. 

[KarenNC]

I'm aware of one of the lawsuits mentioned at the end. A jury just last week ruled in favor of a professor, Mike Adams, who alleged that his Christian views prevented him from earning promotions. (He converted from atheism after he was hired.)

I can't link from my phone but you can find the ruling (and all kinds of partisan commentary from both sides) easily enough: University of North Carolina and Mike S. Adams.

 

Newspaper article on this--the school is UNC-Wilmington

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20140320/ARTICLES/140329972/1177?Title=Professor-wins-lawsuit-against-UNCW