An abomination


I think the movie had good actors and the acting was ok. The directing was fine and the movie was very nice.
Pretty nicely made movie.
The only thing that is wrong here, is that this movie is an abomination.
It offers nothing but lies about our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
Jesus never did anything for anyone of these characters that the movie is based upon. So all this movie does is to lie!

I don't mind horror movies etc. At least, you know where they are coming from, but this movie (and movies alike), are nothing but lies all the way through.
Jesus never raised the guy from the dead. Jesus never came to save the criminals, you catch my drift.

Christian movies should be based on the bible or testaments from Christians about how God affected and changed their lives. Not this way.
God never did these things.

God is alive and he does not like people lying about his works.

"For I am the way, the THRUTH and the life"
Jesus

reply

I would strongly suggest you re read the Bible. Jesus did raise people from the d3ad. Remember Thomas? And His 12 were not honest people. Were they?

reply

I am sorry, but I do not see how this has anything to do with what I posted?

reply

[deleted]

I understand what the OP is saying.

He is not objecting to the idea that Jesus raised people from the dead.

Rather, he is objecting to the idea that Jesus raised the character in this film from the dead, and did the other miracles that this film attributes to Him.

I object to that too, but not for any of the reasons that the OP mentions. I object to it because it implies that this is a pro-Jesus, pro-God, and pro-Bible film, yet God's Not Dead 1 has proven beyond any doubt that these filmmakers hold some anti-Jesus, anti-God, anti-Bible viewpoints.

Jesus abhors when wolves in sheep's clothing mislead His flock with doctrines of demons, and that is precisely what these filmmakers did with God's Not Dead 1.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman

reply

Yeah, that's kind of unfortunate. It seems to get away from the idea that (for instance) as medical knowledge has evolved through the application of science and rational thinking, these things are somehow not of God and are not somewhere on the scale of "miraculous" as were the miracles reported during the actual days of Christ on earth.

Of course, there is a theology of the age of miracles (I think it has to do with dispensationalist theology -- the idea that there was an actual age during which miracles occurred for a specific purpose, and that age is no longer) that the film ignores. So if somebody who's on the fence about Christianity watches this film, prays for her dying father and her father dies anyway, then what? If miracles are used as proof of the existence of God and the significance of Christ, what if they don't happen?

"An evil and adulterous generation waits for signs," I believe Jesus himself said.

When you make such a sign one of the significant elements in a film, you're going to drive people in the wrong direction and confuse the issues.

Don't know if that's what the OP is after, but at least to that extent, it's a valid criticism from a biblical perspective.

reply

May I remind you that Jesus himself used fictional stories, otherwise known as parables, to teach?

reply

Okay, but a parable and a fictional story are two different things. At least when we're talking about a fictional story that bases itself in verisimilitude and intends to be understood that way (as "things that can happen and do happen to people like this, in a setting like this"). A parable is something distinctly different from that -- a story using broad types to make a specific and usually very singular point, with a simple, broad, brief plotline that is not intended to imitate the complexities of real life in any detailed or realistic way. It has much the same role as isolating a variable for study in a scientific experiment.

reply