MovieChat Forums > The Case for Christ (2017) Discussion > Silly

Silly

posted 7 years ago by HAL 9010 (906)
32 replies | jump to latest

[EDITED: March 2018]

The only skeptical person was essentially the lead. All experts and points of view he meet and interview are believers.

The movie builds the case primarily upon so-called eye witnesses of the Christ resurrection, and our hero then proves that no human could have survived the described crucifixion.... ergo; Christ must be super natural. Ergo Christianity is right.... this is his line of evidence. In any usual progression of knowledge, this is just a silly approach.

Our hero first aimed to prove that Christ did not die on the cross, and therefore it could not be an actual resurrection that was witnessed a few days later... only woke up after a hard night out, I guess. But as he progresses in his "research", he finds that Christ (or any human) could not have survived what apparently had happened on the cross, and so when witnessed later, he must have returned from death... This is his body of evidence, this is his conclusion...that is it... and he then jumps to the believe that all of Christianity etc. must then be truth. Impossible for a skeptical and scientific thinking mind to make this stretch, and to get to this conclusion in that way. Silly.

His way of thinking can also prove that since no known aircraft can fly like UFO sightings claim they fly, UFO's are real? Same stretch. Same silliness.

One CANNOT come to this or any other conclusion here or in the UFO example. The only "conclusion" they can reach is that perhaps something extraordinary occurred and so deserves attention and further inquiry. And then hopefully this attention will substantiate the anecdotes with evidence and data to support them.

In truth, all he can ever hope for - even with the best of efforts - when analyzing eye witnessed events thousand of years ago about something unnatural and extraordinary, is to end up in a dead-end situation where he has to make a choice: Does he believe in those witnesses or not?

And so the premise of this movie is fundamentally flawed or silly, because he can only ever end the exact same place he starts. It is a battle of opinions, unsubstantiated. The actual case for Christ is inherently impossible. Of course it is, this is why Religion is still relevant. It cannot be proved and so cannot be disproved.

With his collected body of evidence and as a Skeptic and scientific thinking mind, he will firstly never be able to conclude anything above his own suspicion and secondly cannot abide to a suspicion that is not rooted in logic and supported by the current scientific knowledge of how the world works... since he does end in a conclusion under these circumstances, he is no Skeptic. He simply cannot be. The movie is an oxymoron. Or at best, a dishonest tale on how he became a Christian.

IMO, the story (and movie) is a wasted opportunity to really go the whole nine yards. Guess it did not because then it would have come to another "conclusion"?

Or

Perhaps I misunderstood the story.

Perhaps it is really and at its core about a reasonable guy who is afraid of losing his wife and kid to a religion and then does what he can to convince himself to join them on their path, however silly it may seem to him at first. This would explain his biased and one-sided naive approach to the Case for Christ.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Anything new? There is evidence that a religious leader called Christ lived around 30AD. Is this trying to use that as proof of the supernatural?

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

The movie concentrates on the case of eye witnesses of Christ resurrecting and our hero proves he died on the cross.... ergo; super natural. Our hero first claimed he did perhaps not die and so did not resurrect... only woke up after a hard night out, I guess. But as he progresses in his "research", he finds that Christ could not have survived the cross, so he must have actually come back from death. This is his conclusion... and he then jumps to the believe that all of Christianity etc. must then be truth.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Ah. When I read the description about an atheist sets out to prove blah blah blah, I figured.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

Yep. The acting was pretty good though and the trailer gave me hope but alas it was a weak pile nothing much.

[–] GunWillTravel (198) 7 years ago

It's a true story. And yes, you have misunderstood.

Not everyone he interviews or consults with about the resurrection is a believer. His mentor Ray is a non-believer, Faye Dunaway's character is agnostic or skeptic.

The point of the movie is that the EVIDENCE points to the resurrection being true. He methodically looks at every aspect of the resurrection and cannot come to another conclusion, debunking every criticism of the resurrection along the way.

The film does not ask the viewer to accept the literal account of the world's creation in the Old Testament, or all the "etc" of Christianity. Just that the resurrection was real. Of course, if the resurrection was real, then you have to accept that there is supernatural power at work in the world, or at least that there are some things that cannot be explained by current science and medical knowledge. Stroebel does make these leaps himself, but is keenly aware that faith is used to "fill in the gaps" and even makes that criticism himself.

Stroebel boils it down to two points: Christ died on the cross, and Christ was seen alive again afterward. And he finds that the historical and medical evidence weigh in favor of both points being true. The film can't go into the same level of detail as the book on every argument, but I think that they covered the basic points pretty well.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

This is not what I got from watching it. I have not read the book – so my reference is only this movie. His research seemed to me very one sided. And even if one would find it plausible that no man can survive a crucifixion of the kind Christ is said to have gone through, and that this Christ figure was seen days after that event.... how can a Skeptic make this leap and become Christian? The are way many more and natural explanations out there, even if the premise above would be accepted. Still, I dare say my analogy to UFO's stand: If you can prove no known aircraft can fly as fast as a sighted UFO, and you have multiple recorded eye witnesses seeing such craft in the sky... then there must be aliens visiting earth. Well, a Skeptic (even one who would accept both of those premises – which he would not) would deduce a different conclusion for sure.

He did not because he is no Skeptic and more importantly his true quest was to bring back his wife and family…. I dare say. At least this conclusion is, to a my mind, the more likely explanation for him embracing her religion as he did based upon his research.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8708) 7 years ago

His research was one-sided because was already familiar with the skeptical point of view. He was himself a skeptic. So he was giving believers a fair hearing. As the poster above said, the book goes into far more detail regarding his researching and reasoning, but the movie does a fair job of encapsulating it all into a dramatic snapshot.

Regarding "how can a skeptic make that leap and become Christian?," well the real-life Lee Strobel did exactly that, and many other skeptics have also done the same. There are a great many stories of skeptics who converted to Christianity.

You might find this article interesting:

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/why-atheists-change-their-mind-8-common-factors/4729/

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

Fair point but not a fair approach. He was not researching religion. He was researching postulated events in history thousand of years ago. And at least in this movie, his sources were predominantly believers, and even out spoken about it too. In other words, they have bias which we all know the scientific method does not permit. To get a true view on if and how well these events occurred or not, he should approach it scientifically and as much as possible avoid bias input. He didn't, purposefully. It is a nonsensical approach. Had he, I think we would have had a different and more interesting movie.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8708) 7 years ago

Well what you seem to be missing here was that the believers in the film believed precisely because of their own investigations and their own assessments of the evidence. It's no different from how an astrophysicist believes that the earth is round because he's concluded that it's round from the evidence that he has looked at. Are astrophysicists then not to be trusted because they are "biased" towards a round earth?

As I said, he was already a skeptic. He was familiar with the skeptical approach and its arguments. His project was about getting the other side. And in fact, it wasn't just about getting the other side, it was about disproving the other side. Don't forget that he set out on his journey with the intention of showing that Christianity was bullshit and that Christians' arguments could be easily dismantled. He didn't WANT to believe it.

But here's what the real-life Lee Strobel said in the conclusion of his book:

"I’ll admit it: I was ambushed by the amount and quality of the evidence that Jesus is the unique Son of God… I shook my head in amazement. I had seen defendants carted off to the death chamber on much less convincing proof! The cumulative facts and data pointed unmistakably towards a conclusion that I wasn’t entirely comfortable in reaching."

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

"the amount and quality of the evidence that Jesus is the unique Son of God"

Oh dear. What's the source of the eyewitness accounts? Could it be the New Testament, a text that was written by Christians and has been rewritten, added to and expurgated many times since?

Anyone who thinks that the Bible is a solid historical source needs their head examined. Lee Strobel may have been a sceptic at the start of his book-writing career, but if so he clearly spent too much time reading Christian propaganda. I strongly suspect he has misrepresented his 'journey'.

He's part of the faith industry. Nothing more, nothing less.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8708) 7 years ago

Actually there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the New Testament documents that we have today are exceptionally close to the original documents that were penned. The textual analysis shows this and even non-Christian scholars agree about it.

Even many non-Christian scholars agree that Jesus must have been seen again by his followers after the crucifixion, which is why such fanciful notions as the "swoon theory" were concocted.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

In my view, any text is in itself irrelevant. What matters is its deductions, conclusions and the data upon which they are based.

I dont care much if the new testament is fairly representing the old scriptures or not. It has great stories, quite a bit of wisdom and gives an interesting insight in human culture long ago. Just like the wonderful works of the Brothers Grimm' . It does not mean I believe in witches though...or gods.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

No, in this case it seem you are missing the point on how to approach research. Let us use you fine example of astrophysics. It is fun, I will grant you. I smiled. If he was researching the shape of the earth, he should not look to those who already "believed" a certain shape. He should look for the evidence and the data, as unbiased as possible... Now, granted in this search he is bound to come across those who believe in one shape over another, but he should not only review one point of view. Was he a Skeptic he should continue this search and in the end accumulate the evidence from all sides, neutral and biased. And his conclusion would indeed be that it is round. I know, I have reviewed flat-earthers arguments, and they fall apart quickly - unlike those of the sphere church. However, in this movie he only (or mostly) went to those who already had their believe in place, and this is not how one does research. Period. Then what is the point of research in the first place? Just ask them, skip to the end and read their conclusions, end of story. Something I suspect you did ;)

I read your link above (skimmed it, to be fair). I was hoping for some sound line of thinking or reasoning. I was disappointed. For the sake of conversation, I can go though each point and illustrate how they fail on logic and sense for a mind of skeptical and Scientific thinking. But the last one is perhaps my favourite: God must exist because there is beauty in the world (on of 8 arguments that convinces atheists, apparently). Well, there is a fair amount ugliness as well. Does this mean God is prick too? Or rather that those points really prove nothing but a silly approach to something profound, like this movie: Silly.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8708) 7 years ago

Again, as I said before, he was a lifelong skeptic. He already had studied the skeptical side of things, the evidence AGAINST the reliability of the Bible, against the resurrection, against the existence of God. He had that coin firmly placed in his pocket already. The movie is about him rounding out the picture, and looking at the other side. So I am not disagreeing that to properly research the subject you have to look at both sides. My point is that he was already familiar with the arguments of skeptics AGAINST Christianity. What he was not familiar with were the arguments of believers FOR Christianity. Though I might agree that it's a failing of the movie to not round out the picture on screen. I suspect that has more to do with time limitations than anything else.

Regarding the link I posted, I'll agree that beauty is not a strong argument. But that's neither here nor there, really. Christianity stands or falls upon the resurrection. Either Jesus died and rose from the grave or he did not. Ultimately it's the only question that matters and the answer to that question determines the truth or falsehood of the faith.

I should make it clear that I am not a Christian. But I have spent time studying the evidence for Christianity and I think that if someone takes that journey and comes down on the side of belief it's not unreasonable. I remain agnostic on the subject, but there are some interesting arguments in its favor.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

I am not sure if I agree that Christianity stands and falls upon the resurrection. In my view and to my knowledge it is based upon his sacrifice for us sinning humans. If his body hereafter just rotted away, means nothing in this dogma. As surely his soul would have united (merged) with the heavenly father and holy spirit. No? Why is the resurrection so important? I get that it is a cool element in the fable, but delete it and we have still essentially the same fable, no?

And for the record, if I am anything, I am something like an agnostic who is pretty damn near an atheist. Though, whatever the data will show, will convince me so I cannot by definition be an atheist.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8708) 7 years ago

Well the orthodox Christian belief is that it's through the supernatural power of God, evidenced by the prophesied bodily resurrection of Christ, that saves people from their sins. His resurrection was his defeat of death. If there was no resurrection, then we have no reason to believe he was anything more than just a man.

Paul says this in the New Testament:

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

He did lots of other supernatural things....

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8708) 7 years ago

You have to understand the Christian narrative. The narrative is not that he died and then his spirit soared to God. It's that he died and death could not contain him. It's in his resurrection that humanity can have hope in our own resurrections.

Adam was sentenced to die because of his rebellion against God, and that brought death into the world. Christ came and conquered death.

That's the story. If Christ did not resurrect, then the story is not true.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

I was not aware that his physical resurrection was so pivotal to their believes system. Thank you for the information. In that case I can see that their foundation would crack if in fact he did not resurrect. Though to make a story true (as you put it), it does not stand on one event alone. If some dude cheated death back then, without virgin birth, healing properties and all that magic stuff, it would discredit their believe system even further. In fact of all I heard about the guy, cheating death seem the less fantastic thing he did. Anyway, each to our own. But a story becomes true if it happened. All of it. Not just one event. Likely the tale of Jesus is a compilation of several tales, and then put together into one story line and one hero... but who knows? Zarathustra, Attis of Phrygia and Horus are all legends who displayed similar magic abilities as Christ long before he did. And the latter two resurrected as well. With the way story telling works, perhaps Trump will be described as a magic maker in a couple of thousand years. Especially if future archaeologist would read his post-presidential autobiography, I am sure such a book would add a quit a bit of jazz to what really went down :) He is a historical figure, the future archaeologist will rightfully conclude, but sure ain't magical.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

It is not the question of whether the story is true, the point behind it is to alleviate the believer's fear, and more importantly anxiety about death and justice -- don't worry about it God will take care of you if you do the right thing. It stands people apart from the physical world so they think something different about themselves. That is why there is always such an uproar when science find out something new, like the Earth is round, or humans evolved from the apes.

[–] GunWillTravel (198) 7 years ago

"He didn't, purposefully."
This is wrong.

Stroebel did consider viewpoints and research of non-believers, and in fact starts his mission assuming that these viewpoints are correct. I think what you want is a more detailed look at everything he researched. It sounds like you want to really dig into the non-believers' evidence, like the writings of Josephus, etc, that are discussed in the book.

"If you can prove no known aircraft can fly as fast as a sighted UFO, and you have multiple recorded eye witnesses seeing such craft in the sky... then there must be aliens visiting earth."

Your UFO analogy is also wrong.
The conclusion should be, "something is flying faster than anything we know." The Case for Christ by itself is NOT a complete argument for accepting everything in the Bible. It is ONLY a demonstration that the best evidence proves that Christ died and then rose again, in other words, that His life after death is something beyond our understanding.

You can believe that perceptions were wrong, that maybe people saw a twin, or one of the "many more and natural explanations" that you propose. But Stroebel only says that the weight of the evidence favors both essential points: Christ died on the cross, and Christ was alive again afterward. The rest of his faith journey fills another book!

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

But this is precisely my point with my UFO analogy. One CANNOT conclude this. As Stroebel too conclude falsely. (I only talk about the movie, I do not know the book). And forgive me, but your conclusion in the UFO analogy above makes the same error. You simply cannot conclude that "something is flying faster than anything we know". ALL we can conclude is that perhaps something extraordinary occurred and deserves attention. Nothing more nothing less. The so-called eye witnesses we have (and there are many of those in our real world, if we talk about UFOs or even if Elvis is still alive) can only lead us towards an investigation, looking for further evidence and proof. The UFO analogy has NO conclusion and this is my point with it. And imo, nor does " The Case for Christ The Movie(2017 )".

The witnesses in themselves are way to biased or elusive to be anything above an indication to look into the matter. Indeed they may speak the truth, but it is impossible to know without more and conclusive evidence. So when you and Stroebel for example puts so much weight on their stories, I say: well perhaps Elvis did not die. Many seem to think so... so it warrants an investigation. However, It does NOT justify a conclusion. And isn't that what he wanted?

In truth, all he can ever hope for - even with the best of efforts - when analyzing eye witnessed events thousand of years ago is to end up in a dead-end situation where he has to make a choice: Does he believe or not? And so the premise of this movie is fundamentally flawed or silly, because he can only end the same place he starts. The actual case for Christ is inherently impossible. And with his collected body of evidence and as a Skeptic and scientific thinking mind, he will firstly never be able to conclude anything above his own suspicion and secondly cannot abide to a suspicion that is not rooted in logic and supported by the current scientific knowledge of how the world works... if indeed he is a Skeptic, that is? Ergo, he cannot be. The movie is an oxymoron.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"
- Carl Sagan

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
- Pierre-Simon Laplace

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence".... "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
- David Hume

Elvis is dead. And Jesus was a great magician.

[–] Brent212 (59) 5 years ago

ha, "EVIDENCE". A book written by men isn't evidence, anymore than Star Wars is evidence that "the force" exists. Belief in history over science... cult members are fucking hilarious.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

Well, you gotta figure anyone interested enough to make a movie specifically about Christ is likely to have a slant on it one way or the other. I don't think, at least at this point, it really matters. Like most things to us human beings in the real modern world, Christ is a concept that are collect feelings and memories around and most of us have some reaction to that, like Mohammed, or Buddha, I suppose.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

So how does one justify or prove a concept?

One by simply discussing the philosophy and idea behind it, and acknowledge and mbrace the fact that it is a mere construct of ideas amongst many others. But when it is supposedly based firmly on true magic events in human history that trump the possibility of other such concepts, then this must demand some part of the equation and cannot be brushed aside, no?

Imo I agree with you. In the real world, that is how it works and little harm in that... But I myself cannot see how such postulated real world and extremely profound events and omnipotent cosmic identities can be an accepted part (silently or not), if indeed it is a mere concept of moral, ethics and feelings etc.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

> So how does one justify or prove a concept?

I dont know if you do or can justify a concept. At least
morally and if it is self-evident to people.

Religion is not science. Religion is the science of the masses
in America. The more ridiculous a religion the less it bothers
peolpe. They do not have to waste brainpower questioning
it because they know right away that this is something outside
of normal reality ... it is allegory.

I think religion developed to limit the brain space of the masses
to make them all the same in some way so they did not have
to think about stuff. Everyone does and believes the same thing,
a very easy world to navigate.

Until there gets to be too many questions and too many
different ideas or competing religions, or if real science becomes
important in the world. It is a simple solution to standardization
and quality control in a no-tech world that puts people in the same
mental space.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

"Religion is the opium of the people"
- Karl Marx

He may have been wrong in his economic theories, but he is spot on there. However, my hope is that with increased education and embracing critical thinking, the people will slowly realize that they do not need this opium to be happy, morally sound or even safe. In fact, on it they will never be free.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

Marx was totally right on with his economic theories, and in fact is one of the few economists who analysis stands the test of time.

But, opium is the opium of the masses, not religion, that is why we have so much drug addiction. This is on my mind since I have just finished reading Johann Hari's book "Chasing the Scream: The First and the Last Days of the War On Drugs". A really fascinating book that turns everything we think about drugs and the drug war on end.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

In his (Marx') critiques of capitalism, indeed. He has points which has gained increasing support recently when viewing the trends in the global economy, but his solutions are far from substantiated and is in truth sort of disproved in our economic history so far. That being said; from being somewhat considered kind of false or nonsensical, his theories are gaining traction again in these days - and perhaps rightfully so. I cannot though subscribe to him being “totally right” in any shape or form :)

as a side note to your referencing of "Chasing the Scream" above; I would rather say that drug addiction comes from more than just drugs, hence Marx's quote. Weak minded er prone to additions, in many shapes and forms. Of course, some more damaging than others.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

Solutions? You expect a guy working in the 1800's
to be able to develop a solution to the world's problems,
especially problems over 100 years in the future?

Haha, this is always done with Marx. The guy was brilliant,
and his considerations for systems are key, and the ideas
he worked out are not bad. We know a lot more about
human nature, what kinds of things are going wrong, and
have more data that we know what to do with.

But why is it that we require Marx to be totally right before
we as a country and society even talk about him, whereas
we constantly blather on about the Founding Fathers who
I think we great too, but whose system is falling down around
us needs saving. Capitalism failing, Marx ... the most famous
and valid critic of Capitalism ... but we can't go there because,
..... why exactly ?

It is the typical propaganda BS that Americans do not even see
any more we have been so conditioned to go insane every time
we hear the Marx if it is not in close proximity to Groucho.

You'd have to read the book to comment on the quote actually.
Not a dig, but it has a specific context that I can't go into here
other than to say the quote makes sense in light of a rule that
might say don't change a quote unless you can make it more
powerful.

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 7 years ago

I do not require him to be totally right... someone did proclaim it in this thread, though ;)

But yes you are spot on: he is sort of black listed in the literature of economics. But fair enough. When two paradigms compete, those that lose gets the crap... that is just how it works, no least in scientific paradigm discussions. Good thing then that educated people educate themselves on both sides of the equation (a cheap shot at the movie).

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

Marx's economic theories are right. They are especially amazing considering how long ago and the lack of data on economics at that time.

Yeah, except in the US we seem to embrace the "crap theories" if they work to bolster the 0.1% and the corporations. Science and facts be damned. Science should compete on facts, and democracy should compete on ideas, not money, not political power.