-
Website
http://www.slashfilm.com/ -
Original page
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/28/wtf-fireproof-made-over-65-million-this-weekend/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Iron Man 2 Movie Trailer
- FBI Finally Make An Arrest in the Wolverine Piracy Case
- The Inception Poster: A Couple Things You Might Not Have Noticed
- Bryan Singer: “I Just Signed a Deal to Do an X-Men First Class Origins Picture”
- Family Guy Moving From Star Wars Spoofs To… Indiana Jones, Back to the Future and Star Trek?
This is my opinion if Christians wanna see a movie that caters them and are paying good money (33mil and counting on this movie alone). then by all means more power to them. If a church can turn 500,000 into over 30 million and get its message across then clearly they are not the stupid ones.
HE WENT EXTINCT FOR YOUR SINS.
Oh, in a perfect world...In a perfect world.
..."anyone who says in his hear that there is no God is a fool) them just don't watch the movies and ya won't have a thing to worry about......not until after death, anyway.
Why is it okay to ridicule certain segments of the population? Christians and those that are overweight seem to be the two remaining groups that are okay to make fun of or chastise (or in Vic's case, lock up).
Can you imagine a reputable blog allowing comments like that about any other group of human beings?
Additionally, I find your line, "Now that Sherwood Pictures has proved the Christian-themed film to be a profitable endeavor, I would expect Hollywood to jump on the bandwagon," to be a bit naive. Have you ever heard of The Passion of the Christ or The Chronicles of Narnia?
So this film is not in the same league as those films to be sure. And, certainly, you're entitled to say anything about it you want. But do you really intend to offend an entire group of people who believe a certain way? A way different than you? Do they not read blogs too?
Please someone give me the number where I can invest in a production company that makes films for $500,000 and gets $6.5 million... on less than a thousand screens... in the first weekend.
I will happily invest my savings.
Mock all you want, tomorrow morning there will be more people in Hollywood green lighting more stuff like this and finding out how they can get in on this market.
Hollywood is about making money. If you can make people laugh, or think, or cry, or angry, then great. If you get an Oscar, then you're a winner. But at the end of the day, it's about money. That's why you see a guy like Kevin Smith bemoaning how he can't get his film Red State made... but not taking a loan to pay for it himself (which he could certainly get). It's because he doesn't want to lose his money.
I don't know Kirk Cameron, but if I was him I'd be asking for gross points in lieu of upfront on his family values flick.
"I don’t know Kirk Cameron, but if I was him I’d be asking for gross points in lieu of upfront on his next family values flick.
now spike lee will want to make his own version of fireproof and then he will call out kirk cameron. suddenly his version of fireproof will bomb and then it will be deja vu all over again
So does this mean this mean they gamed the stats? If thats the case then whatever, its like when they bombard the networks with millions of emails from the same 20 people to make it look like they have a huge following. Its sleazy, but I'll sleep a lot better knowing these figures are inflated and not representative of how many people actually saw this crap. Please tell me thats the case...
Screenrant: You can pull the religion card, but to be honest with you, if the film had a great screenplay, I would be supporting it. Peter Jones' Stolen Summer is had more than a half descent screenplay with a positive faith-based message, but was poorly marketed. Problem is 99.9% of message films are poorly written, cliche, but have the ability to make great amounts of money because of lemming church groups.
I remember he got in a fight with me out of nowhere about John McCain (for some reason he thought it was proper to counter-comment with a John McCain reference when I made a comment about the up-coming Bush film). He told me "John McCain always wanted tougher regulations." The next day the headline article on cnn.com was "John McCain moves away from deregulatory policy." He never responded to me my post after that.
Listen man, I have nothing against Christianity. However, I do not like you. Nice reference to the Holocaust, class act.
You know, I hear from Rosie Odonell that they are as big a threat to the world as Islamofacists. So how dare those Christian bastards make a film that caters to their audience!
It's sure a good thing for us that Hollywood would never try and push their own agendas and messages in films and TV like those evil Christians. Whew!
But in all seriousness. Sure, this film probably has a bad screenplay, from what i've heard. Sure, it's Kirk Cameron. But really, what's so wrong with people looking for faith-based films getting faith-based films? Is it really that surprising when the only game in town gets all the game? Not really. If faith-based isn't your style, that's cool too. I don't have to see shit like Blank Movie, so i don't. I'm not a big faith-based movie guy either, so I won't be seeing Fireproof. No big. But ridicule? That's ridiculous in and of itself.
What we've learned?
Intelligent, dramatic films that make money from intelligent, dramatic movie watchers = fine and dandy.
Christian films that make money from christian movie wathchers = ABSURD!
Gimme a break.
Bad movies = shouldn't be made
good movies = fine and dandy
I would have no problem with a message movie if it was good.
Remember in my previous comment where I said my respect for you went up a notch? I take it back.
@chris_sc77
You obviously missed the point of my post, and you are a scary person besides.
@Pete
Aw, come on, bro... look what I did for your comment count. :-P
Vic
I really hope an organized, acknowledged atheist movement comes about in the next few years.
You put RAPTOR JESUS into a faith based firefighter film and I'll go see that. I'll buy a block of tickets myself. The music business has been like this for year, Christian bands do great with cd sales and tours. So I guess theres enough neo cons out there with ten bucks in their hands to make a difference.
I give the my love and heart oh great fruit of creation for you hath been peeled for my sins.
Anyway, watching that video is quite easily one of the most persuasive arguments toward god's non-existence.
As for the movie, I can see no logical reason for so many people to be mad that it did well other than you are afraid that the movie made some points so well that it will change viewers. This movie is that powerful. When I saw it Saturday night, I heard a lot of crying and not just from women. This movie is the first movie I have ever been to that caused multiple men to cry. Then, as we were leaving the packed theater, every married couple I saw was holding hands and that was a moment I won't soon forget.
#1. Christians are not a minority. They are a vast majority over any other religion in the United States.
#2. Real men DO NOT CRY.
i am amused by the jealousy that is displayed by the Hollywood faithfuls, and their "rant" that these values should not be allowed to be displayed. I know that if Cameron's "Caleb" personage would have dumped his girl and hooked up with one of the brothers from the fire house... these "faithfuls" would have been on their feet and bought up some up blocks for themselves....
I also maintain that there exists a certain fear that Sherwood might actually be capable of wielding more influence that Hollywood, and thus must be stopped at all costs.... even if it means lampooning, even cursing such a fine cast and crew as the Sherwood bunch.
Hats off to Alex and Co.
John S, Christians may be the largest religious group in the United States, but they are still a minority. Women are considered a protected minority and they make up over 50% of the population. I don't want to get into statistics here, but church-going Christians makeup less than 50% of the United States and that's besides the point of talking about why they are allowed to be attacked so feely.
2 things I know about this film,,,,
^
1, The churches purchased up to 95% of all the tickets sold on this film. They bought the tickets and gave them away. You will see a drastic drop after a few days.
2. Kirk Cameron, refused to kiss his co-star in the film,,,,, because that crosses a line with his faith, and beliefs.
Whatever,,,,,,
A movie that does exceptionally well with a Christian audience and makes 6.5 mill in the opening week.
I am not a religious guy, I am simply a Christian.. but this is absolutely hilarious that those who hate God are just seething.
Great work Cameron, God is blessing you and this movie and the liberal swine are now on full attack mode.
Still, I'm not surprised - look at how well the focused evangelical church-based marketing campaigns have worked in the past for movies like The Passion and Narnia.
@dnlchisholm
Just because a group doesn't carry 51% of the population doesn't inherently make them a minority.
answer me this: how can you hate something that doesn't exist?
Christianity is not about money. Christianity is not about fame. Christianity is about following the will of our creator, Jesus Christ, who came to this earth to show us the extent of His love. It is about conforming ourselves to his image. He laid down his sinless life as a payment that we cannot pay ourselves. If we are willing to accept his gift and submit ourselves to Him, we can spend eternity with Him. The church is the body of believers here on earth. No, we are not perfect. Yes, there are people who "say" that they are Christians, but we all know that you don't counterfeit something that has no value. You'll see counterfeit Christians, but you'll also know the real thing when you see it. The Bible is God's love letter to us. Don't judge it by the imperfect people who struggle to live by it. Thanks be to the Lord Jesus that he allows us to participate in his plan even though we make mistakes.
Why do people scoff at Christianity? Because they don't want to even think about the fact that they will one day have to stand before Jesus Christ Himself to give account of themselves. Yes, try to put on a front and laugh all you want. Deep down you know it's true. I know it's true. I know that you guys don't believe in Christ because you want to do your own thing. You don't want to be accountable to anyone. But you can gain the whole world and forfeit your soul for eternity. It's not worth it. Your mocking is supposed to bother us? It only saddens us because you refuse to repent and give your lives to the One who made you.
There will be no laughing or mocking on Judgment Day if you refuse to ever acknowledge that you are a sinner in need of a Savior. There is only one Name by which anyone can be saved: Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). You can't phase those who truly know Him with your weak scoffing. Stop the macho act (I'm not impressed) and acknowledge your sin and need for salvation before it's too late.
I am a filmmaker and I am currently making a movie that I consider to be "Christian" in heart about a hitman... Christian only in the sense that it asks deep philosophical questions related to existence/morality/good and evil. I do wish that we as conservatives and Christians were more bold as well as accomplished at being artistically balanced... I'm tired of anything that isn't full of Hollywood junk mostly being associated with something you'd skip over on the Hallmark Channel.
If you judge Christians and and slam Kirk Cameron (with some serious hate speech), then you're just as bad as you say they are.
Go see the movie. If you're married, you'll appreciate what movie making at it's heart is... a good story.
100% incorrect. If anything this sounds like someone trying to convince themselves. Anyway, good luck with all that.
After seeing this movie, I'm trying not to focus so much on the negative, and I'm trying to watch the sarcasm. Maybe they're really NOT as lazy and uncaring as they so often seem - maybe it's just my constant fussing that's the root of the problem. So, instead of constantly belittling them and trying to "fix" them, I think it's time I work on fixing me.
Primates do not hold banana's like humans and peel them. They grab them from the bottom off of trees and "pinch" them to open them. People who think otherwise have been watching too many movies and not enough Animal Planet.
So it seems we all feel sorry for each other. That's something I suppose...
The conversation in this thread is (overall) a lot more mature than I thought it would be. I just figured people would be gang-bashing Cameron. But while this has happened to a small extent, the commenters are mostly staying on topic and debating relevant issues. Good for /Film.
He is an actor correct? He could go sell burgers somewhere and wouldnt have to kiss anyone else other than his wife.
"So how evangelical actor Kirk Cameron’s firefighter faith-based film become the year’s second highest grossing opening weekend released on LASS than 1,000 screens (Hannah Montana’s 3D concert film is #1)."
P.S.-I funny how alot of people really hate on religion when a movie like this is made and they get called "rational"...then when religious people hate on a movie like "religelous" they get called crazy...haha I luv it!!!
My 2 cents on Marridge,,,
One thing that I see over and over is couples think their in love WAY to early in life..... How many ppl do you see hook up in highschool. They think there allways gonna be in love ,,,, (living in a fantasy world).
She's gonna get fat the second you give her that ring and he's gonna cheat the second you get fat.
1 -They make plans for their future before they even have careers.
2 -Certain ethinic groups, have kids asap,,,
3 -Certain religous groups don't believe in birth control....
Add these up and you get broken homes, divorse, cheating, and ultimatly murder suicide.
I've seen ppl that are in marridges that are broken, and all it does is make ppl hate life and neglect their kids.
If the church could promote one thing it should be to take your time with relationships, and use birth control.
I guess that's 2 things.
However, I wish you kids were half as honest about how shameless and message-heavy all the anti-Iraq war films are, mmkay?
Why does Sherwood make these films? Because they believe that their view about a) where did we come from? b) what went wrong? c) how do we fix it? Is the best explanation, and the best mechanism for coping with life's difficulties and dealing with answering to their maker once they are no longer breathing. Because of that, they want to tell everyone they can, and in this video generation, film is the way to connect. Good for them. The marketplace will eventually figure out whether this is a viable financial option.
You don't have to agree with their view, but their film is no less a "message" piece than the next "documentary" from Moore et al.
Everyone gave of their time and money to fulfil a dream.
This is something that the rest of the world has a tough time understanding.
I can not tell you how many Spike Lee adds I saw..and it went into the crapper...
Does the camera work need help, sure, does the plot need help...only if you dont understand the reason behind the film.
The problem with most of your superstars is that you didnt even go see the film but you have to make comments...
The real scoop is this you do not have the first clue that is why you hurl insults at this film and those that took part. Right now it is on pace to be one of the highest profit films this year.
There is a great amount of people who like to be intertained and not made fools of, and not made fun, and we have money cause we work and dont wasted it on drinks, porn, or drugs, and we love to have a good time with our families just as much as anyone else...and now even more we are going to be heard...
You may say we are foolish, but God has taken the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.
People, please see the good that can come out of these movies instead of focusing on trivial things. There is so much good in life, why be bogged down with hateful thoughts and speech towards others? Go see the movie for yourself and if you have not hardened your heart completely, maybe you will see the good that it has to offer.
God is working through this movie. Don't push Him out of your heart - see what He is doing.
And the problem is . . . ?
Haha, are you serious? Do you know anything about religion? It was made up by people who believed that all planets and stars revolved around the earth and that the heavens were everything outside of the moon. They came up with religion to answer things they otherwise couldn't answer. This is because they didn't know better. We know better. We have science.
This is relevant because of the video that Peter posted. This is the kind of answers people give for the world and for religion. Sorry but bananas have been grown by humans for thousands of years. God didn't make them so they could fit perfectly in our hands. Sorry, we did not walk with dinosaurs. Your views and those of most fanatical religious people only bring down our knowledge of the world. Movies like this are ridiculous because they only spread more ridiculous views, like the belief that religion fixes everything, like a church buying thousands of tickets to make their movie look popular. Religion is a joke.
The movie was more about loving your spouse more in marriage than it was about God, and as a product of a broken family, I only wish my dad would have had something like this film to stop his sorry ass from breaking my mom's heart to follow his dick. Judging from the current divorce rate in America...even if you're an athiest, keeping marriages together would be a positive thing for all of us.
And keep your kids out of public school....
Damn that's 2 things.
lol! Your post is full of ignorant generalizations. Neither all Christians, nor certainly all religions, are anti-science. The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church is a marine biologist. The big bang theory can trace its history back to physicist and priest Fr. Georges Lemaître's theory of the primeval atom. The co-author of the standard highschool text on Biology is Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic who provided important testimony in Dover against Intelligent Design. I could go on and on and list more and Christians who are just fine with evolutionary biology, many of whom are scientists themselves. And what about Buddhism? Did that recently stop being a religion? Many, if not most of them, don't believe in any particular concept of God. They sure don't have any problem with science. Wise up and know what you're talking about. Not all religion is fundamentalist.
The fact is, Mr Kirk "God is proven by the banana" Cameron is a D-list fame whore that still gets a hefty paycheck for "pretending" to act like one of us "little" people, only now "Mike Seaver" tells us were going to Hades if we don't believe like him. He is no better than Tom Cruise spouting off about psych drugs in that they are both barely educated over paid "pretty" boy actors who have never done a decent days labor in their adult life, and make their living by whoring their images out to the public. What I find disturbing is now these actors think this somehow makes them qualified to serve as a moral example for the rest of us (because we don't know how to live our own lives)
I don't believe Church leaders should play the part of movie "pimp" and they would be serving society better by telling their flock's to give their $8 ticket price to the homeless (who really need it) and wait for this movie to show up on TBN.
I also find it Interesting how Mr. Cameron will only kiss his own wife (because of his moral stance) and yet Mr. Cameron does not refuse any of the royalties from Full House (oops I mean Growing Pains)even though that company "ABC" stands in polar opposition to his own "moral" code, which this film uses to imply that only straight Christian white people know how to love, and that only they will go to heaven. I think that "Mikey" should stay at home with his perfect wife and six little Cameron's, and should stop trying to pander this schlock (along with his other propaganda) to a general audience that he insults with proclamations of eternal damnation. (To wrap it up) This movie is perfect for all you straight white Christians (that like to feel smug about themselves);however, if you are Jewish, Muslim or any form of non Christian be prepared for not only religious insults, but some very shaky dialogue and Baaaad acting as well.
So you didn't even see it. Good job, liar.
How often does our society actually celebrate someone who does something outside of what makes them happy. How many people stick with a commitment through "sickness and health". Isn't it great to see how the hard road turns into the right and good road?
I really liked this movie. I thought it stood for something. It is difficult to find a movie, television show or music cut that stands for the best in people. This movie is rare in that it says go for something better in your life....don't just be satisfied with the way it is.....do something right with you life.
Is it going to win an Oscar for acting?......possible but not very likely......if they take the heart of this movie however the Oscar is already in their hands!
For two thousand years many powerful people have used the Christian faith as a weapon to gain money, power, etc. This is regrettable. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I believe that the Bible is true. Because of these two things, I am ashamed of the atrocities committed for many years in the name of my God. I believe He is as well.
This movie is not an atrocity. It is using a medium that people love and are passionate about (film) to move forward a simple agenda of promoting healthy marriage. It is not destructive, judgmental, hateful, or forceful.
I know that many of you do not believe that God exists. I struggle with my faith at times as well.
I guess I just hope that dialogue like that which is on this board could be more CONstructive and less DEstructive.
God is love.
That's "Gods" greatist gift.
Expressing your guilt for people's opinions, is rediculous....
Do you think we are children.
Ppl that don't believe in (a higher power) will,,,,,,,, as soon as their dead, so move (the fuck) on,,,,, help ppl that need help,,,, shit man,,, this is a movie blog site, not a harvest.
Know your enemy,,,, I know mine......
790
(I have spoken),,,,,
Damn it get that thing off my ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I wouldn't have thought of that,,,,,,,,,,,
I'm a white guy,,, and I can see your point!
I wouldn't have thought of that,,,,,,,,,,,
I'm a white guy,,, and I can see your point!
;-) ;-) :-)
I dig it.
Anyway, I was disappointed at the shots taken at a religion for no reason except a couple of laughs within a community of thought.
With all of life's problems and complexity, it's a relief to see a celebrity who addresses those challenges and shows us all how to work through them with a few solid, time-tested principles.
It's like administering a computer network - no matter what problems come up, if you apply best practices, you always get things back under control.
http://www.cafepress.com/whatIs_chmod777
Thank God for putting a film out with a Christian theme.
Please learn the proper use of apostrophes. Please go see the movie before making such ridiculous and incorrect race-card comments. A key character leading Cameron's character to Christ is black, as is one of the victims rescued. If you have seen the movie, quit lying.
Is there an equally-fundamentalist university for Christian-bashing bearing your name?
Have you seen the movie, or are you just conjecturing in your pontification?
For further clarification, a "compatant" fireman would never take his SCBA off during a fire (they are rediculed in the department as "leather lung's" and they put everyones life at risk) Sorry Upchuck but I did see this crapfest, so watch who you call a liar K Bonehead?
If you saw the movie, and still would write that the movie makers "imply that only straight Christian white people know how to love, and that only they will go to heaven," you're either a liar or just plain incapable of making rational conclusions.
Which is it?
With that being said, my wife and I saw this film yesterday afternoon. I looked beyond the acting and the dialogue that has been bashed and trashed throughout this blog and saw the real message in the film. I do not look down at these film makers for having a message, most films do.
What I was able to see on that screen was some of myself in the characters. I also saw some of the things that occur in our nation (divorce, infidelity, anger). And I must say that this filmed moved me.
In all honesty, isn't that what a film is supposed to do? If you go to see a comedy, aren’t you expecting to laugh? If you see a thriller, don’t you expect to be thrilled? I know that many people don't believe in God. I know that many people don't want to be "preached" to. I know that many people have a hard time facing the reality of their actions and how those actions affect others. But, this is a movie and should be thought of as such.
The reality of this film is not about whether God exists or if Jesus in the savior of the world. It is about a marriage that is failing because neither party has truly committed to the marriage. However people find the ability to TRULY commit to their vows, which everyone takes when getting married, is up to them. The fact that this couple, through love from others who have also had failing or failed marriages, just happens to be that they relinquish their lives to Jesus should not be the reason that the message falls on deaf ears.
I have sinned, as I understand sin to be. I have been self centered, as most of us are prone to do from time to time. and I have loved other "things" more than my bride during our marriage of thirteen years. I am thankful that she had the strength and love for me to stay by my side when I failed her.
I could say something at this time like, "if more people listened to God and what he has to say about marriage, this world would be a better place." While that might be true, the decision about how important the person you have made a vow to is to you remains up to you.
If this movie helps to save one marriage, isn't that a good thing? If this movie helps to make a person reflect on their decisions and truly vow to make amends, isn't that a good thing?
People can and do mock Christianity, that is their choice. People can an do mock films and the actors in those films. Again, their choice. However, how can people mock making a vow and sticking to it? How can people mock the idea of trying to make amends of what they had done wrong to someone else?
It doesn't matter who went to see this film or how much it made - or for that matter how it made the money. All of those things are meaningless. What does matter is the impact that is made on the filmgoer by seeing the movie, any movie for that matter. All of us can choose when and where to spend our money.
In closing, as I stated up front, I will continue to pray. I will continue to work on living out the vows I made to my bride. While I believe that Jesus is my savior and the savior of the world, I also know that you are entitled to your beliefs as well. God Bless.
What surprised me was the story telling skill as the movie progressed and pulled me in, it was really good. I have seen too many movies recently that did not do much for me except make me wonder why I wasted my time watching them, this movie was a most pleasant exception.
I would give it a solid 8 on a 1 to 10 scale and thay ain't bad.
What this all boils down to is that too many people out there are in denial of a creator simply because they do not want to be held accountable for their actions. That's the bottom line. Yes, some of the more aggressive Christian proselytizers out there make it a little harder for a Christian like me to not come off to some as a brainwashed cult member "lemming" that gives his money blindly to a church that might be using it for less-than-savory activities. All I can do is live my life according to the life and will of Jesus. In the past five years, more than one person has become a Christian by simply watching me do that.
Oh, by the way, JOHN LOCKE - I can prove to you that God exists with science. you had better do your homework if you want to make comments like that. Just let me know and we can talk at length about this.
Kinda gullible. Ppl. (Btw they lie)
Bush a Christian. Get real !!!!!!!!
Thanks for pushing the tide his way.
Boooooo
I do believe there are are good and sincere Christian's in this world ;however, I don't believe they are found on CBN or TBN or the local cineplex. If you would like to know why so many people attack "Corporate" Religion, just look at the lady on TV with the pink hair begging for money (and ask yourself) is what its all about? I think the best description of what a "true" Christian should (and can) be, is found in the following poem by Maya Angelou Please note: there is no mention of a need for bragging, pride or image, but rather just an example of simple honest cost free humility (Characteristics sorely missing from Christian Media)
I'M A CHRISTIAN By Maya Angelou
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin."
I'm whispering "I was lost,"
Now I'm found and forgiven.
When I say..."I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need CHRIST to be my guide.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I'm weak
and need HIS strength to carry on.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
and need God to clean my mess.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
but, God believes I am worth it.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain,
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou,
I'm just a simple sinner
who received God's good grace, somehow.
One problem with the world's view of Christian media in general is the fact that, in most cases, that view is based on TBN and CBN and the like. I've met so many people in my line of work who believe those folks represent the Christian media masses. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don't think it's fair to assume that somehow the folks associated with Fireproof are cut from the same cloth as the Christian TV media ilk. I've been involved in Christian media (radio) for 20 years. Never have I watched Christian TV. Christian film and radio though are doing some very intriguing things these days.
Before you assuming that Christian TV reflects ALL Christian media, I encourage to listen to Christian radio (or, better said, stations that happen to play music that often contain messages that are congruent with Christian beliefs).
At some stations, including mine, you will find personalities that exemplify all the things you listed as missing from Christian media. We "pride" ourselves as not having all the answers or having it all together and work hard to relate to people where they are.
Our station in Nashville has more than 100,000 people listening every week. Our West Palm Beach station is number one in women 18 - 34 (not Christian woman, mind you, but all women) and number one in other demos as well. You can't be number one with the general public and not be doing something right.
Check out "Mornings with Brant," or "Total Axxess" with Wally (our night show). I think your eyes will be opened. You can listen online no matter where you are.
www.wayfm.com
Now that you've woken up, I applaud you for moving up the ladder in your comments from those sounding as if from one who's going postal on Christians and Kirk Cameron to those of a mere paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Thanks for knowing the heart and motive of every Christian in the media. Who needs God if you're all that?
I didn't say anything was wrong with those in Christian media, and certainly nothing about being better myself.
I simply called, and am calling, you out for lying and being judgmental.
"Our West Palm Beach station is number one in women 18 - 34 (not Christian woman, mind you, but all women) and number one in other demos as well. You can’t be number one with the general public and not be doing something right."
(and your own) "I simply called, and am calling, you out for lying and being judgmental." Like I said before I'm just bemused by this whole dialogue. Thanks for proving my point once again.
Yes, go ahead and demonstrate, but my calling you out for lying and being judgmental isn't a matter of my humility.
How about trying these quotes out for a demonstration of a lack of humility:
"Mr Kirk 'God is proven by the banana' Cameron is a D-list fame whore that still gets a hefty paycheck for “pretending†to act like one of us 'little' people . . .
-- Bob Jones, just the other day on this thread.
and
[Kirk Cameron and Tom Cruise] "are both barely educated over paid 'pretty' boy actors who have never done a decent days labor in their adult life, and make their living by whoring their images out to the public."
-- Bob Jones, just the other day on this thread.
Bob, I think you're obsessed with yourself and the word "whore."
It was a nice poem.
I will admit I should have been clearer about the minorities in my initial revue ;however, this should make my stance loud and clear. I am now officially done defending myself against your accusations ;however, I am pleased that you read the poem.
The reason the box office receipts are important for "Fireproof," its makers, and supporters, is that receipts allow and reflect the movie's spreading of its hopeful message to more and more people.
That's the way the movie media works, so it's good to see it working well for "Fireproof."
I believe Sherwood, the Kendrick brothers, and every actor--including Kirk Cameron--are seeking the well-being of the viewers and potential viewers, not their own wealth or fame.
Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Just fyi.
I believe, as Chuck does, that the makers of "Fireproof" are not motivated by a desire for wealth or fame.
Bob, I believe that Catherine's character wanted to hope that her husband could be more like the man that she dreamed of as a little girl and on her wedding day, and for her hope of a happy marriage. When she saw that her husband had put his money where her heart was (her parent's care) rather than on his own selfish desires, THAT convinced her of his ability to change. Once she saw that he had changed, her heart softened and opened the door to forgiveness and restoration of relationship.
Consider these instances: It was Caleb's mom, not dad, who created The Love Dare. It was Anna, the observant hospital lady, who gave Catherine wise advice about the dishonorable intentions of the conniving doctor. So women aren't treated second-class. It's another conspiracy tendency of yours.
To answer your question, I think it was the observable, God-inspired change in Caleb that began to soften Catherine's hard, hurt-inspired resolve to leave him. Her realization that Caleb was the philanthropist was the emotional trigger. After all, she hadn't met the Lord at that point, just seen the positive change Caleb attributed to The Love Dare.
I wouldn't pretend to care to defend Tom Cruise, only Kirk Cameron. Just look at the difference in the two men, and you can understand, if not agree with me.
As for science, I'm with Kirk, not you. If you believe in evolution, you're taking a fantastic leap of faith--in nothing.
Dear Tom and Chuck:
Time will tell what happens to this multimillion dollar windfall from the movie and book ;however, its often "funny" how this much money gets divided (especially when its not expected) I guess from what you say Chuck God must be in the demographics. By the way if you see the lady with the pink hair, tell her I said to "fire her hair stylist."
Regarding your last comment - I am a Christian who faithfully tithes. I do it for reasons that you probably do not care to know much about, but are tangible and real to me and the others who have decided to put their faith in the Lord's blessings. But that is another conversation for another time, and if you wish to talk to me about it, I welcome it.
I do not, however, appreciate your generalization that all Christian ministries are corrupt and thrive on dipping their hands in the pockets of their congregations - and in your example - television viewers. I will only tithe to a church whose financial activities are completely transparent. At my church, anyone, and I mean anyone, at any time can request to see all documents regarding cash flows in and out of the various ministries, as well as all payroll documentation. I have informational access to where the money from my specific tithing check is allocated. These days, more and more churches are realizing the importance of being financially transparent in light of the numerous scandals over the years.
I am curious, how was the money from "Facing the Giants" divvied up? How much went back into the ministries and outreaches of Sherwood church? How come nobody's talking about that? The funny thing about God is that he shows you that even though money can bring happiness, the goal in this life has never been and will never be "to be happy." God shows us that JOY trumps happiness every time.
"I can prove to you that God exists with science"
I would appreciate it if you'd do that. I have no doubt that you can. After all, out of 6 billion people and thousands of years I knew the answer would come from someone commenting on a film blog.
Enlighten the world, Cheflance.
Well, I read here that no hate speech is allowed... hmm... seems like there's been a lot of hate speech here. I don't understand what's wrong with a film that tells a story about a relationship that works out, and if they have a strong faith, then why is that bad? In today's society, at least from reading here, it sounds like a life full of commitment, and love, sacrifice, etc, is a bad thing, and having faith, believing in God, giving of yourself, staying true to your convictions, and loving your family-- are bad things? Why is having faith in God a bad thing? Hello? Have we become so arrogant and full of ourselves that we have the audacity to really think we know all things? There is so much we don't know. There are so many questions that every person should ask themselves. Let's be honest, and true. And not hack down someone because they say, hey, there's a spiritual connection to our relationships, and there's a spiritual connection to success as a human being.
You people need to get a sense of humor,,,
Lifes too short morons.
If there's one thing God gave everyone its freedom to have whatever opinion they want... All stop myself there...
Please review your earlier statement found below.
"Have we become so arrogant and full of ourselves that we have the audacity to really think we know all things?"
Now that you have have had a chance to reflect on your own words, please review these quotes from earlier posts.
"Oh, by the way, JOHN LOCKE - I can prove to you that God exists with science. you had better do your homework if you want to make comments like that."
(Something tells me we will be waiting a long while for scientific proof, and something tells me there might be mention of a crockoduck and the banana along with this "proof" lol)
Now look at the following:
"Why do people scoff at Christianity? Because they don’t want to even think about the fact that they will one day have to stand before Jesus Christ Himself to give account of themselves."
(That would sound pretty insulting if your addressing a Jew or a Hindu don't you think?)
In any event none of us can prove beyond a shadow of doubt (with solid scientific evidence) that the individual God we might believe in is real. By the same token an Atheist cannot prove their belief to be correct either. Not one person on this planet has ever returned from complete death, and (unless you actually believe the Weekly World News) it is the pinnacle of arrogance for a person to make such a claim as fact, and not expect others to call them out in defense of their own religions. Fireproof the movie makes the Claim that only "Christian's" are worthy of salvation, and that only "Christian" love matters in the scheme of things. This is a rude arrogant slap in the face to any non Christian, and this coupled with a lead actor who denies science and logic (by making down right false, and out of context claims for the purpose of his own creationist agenda) leaves a bad taste in many peoples mouths.
To further illustrate my point, let me leave you with this example. If a film were made that stated only love found in Morman or Jewish or gay relationship was worthy of gods grace, and implied all traditional Christians were going to hell, I would expect the same reaction then from the "Christian's" then as you are seeing now from the "Non"
The fact is if this were just on CBN or TBN (and not in a secular market) that nobody would even care ;however, now that it is being shown to many who take offense, there is bound to be a backlash.
<>
Bob, if you're going to generalize all of Christian media (as you did in a previous post), you have to be willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.
My company works very hard at doing what we do to the best of our ability, not to brag about it, but because it honors God. The Arbitron numbers I sited are fact. I'm sorry if you somehow see that as my not being humble. They were set forth in an attempt to prove your argument wrong.
If women 18 - 34 are listening to a station that plays Christian music more than they are listening to any other radio station, then it can't be sub-par, pink hair, give-me-all-your-money, TBN crap. Rather than just making broad generalizations and saying what I think, I chose to provide you with unbiased information from actual listeners.
If your only argument, therefore, is that I'm a full-of-myself Christian, then you're going to have to work a little harder.
I would like to discuss the scientific proof of a creator with you further. Unfortunately, this is not the venue to do this in. How can we contact each other to talk about this? Please let me know and I am more than willing to impart what I have gleaned over the past few years. Please be prepared to have your mind changed, however. I wasn't.
For some advance preparation for this, I would like you to investigate the irreducible complexity concept by biochemist Michael Behe. I would also ask you to consider that Einstein himself scrambled(to no avail) to try to fudge his numbers after his theory of relativity effectively proved the beginning of the universe(i.e. the "big bang"), thereby according to logic also proving the existence of a creator. A good book to begin investigating this increasingly pertinent subject is Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator."
Please let me know how I can contact you to talk about this.
You're also correct that the gospel of Christ is offensive to many. But that's a given to any Christian who reads the New Testament, and sharing that good news is every Christian's commission.
Offending people is never held against a movie-maker by Hollywood, rather it's defended as Hollywood's sacred right.
You have to be defensive going in to watch Fireproof to be offended by it. From your eloquent words of disdain for Kirk Cameron, it's clear you wanted to be offended.
1 $8000.000 in ticket sales
2 Claims that histories greatest scientist "fudged" (or deliberately lied) about the theory of relativity
3 demographics showing that women 18 - 34 are listening to a station that plays Christian music more than they are listening to any other radio station.
Thank you gentlemen for letting me know that proof of Christianity comes from lots of money, viewer demographics, and the dismissal of claims by mankind's greatest scientist. Silly me, I thought it came through good works of charity and kindness. By the way thank you for proving my point once again.
The numbers and demographics I provided for my stations was in response to the point you attempted to make that this film and Christian media in general are a joke. I'm not defending Fire Proof, but I am attempting to show that the numbers prove you wrong.
If we sucked, no one would be listening. Do you get that at all? Christ commanded us as Christians to do our work as "unto the Lord." If those of us who profess faith in the Almighty are incapable of setting a high standard then we should just go home.
Most Christian media infuriates me, but in my 21 years in radio and meeting people all across the country who do what I do, it is obvious that in many corners, Christian radio is giving mainstream radio some stiff competition.
The Christian stations for which I work just collected truckloads of much needed items for victims of hurricane Ike. We've held numerous blood drives, food drives, and the like. We've organized listener missions trips to build houses in poor neighborhoods in Mexico, and collected toys for underprivileged children right in our own backyard at Christmas time. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is not me bragging ("again" as I'm sure you'd argue), this is me arguing against the idea you have that somehow those of us in the Christian media are obsessed with money and demographics, or that all Christian media is worthless.
I work for a non-profit radio station. I could easily work at any mainstream station in the country and make much more money than I do now. I've chosen, for the last 8 years, to work for the company I do because I believe in what we're doing.
I believe in the message, I'm passionate about the lives that are being impacted by the music and I'm thrilled every time our listeners answer the call to help those less fortunate.
I've never experienced this kind or rewarding feeling at any other point in my career. I look forward to my job every day and I feel great about what we're attempting to do. I'm including a link to a page within our website that includes actual comments from listeners.
I'm sure you'll simply write this off as more "bragging," but what I'm attempting to show you is that the impact and the power of music is real. Please read a few.
http://waym.wayfm.com/index.php/component/alc/?...
Fucking nutburger religious fucks that see "Fireproof"...
Oh Wait... These are the people that vote for McSame-Palin...
Do everyone a favor and go play in traffic. Some of the shit I've read on here is pathetic...
"You will face him (not capitalized on purpose) on Judgement Day, you know it, I know it.."
Dude, get your lips off the pipe, quit drinking the kool-aid, wake the fuck up. Get a fucking life, start living according to reality, not a book of fucking fairy-tales.
You religers (new word) are fucking scary... You should all move to North Korea, so that way when the bomb goes off... ...ok I shouldn't have said that. Move to Iran, so that way when the bomb go... ... Ok you can figure it out.
YOU ARE ALL FUCKING CRAZY! STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS!!!!
Einstein did not fudge his theory of relativity, nor did he lie about it. The theory was absolutely and 100% rock solid from the moment it was discovered by him. That is what makes him-yes, I'm agreeing with you- "history's greatest scientist." It was only when he learned that through his theory he had inadvertently proved the existence of the beginning of time(and by logic, a creator) when he panicked. He panicked because he could not accept that he had just proven the existence of a creator, so he tried to fudge his numbers in order to DISPROVE his theory. But, since it was truly a rock solid equation, he could not. He finally admitted the "probability" of a omnipotent creator. This is why Einstein died an atheist-turned-agnostic. Look it up.
I will pray for you and your kids to be able to live life abundantly with Christ. Blessings to you, my friend.
- You are batshit crazy, have a good weekend hanging with your 12 cats and watching the Lawrence Welk show...
@Cheflance
- Aren't you supposed to stay 100 feet from a playground? Instead of preaching on my favorite website, go trim your Lester Molester mustache, hang out at Chuck-E-Cheese, and try not to catch a 10 year bid...
And before anyone goes and tries to "save" me - I don't need to be saved by you nutjobs. I have a "fireproof" marriage, a beautiful daughter, a great job, and it's all due to hard work. I did it all without a book...
....although I do want to read "I Heard You Paint Houses" - that would be a great book...
"I have a "fireproof" marriage, a beautiful daughter, a great job,"
Sheeesh man, I thought you were 13 years old.... ?? Btw you blog like one,,,
Regarding this part of your last post:
"The Christian stations for which I work just collected truckloads of much needed items for victims of hurricane Ike. We’ve held numerous blood drives, food drives, and the like. We’ve organized listener missions trips to build houses in poor neighborhoods in Mexico, and collected toys for underprivileged children right in our own backyard at Christmas time. This is just the tip of the iceberg."
Let me just say that this is the type of response (and the first) which I can (and do) respect (something I call "walking the talk") These examples show tangible altruistic behavior of which I can relate and admire. I am sorry if I get my hackles up about the talk of box office receipts, money, and demographics, but frankly they just don't impress me that much, because (as I have said before) I believe (much of) Christian mass media seems to put more and more emphasis on that than the mission itself. I also get disturbed when someone like Cheflance suggests that should I dismiss the teachings of my own education , in favor of a high school educated 80's sitcom star, whose logic would mean Jesus could have been a dinosaur rancher. The actions and of Curt Cameron and his weekly (lets bag ourselves another Christian with judgmental scare tactics) "reality" show (and website) do more to scare "away" non Christians, than they will ever convert. I especially take offense because people like him tend to "Dum Down" our children and threaten the free speech of the constitution which I spent four years of my life defending over seas. Ultimately the outside "holier than thou I only kiss my wife" braggart behavior of this "messenger" in Fireproof taints the whole project for me, but this is not the only reason I don't like the film. Fireproof does not stand up well on its own merits, as it is poorly constructed with shaky dialogue, "it" has stereotype portrayals, and the ultimate message (that only Christian love matters) is an insult to many people in the secular community who might see it.
Someone asked me earlier about what my faith is, and I just want say that my relationship to a higher power has no bearing in this discussion. For the sake of argument I will say that I am Spiritual but specifics are based on a "need to know" basis.
I will say that my God does not expect me suspend (any and all) common sense, nor does he discourage me from asking questions. Will I say that "I know for a fact" or "there is no doubt in my mind" or "I have proof" that any specific God exists? I answer truthfully when I say the answer is no. Many will see this as blaspheme ;however, I can say when I see someone give blood, or change an incapacitated old mans diapers, or help a homeless person regain some dignity out of altruistic non denominational love, that this is actual proof of some form of God at work.
My brother in-law died last year from ALS (Lou Gehrigs Disease) and shortly before he passed away he and I talked about death etc. He said to me (and I agree) that "the most important thing we can leave this life with is the knowledge that we have loved, and we have received love for ultimately what else is there?" I don't believe that God rejects any non Christian who has a true Kind and loving heart, and there-in lies the major flaw of Fireproof.
I don't want you confused about what and who you're claiming to be smarter than.
Your disagreement is not with Fireproof and Kirk Cameron--you're saying the Bible is flawed, and that Jesus was and is incorrect in His claim to be the only way to eternal life.
I think you're pushing the envelope on staying inside the commenting rules. Ask your kids to read them to you. They're listed just below.
You're conflicted, or something. You say "STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS" (kids being plural, meaning more than one kid), then say you have a beautiful daughter. Are your other kids not beautiful, or do you have just one kid?
Let your beautiful wife, kids, and mother read your comments, and grade them for you.
By the way I do not approve of anything that "Doggystyle" person has to say. I regard that type of behavior as very childish. Let me leave you with one final thought. "True wisdom, is the ability to admit we know nothing"
Non-Christians: You all need to stop GENERALIZING. Your comments are akin to the sentiment that all Muslims want to fly planes into buildings. Generalization is erroneous from the outset. All Christians do not follow the same doctrine. They do not all follow the teachings of Cameron's "The Way of the Master." In fact, I see a good deal of it being too extreme for my personal faith walk. My doctrine will never be exactly the same as my neighbors'. But we still worship the same God.
Christians: We need to understand that we cannot hold others who do not share our beliefs to our indoctrinations. It is not our place to say that these others should or should not think a certain way. We simply need to extend love, grace and continue the great commission. It is pointless to ARGUE with others if they have not sought Jesus' face themselves. One of the reasons I am directing my time elsewhere is the simple nature of this forum. The title of the forum alone indicates how pointless this argument is with those who would argue with you.
I hope you all can find common ground amiably. God Bless.
The Mr. C mentioned in my last post is Mr. Cameron (Not Cheflance)
We all want to think that we know what love is, but when it comes down to it, can we love apart from God?
Christians do not believe that salvation is only for Christians. Salvation is for ALL who accept it, and by accepting Jesus Christ, you are accepting the gift of salvation that only He can give. In the movie, Kirk Cameron was not a Christian until he accepted Jesus Christ.
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance."
Being a Christian is not open to only a select few, it is God's desire that everyone would have eternal life through His Son.
"Christians do not believe that salvation is only for Christians."
This statement is impossible, as you go on to say "Salvation is for ALL who accept it, and by accepting Jesus Chris" Now correct me if I am wrong but those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are (in fact) Christian, so how in the world can your first statement be true? What I am getting at, is you are making an illogical argument, which you seem to think is a message of tolerance. When I read your message what it is actually saying is "give up your own religion and believe the way we do or you are going to be sent to hell by our kind and loving God, regardless of your good works on earth" This (as I have stated before) is the ultimate flaw of Fireproof the movie, and your own attempt to convert others. I am finding that as time goes on, the message of Christianity is becoming almost Orwellian in nature. In the book 1984 big brother excised all information from texts that ran counter to the states version of "truth" Creationist's behave in the same disturbing manner in that they simply lie about or dismiss anything logical that runs counter to a stance that Mosas played with the dinosaurs aboard the ark. The general answer they give when a question can't explain something, is that God made it so (This is not science!) I am sorry, but I insist on paying attention to the little man behind the curtain moving the million dollar animatronic dinosaurs around the creationists museum, and I don't like the message of ignorance it sends to our children.
You are right to say that the claims of Christianity are exclusive, and I can see how that may appear to be intolerant. As a Christian, I fully support your right to believe as you choose, and therefore consider myself tolerant. (You may differ as to whether that constitutes tolerance, but I believe it's within the classical definition of that word.)
I think we may also agree on this idea - "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried." ~ G.K. Chesterton (1910).
I'm confident that differ in two key areas:
1. You suggest that all fundamentalist Christians reject science in favor of ignorant, blind faith. As a "fundamentalist" (one who believes the basic, fundamental teachings of Christianity) I do not hold to blind faith, and am a proponent of science - real science, good science. Let me be clear, though, when the Bible says that the earth, man and the animals were created in six days, I do believe that. When scientists say "impossible" I believe that they must need to do more research. Interestingly, within the last couple of years, scientists have discovered a solar system with multiple Jupiter-sized planets. This is something previously considered impossible by cosmologists, and now the facts available mean they need new theories. Conventional wisdom is not always right.
2. You suggest that the God I worship sends people to hell for "not believing" in Jesus Christ. My faith teaches that God is holy, pure, and just - perfect in every way. Anything that is not completely holy, perfect in His presence would foul that perfection in the same way that a single drop of gasoline fouls an entire glass of ice water. God doesn't reject a "good person" in spite of their good deeds, it's simply that adding gallons of water to the cup with the gasoline, does not make it potable. (I'll note that every analogy breaks down, and I recognize that it is a scientific truth that eventually you could add enough water to make it potable.)
The point is that God rejects EVERYONE. The Bible says "There is none righteous, not one."
Christians believe that God made a way to "remove the gasoline" through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I believe myself to be interested in education, learned in science, and a man of faith. I think that makes me an anomaly in your view. If you are interested in pursuing this discussion, please let me know.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
I found this statement from your post most interesting:
"Anything that is not completely holy, perfect in His presence would foul that perfection in the same way that a single drop of gasoline fouls an entire glass of ice water."
The implication of this statement is that you are "pure", while (people like me and our individual religions) are not "pure", and this makes us deserving of eternal damnation in hell. My question to you is, how am I not to take this as an insult?
This is the same hackneyed argument so-called "religious" people would use about African Americans and the "tar brush" (I.E one drop of black blood makes a person black) I am a very tolerant person in that I believe you have the right to your belief's ;however, I draw the line when your religion tries to force its views on non Christian believing people via our schools, and juditial systems.
With all due respect, your assertion "if you had your way) we would be forced to bow to your yoke of new biblical legislation by force" is not defensible based on fact. While the US has many many problems and is far from perfect, I believe it is the nation whose government closest matches the ideals espoused by Biblical standards. Note that the US is not now, nor has it ever been, a theocracy. I do not suggest that it should be either. What I am saying is that Christian world view of the founding fathers (yes, I know some were not) allowed the creation of this amazing governance where freedom of religion means tolerance for all. Yes, there are exceptions, but I assert that there is more religious freedom in the US than anywhere else in the world - inclusive of secular and religious governments. My point is that if your view was true, there would be less freedom here, and that simply is not the case.
But to more serious matters, I'd like to address the issue of your feeling insulted by my views. With all due respect, my post says that ALL people are unworthy of being in the presence of a holy and perfect God. I obviously include myself in that group. I am FAR from perfect - ask my wife, my kids, and anyone else who knows me. I am well aware of how imperfect I am.
The Bible says that I'm in trouble - there's a just court with a true God - and justice demands payment for my failures. No amount of good deeds in my life can overcome even a single imperfection. I am NOT PURE!
When I stand before THE judge, who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am guilty and have no defense - He will justly, rightfully pronounce me guilty. At that point, God's mercy takes hold. In effect, once the death penalty is pronounced on me, someone else - a completely innocent man - steps in and agrees to take the punishment - the punishment I completely deserve *for* me.
I'm not holy, righeous, or good on my own. I'm just as deserving of separation from a pure God as EVERYONE else is. The difference is that I have an advocate who is qualified to effectively make me pure when the judgment is laid down.
For what it's worth, Jesus Christ broke down the barriers between Jews, non-Jews, slaves, free men, men and women. I understand that there have been many people in history who claimed discrimination on the basis of race in the name of Christ. That view is simply incompatible with what the Bible teaches.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
Research something called "irreducible complexity." There's some science there that I think you would find useful. Oh, and learn how to spell.
@ Tom Cooper, have you ever considered that when we die, we judge ourselves, God cannot judge us because he only loves.
(Something to ponder?)
I think your last statement is brilliant and very true. I am happy to know you found my quote pertinent and useful useful. I believe I paraphrased my quote about Wisdom from Ashley Montagu (British Anthropologist) another favorite of mine (this time from American orator Robert Ingersol) goes like this "It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education, than to have education without common sense."
I feel so frustrated in all of this discourse, as I simply wanted to give my opinion about a film that I feel was poorly written, acted, and produced. I never expected to receive such a reaction to my own "opinion" ;however, I have found it interesting that conservative Christians insist they are tolerant, while at the same time they try to convert me (without even knowing what religion I am) The sad fact is that there is no correct answer that will suffice with them unless you convert, and this closed minded use of rhetoric just perpetuates a stereotype of the poorly educated American. For the creationist to convince me of their belief's, I would have to deny all of the following:
Logic
human reason
The scientific method
Homologous Structures
Vestigial Organs
Genome Synteny
Gene Order
Intron Sequence (a type of non-funtional DNA)
Gravity
(need I go on?)
"Oh by the way did I mention?" Fireproof is a bad movie!
If a fundamentalist Muslim told you that when you die, you will not get 72 virgins in heaven, would you be offended? If a Hindu told you that when you die and are reincarnated, you would come back as a gnat, would you be offended? You probably would not even think about entertaining these ideas because I'm willing to bet that they don't ring true to you.
But the reason you don't want to get involved in these discussions, yet you keep coming back to discuss them, is because the idea of someone even suggesting that you will not be in heaven because you do not accept Jesus Christ rings true to your inmost being. God has set eternity in the hearts of men, so it's good that you are willing to be on here, exploring the idea of faith.
I believe that being a follower of Christ is logical, but keep in mind that any faith comes down to just that: faith. If you depend on logic for everything, you leave no room for faith, which is required to believe. As Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe and yet have not seen." If you are in fact, admitting that you know nothing, then you are not far from faith. Depending on God means surrendering your self and acknowledging that you don't have all the answers.
Lol, yeah I think I remember you said that.
I have no interest in the film as well.
I don't need a lesson in fedelity, and I've seen Backdraft.....
^
Keep in mind Bob, that's the way it goes on blog sites. People can say whatever they want, and judge whoever they find offensive to their belief structure.
You should see the crap I get when I mention that I liked Spider Man 3 or Speed Racer. Lol.
A lot of ppl also like to point out bad spelling whenever it works for them.
(IMO)
Of course there's a Creator or a God Source, but most ppl find comfort in going along with a crowd (organised religion) instead of doing the homework themselves.
These ppl would all do themselves a enternity of good if they would research (NDE's near death experience or Dannion Brinkley) , but most think that stuff is all bs, and deep down blasphemey....
Same with the muslems,,,,
O well, I'll say this , (IMO)
The Christains have nothing to worry about when they die, they will find Salvation,,,, (However they won't find a judgemental god that's going to punish them for doing whatever they did, they will punish themselves).
The Atheists on the other hand,,, (will only be confused when they die and suseptable to being earth bound like Bruce Willis characater in Sixth Sense, they are also suseptible to dark forces that could play on this ignorance). Enjoy!
The Muslems will just be pissed off because there 75 Vigins won't be there, as fast as they expected, and their god goes by a different name.
But these are just my opinions.
(No spell check was used in this post)
"But the reason you don’t want to get involved in these discussions, yet you keep coming back to discuss them, is because the idea of someone even suggesting that you will not be in heaven because you do not accept Jesus Christ rings true to your inmost being."
Who are you to be so know what my inner most being is all about? :moreover, where do you see me avoiding any question I've been asked? I have been most respectful in all of my inquiries, and yet you act as if you are being somehow persecuted because I won't believe in your version of God. I have been accused of thinking I am smarter than others in this diologue (an accusation I will not cop to) however I seem to be surrounded by those who seem to have all the answers. I admit I may have more knowledge ;however, I have never been so arrogant as to say that you may be wrong about what is going on in you or your compatriots heads. (It must be nice to be so perfect and all knowing)
Thank you so much for being a voice of reason (I was beginning feeling mighty lonesome here). I have been home for the week with a bad case of the flu, so this discussion has been most entertaining. I am getting the impression (based upon some of the respondents here) that the people of the great state of Kansas have started to figure out the internet (and its rather scary lol :) Oh what God hath wrought! I swear to God that's the last time I go out to a dam movie with my inlaws lol!! By the way I also avoid spell check (after all look who were dealing with here :)
Spidey 3 kick's ass!
You're rejecting a strawman. As a creationist, I thrive on logic, reason, the scientific method and more. To suggest that creationists reject all of those items on your list is intellectually dishonest.
you said "have you ever considered that when we die, we judge ourselves, God cannot judge us because he only loves."
An interesting view, but it overlooks the fact that God is ultimately just. If He didn't separate Himself from imperfection, He would no longer be pure.
Justice and purity demand that imperfection be purged. It sounds nice to say that God is love, and can only love, but it doesn't take into account the fullness of God's nature.
Respectfully,
Tom
beneficial mutations
Retrovirus's
Biogeography
New Structures
Micro evolution
Macro evolution
Neanderthal DNA
Molecular clock
Nylon Digestion
Natural Selection
(Trust me I can keep going for a while) Bueller?..Bueller?......Bueller!?
It encourages me that you have "evolved" on this thread from an insulting, intolerant, incensed, judgmental, and accusatory Christian- and Kirk Cameron-hater to an intellectual (at least you believe so), inclusive, self-righteous, pursuer of truth with a mere disdain for Christians.
By the way, the good manners you applaud in the Muslim and Hindu discussion with Lisa reflect the fact that neither care about your or anyone else's eternal destination or fate. Christians should, and many do, care enough about others to make films, share verbally, and write comments informing and attempting to persuade others to experience what they've found to be true in their own lives. Is that rude?
My you seem to know all about me and my friends and what they would do for me. Actually one of my Muslim acquaintances (at great risk to his own life) saved mine and my comrades lives when he warned us of a surprise attack during the first gulf war. You see not all people fit the stereotype you might expect. I also learned something then about a little concept called "diversity", and how to respect other peoples religions. Historically "Christian's" seem to believe they are exempt from this, and have the right to exterminate and assimilate those cultures and communities (such as the American Indian and the European Jewish) which apose their view. Of course then we have the Spanish Inquisition which is another fine example of "Christian" love in all its glory. The fact is that your kind refuse to accept (or respect) that other people value and feel just as deeply about their own religions as you do about your own, or else you would actually think about the statements you have been espousing before opening your mouth. Sorry Chuck you can't just expect people to dispose of what they "know" to be "true" just because you want it to be so. (Just as you can't ever make Fireproof into a good film)
No. You have not. What you have done is post an esoteric list of scientific ideas. I as a creationist accept many of them, some are irrelevant to this discussion (gravity) and others for which creationists may have alternative explanations. To bring ho the idea that "Jesus gave dinosaur rides" is argumentum ad absurdum, and also is completely irrelevant.
Look, you want to reject Creationism and Christianity because you prefer to do so based on your preconceived notions? OK with me. Just don't claim that you're really thinking through the issues, because I wouldn't call what you're doing in this thread intellectual.
To reiterate; as a creationist I accept micro-evolution, natural selection and many of the other ideas you listed. Your argument remains a straw man.
Respectfully,
Tom
This whole discussion is beginning to make me dirty, as if by discussing this in a serious manner I am lending credence to your pseudo science.
We agree here: When you ask "Don’t you think your God will be pretty pissed off with people who have used falsehoods to embellish and alter the holy bible to fit there own agenda?"
The Bible is clear that those who teach will face a more strict judgment than those who sit under the teaching. I shudder to think of the eternal consequences of those who intentionally distort God's word for their personal gain. I do stand on the side of truth.
Gravity has almost nothing to do with evolution, the major thrust of your list.
With respect to the progression of your thoughts, your arguments continue to be ad hominem, ad absurdum, and non sequitur. I'd hope for better from a man who claims logic and science as his companions. These arguments are not logical nor are they intellectual. I believe that you simply don't want to consider whether the claims of Christ are true. That may be, and it is certainly your right, but I want you to clearly understand that your rejection is one of the will and not one of intellect.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
Scientists have collected evidence and have proposed theories about the cause of that evidence. I share the same body of evidence and have differing theories than current scientific conventional wisdom. That doesn't mean that I wholesale reject theories, evidence and conclusions of all science. That would be foolhardy.
To suggest, as you appear to be doing, that I am uneducated and presumably unthinking, without examining my position is illogical. Keep knocking down those straw men and you can keep avoiding the key issues!
Respectfully,
Tom
Ah, you reclaimed your original ill-manners. Remember, I said you were either lying or incapable of drawing rational conclusions. You never answered which one applies to your ridiculous racial and gender claims about "Fireproof."
You also miss what I was referring to in my previous comment about your Muslim and Hindu friends' "manners." I didn't say they weren't moral, or wouldn't care whether you lived or died in a battle, or other neighborly ways. I said the "manners" you applaud in them for not sharing their views on eternity are actually because they don't care about your eternal soul.
I do, and want you to come to the truth--as I and every other Christian have--about sin and the need for forgiveness. Just like "Fireproof" presented.
God loves you, Bob. And I'm trying.
I say again, look up "irreducible complexity." Or is that too much for you to handle?
I just got a chance to read your post and first I would like to say that I did not intentionally try to sidestep your comment about my argument being irrational. I will admit that what you say is true and that I did not explain it well, but I did not feel the need to address it since it was immediately followed by Tom's comment, which explained it very well.
You see, your reaction proved the point I was making with the Muslim and Hindu ideas of the afterlife. Nowhere on this post has one person said that you are going to hell, but you are offended by the mere thought that someone would think that of you. The worst that has been done here is that Christians are sharing their beliefs. How you choose to take that is up to you. The fact that you are internalizing it as a personal attack shows that it means something to you.
You wrote: "“True wisdom is the ability to admit we know nothing†to say anything more is called delusional arrogance." Yet you made the comment to Tom: "If you are not a poser, but rather a man of science I would expect you to stand on the side of truth." TRUTH? Now you are claiming to have the truth. Just like Christians claim to have the truth. Just like Muslims claim to have the truth. Just like Buddhists claim to have the truth. My friend, you may not worship God, but I will tell you that you have made a god out of science. Do you think you are that much different in your claims to know the truth about life? We all seek truth. Maybe you should think twice about using the above quote because you sure do claim to know a lot about everything. Or maybe just adopt a different quote.
"I say again, look up “irreducible complexity.†Or is that too much for you to handle?" (Ah Mrmoss I just love that good old Christian sarcasm, but now on to your question ta da!!)
The Irreducibly Complex System is an argument for Intelligent design originated by biochemist (and intelligent design advocate) Michael Behe. Behe describes his argument thusly (and I quote)
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous successive slight modifications of a precurser system, because ANY precurser to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional"
What does the scientific community have to say about his well: (and I give credit to wikipedia as their summation wraps this all up very nicely)
"Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
Now that I have answered your little missive and I have a limited amount of time , I need to direct my efforts of enlightenment to Tom, Upchuck and Lisa and I bid you ADIEU
The fact that you argue for a pseudoscience that purports to prove the reality of your fictional "bible land" makes me (and millions of others) chuckle uncontrollably. You both preach ignorance based on lies and half truths to innocents (like Upchuck and Lisa) and I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Tom you call me illogical for not examining your position ;however, the fact is that I have examined it and have found that its foundations are shaky at best.
You have not heard my arguments in support of creationism. I know that because I have not made them here. You suggest that I preach ignorance, and yet you yourself are indeed ignorant of my positions - again, I am certain of your ignorance because I know I have not made my case here. Furthermore, your suggestion that I lie is disingenuous at best, and possibly worse than that.
You have consistently made straw man attacks, and have clearly returned to that tactic with me and with others.
I submit to you that your position, however firmly entrenched it may be, is one of the will rather than one of the intellect. I find it hard to believe that you "have examined it." If you'd really investigated my position certainly you could make far better arguments against it.
Since you are unwilling to engage in a legitimate discussion, and continue to smugly personally attack those who disagree with you, I think my time is best invested elsewhere.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
"do you think it was the $24,000, or just the way of the lord that changed the mind of Caleb’s wife? If you want to know what I find most offensive about this (movie of the week) tripe, its the stereotypical (almost step and fetch it) dialogue coming out of otherwise intelligent black woman’s mouths um hmmm, and the way women in general are depicted as drones who must be saved by strong men."
If I were lying (oh anointed one) how would I know about Caleb's boat, his in-laws (and their) problems, the stereotypical dialogue etc all. I don't want to provide a complete spoiler for this very bad film (which is unfair to those who have not seen this tripe), but you seem to want to push me into doing that.
The fact is my fine fellow, that you (and your Christian buds) also expect me to stand idly by while you insult me, and my answer to you is "Don't dish it out if you can't take it!"
Allright, now that you have successfully explained to me that
A: you GLANCED at wikipedia's description of irreducible complexity and
B: that you believe that wikipedia is the most reliable, accurate, and trustworthy source of information about ALL subjects known to humankind, please explain to me WHY the "mainstream" scientific community(which are comprised of many atheists whom are, of late, beginning to convert to Christianity at a very even pace due to recent findings concerning genetics and astrophysics-please ask me to give you proof of that, I will in a heartbeat) calls Behe's Irreducible Complexity "without basis." If you knew the findamentals of it, you would understand that it effectively turns survival of the fittest on its ear. Take a look at Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." Evolutionists tried to do everything they could to prevent it from being published.
Please look further into it instead of brushing it off with a casual glance- thirty seconds with a subject does not make you an expert. It just makes you look desperate.
God is so wonderful and faithful. He is has done a great work through the movie FIREPROOF. I am grateful to God for the hard work of those who put it together.
God bless you, my brothers.
You seem to be the innocent in all of this, and I know you mean well and I do agree with you, when you say:
"Nowhere on this post has one person said that you are going to hell"
Do you not see that this is not something that needs to be said outright (but rather implied) to be insulting. Anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows the the penalty for rejecting Christs claims of salvation is eternal damnation to Hell. When a person (like me) reads comments like these what are we supposed to think?:
"What this all boils down to is that too many people out there are in denial of a creator simply because they do not want to be held accountable for their actions. That’s the bottom line."
"Why do people scoff at Christianity? Because they don’t want to even think about the fact that they will one day have to stand before Jesus Christ Himself to give account of themselves."
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.â€
But you can gain the whole world and forfeit your soul for eternity.
Now Lisa I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a Christian, but by the same token Christians should have respect for your Islamic, Jewish, Native American, Hindu, Buddhist (need I go on) brothers and sisters, as their beliefs are no less valid than your own (regardless of what you might "believe" via faith) and it is rude for you to say that someone is being delusional about their faith in God (and this is what you imply when you try to convert) just because it differs from your own. I will leave you with a final quote (from an earlier post) that Chris left (on this thread) which I find respectful to both my position on the issue (and yours):
"While I believe that Jesus is my savior and the savior of the world, I also know that you are entitled to your beliefs as well. God Bless."
So, I guess your response (sorry I didn't recognize it as such earlier) is that you're not lying. Your comments about gender and race in "Fireproof" are sincerely held, simply indicating you're incapable of drawing rational conclusions. You're no liar, and I never called you one.
You just called Kirk (not Curt) Cameron a liar. Where's your evidence?
The 10-day total is approximately $12.5 million.
Alex, you know a good trailer when you see one!
"Yet you made the comment to Tom: “If you are not a poser, but rather a man of science I would expect you to stand on the side of truth.†TRUTH? Now you are claiming to have the truth. Just like Christians claim to have the truth. Just like Muslims claim to have the truth."
You are looking at this out of context, as I am talking about science which is practiced with unbiased honesty. I can provide first generation evidence that proves (on multiple levels) that claims of Creationism are based on lies and half truth's. This type of deception is no different than a person who claims to have conversations with dead. Please people, get your head out of the sand and start thinking for your selves! Remember (no matter what God you believe in) he gave you a brain now use it!
"So, I guess your response (sorry I didn’t recognize it as such earlier) is that you’re not lying. Your comments about gender and race in “Fireproof†are sincerely held, simply indicating you’re incapable of drawing rational conclusions. You’re no liar, and I never called you one."
I am about to teach you a little lesson about Proof (please read the following, and eat your own words)
"Yes, go ahead and demonstrate, but my calling you out for lying and being judgmental isn’t a matter of my humility"
"I simply called, and am calling, you out for lying and being judgmental."
(and my personal favorite)
"you’re either a liar or just plain incapable of making rational conclusions."
Which is it?"
(Well Chucky boy) I guess your observation that you referred to me as a liar, is a lie in itself. Of course you can always go into denial mode like your creationist buds, but your words speak for themselves.
Fireproof = bad movie
Now, where's your evidence that Kirk Cameron is a liar? Or, is your claim a lie? Or just another irrational conclusion?
Which is it?
"You just called Kirk (not Curt) Cameron a liar. Where’s your evidence?"
1. He claims there are not a relevant number of transitional fossils, and that this is somehow proof (The fact is there are plenty of fossils, and this is a lie)
2. He claims god created the banana like we see in the super market. The fact is man cultivated and created the modern banana, and his example (shown in the video above) wont work with a wild banana.
3 He claims that there is no transitional fossil record with the following quote by Stephen Jay Gould that he takes out of context (this is deceptive practice known as quote mining):
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in fossil records persists as the trade secret of paliientology"
The fact is he was not talking about the entire fossil record (as Cameron implies) and was (in fact) quite upset saying:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. [Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.]
Gould has been dead since 2002 and his feeling were well known, and yet Cameron insists on putting words in a dead mans mouth to this day.
4. Cameron claims that the following quote came from Anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith for the 1959 100th anniversery edition of Origin of the Species:
"Evolution is unproved and unproveable. The only reason we believe it is because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
There is absolutely no evidence to support that Keith ever said such a thing, and not only that, but the man died in 1955 (four years before before he was supposed to have said this.) pretty lively for a dead man. Cameron and Ray know this, but they play the gray area and lie about it to monufacture evidence to support their agenda.
I can go on and on Chuck, but do you now understand why I don't want these myth makers taken seriously. People like Cameron and some on this thread are spreading lies to our children, which is contributing to the "Dumming Down) of America.
Before Iron Man,,,
I was actually going to respond to Toms post today.
I was going to write a long post about the Knights Templar and the origin of the Bible, and how its been rewritten by about 60 different churches etc, but then (being a spiritual person) I heard a voice in my head say "no, let these people believe in whatever they want". So I decided not to.....
Hope your feeling better,,,,
I would like to leave you all with one final brain teasing thought before I head off to bed.
Timothy 1:4-7 Teaches that to focus on "Myths and endless genealogies" is "meaningless talk" when compared to the real message of the bible.
Can any of yo find a verse in the bible that contradicts this and states that every parable (in particular Genesis) must be interpreted and taught as an historical, literal event? and can you also reconcile the contradiction?
OK boys and girls I'm off to bed, so by by and buy bonds :)
I appreciate that you were "going to write a long post about"...
Here's the problem. While Mr. Brown wrote an entertaining story based on gnostic beliefs, which was made into a successful film as well, his story is just a story!
Let's look at evidence. There are more copies of full and parts of scriptural texts made over time than EVERY other book of antiquity. There are orders of magnitude more copies. Tens, hundreds, and in many cases thousands more than every other historical book.
In order for that idea about changes to biblical content to be true, the conveyance of the text would have had to have been loose - like the "telephone game" we all played as kids where the message is completely distorted from the original person to the last person.
What we see with biblical text is in fact the exact opposite. The Jewish scribes were meticulous to assure that the text was transcribed character for character, page for page and if even one character was wrong, the page was destroyed.
In one stunning confirmation, when the dead sea scrolls were discovered, they were understood to be about 1,000 years in time apart from other copies and yet had no real differences from other copies.
(Yes, I know that in spite of the care taken in some cases there are extremely minor differences between copies, but including the whole body of evidence there are no substantive differences. Because of the large number of copies, it's a straightforward exercise to determine which ones are different!)
Not only are there a tremendous number of copies, but they exist from far closer to the original activities than any other texts. Do you believe in Caesar? There's less evidence and what exists was written FAR longer after Caesar died than the biblical literature about Christ.
There's far more that I could say, and if you're interested, I will be happy to continue to speak with you on this matter. The fact is that the evidence belies the story you repeated above.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
You've baited me into a response.
Your question above is FAR from a brain teaser if you study the teachings of Christianity. This question itself indicates of a lack of study of what the Bible teaches, underlying my assertion above that it's unlikely that you've actually studied Christian teachings and thought, reinforcing the idea that you merely want to reject Christianity based on emotion not intellect.
You asked:
"Can any of yo find a verse in the bible that contradicts this and states that every parable (in particular Genesis) must be interpreted and taught as an historical, literal event? and can you also reconcile the contradiction?"
First, when you think about the Bible verse you quoted, you need to consider that the original Christians were mostly Jewish - in fact, the first major challenge within the Christian faith was on the question of whether any non-Jews could become a Christian! As you read Jewish literature and scriptures, there was a huge emphasis on genealogy - because it was important to know that you were a Jew by blood, and your family history was a critical component of that. Paul is saying to Timothy that because of Christ, things have changed - it's not your bloodline that is important, but your relationship with God through Christ that matters.
Secondly, there are many reasons to understand the first chapters of Genesis as literal. The most important one to me is this: Jesus quoted extensively from Genesis - He believed it was literally true. Why shouldn't I?
In addition, every worldview answers the questions
1. Where did we come from?
2. What went wrong?
3. How do we fix it?
Genesis describes 1 & 2, and the rest of scripture covers #3. If Genesis describes an allegorical Adam who conceptually rejected God's teachings, then mankind only needs a *theoretical* savior. Jesus taught that there was a real Adam, and Romans teaches that we need a real savior to overcome the "what went wrong" part of the Christian worldview.
Finally, the existence of dinosaur fossils worldwide, including in deserts are a clear indication that there was a global flood raising up dirt that covered living things so that fossils could be created! This suggests to me that the flood described in Genesis was an historical event, bolstering my belief in the literal interpretation of that narrative.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
To add to Tom Cooper's contention of the literal interpretation of Genesis, and, more specifically, the great flood. In many other ancient cultures, especially those around the fertile crescent, there are accounts of a similar flood. the stories are more or less similar, but the names change. Noah is called Ziusudra by the Sumerians and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians. The basic story generally follows the same lines: A man is told to build a ship to specific dimensions because God is going to flood the world. He does this, rides out the storm, and offers sacrifice upon exiting the boat. The deity responds with remorse over the destruction of life, and makes a covenant with the man. These core events point to a historical basis. Similar accounts of the flood are found all over the world. The flood is told of by the Greeks, the Chinese, the Hindus, the Mexicans, the Algonquins, and the Hawaiians. One list of Sumerian kings treats the flood as an historical reference point. After naming eight kings who lived extraordinarily long lives(thousands of years), this sentence interrupts the list: "then the Flood swept over the earth, and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish." There are good reasons to believe that Genesis gives the original story, however. The other versions contain elaborations indicating corruption. Only in Genesis is the year of the flood given, as well as the dates for the chronology relative to Noah's life. In fact, Genesis reads almost like a diary or ship's log of the events.
The Tower of Babel is another story in which hard archaeological and literal evidence has been found. There is, today, considerable evidence that the world did indeed have a single language at one time. Sumerian literature alludes to this fact several times. Linguists today find this theory helpful in categorizing languages. But in reference to the tower and the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, archaeology has revealed that Ur-Nammu, king of Ur from about 2044 to 2007 BC supposedly received orders to build a great ziggurat(temple tower) as an act of worship to the moon god Nannat. A stele(monument) about five feet across and ten feet high recorded and revealed Ur-Nammu's activities. One panel has him setting out with a mortar basket to begin the construction of the great tower; thus showing his allegiance to the gods by taking his place as a humble worksman. Another clay tablet states that the erection of the tower offended the gods, so they threw down what the men had built, scattered them abroad, and made their speech "strange." This is remarkably similar to the account of the Tower of Babel in the Bible. According to scripture, "The whole world had one language and a common speech"(Gen. 11:1, NIV) before the Tower of Babel. After the building of the tower and its destruction, God confounded the language of all the earth(Gen. 11:9). Many modern day philologists attest to the likelihood of such an origin for the world's languages.
I see. Because you disagree with Cameron on the THEORY of evolution / Darwinism, he's a liar.
You're quoting Paul to Timothy out of context doesn't mean you're lying. You're simply attempting to make a case for your point of view, which is exactly what Cameron and Comfort are doing with their use of quotations.
The "dumning down" of our children has been occurring every since the far-fetched theory of evolution--requiring the monumental leap of faith to believe that something created itself out of nothing, with no cause for the effect--was given truth status, to the exclusion of intelligent design--the rational view.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this discussion has gone way off track from what I can tell.
I will add my two cents and you can feel or respond as you like.
First, let's talk about the movie - I enjoyed it, it was entertainment and it moved me. That's what a movie should do - period. It raised questions about how I handle myself as a husband and was thought provoking. The fact that is was made with a Christian theme hit home with me purely because I am a Christian. I can see where the Christian message of the film could set some people off. As a person who walked in darkness for a long time, I too was put off by the light.
Second, as Christian, we are to love others as our neighbors. With that being said, as I read the post that are written by so many against Bob Jones and others, I don't clearly see any love. Please hear me out. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, He is the son of the living God and you take Him as your Lord and Savior, then you must realize that not all people have made that choice. Jesus was persecuted for the message He preached because people were intolerant of it. We, as Christians, are told to "turn the other cheek" when dealing with those who would attack us as opposed to attacking back. That is not to say that we cannot defend our faith but to do so with anything but love, love as defined by Jesus, is to go against His teaching.
Do I agree with Bob Jones? Am I saying that we should back off of defending our faith? the answer to both is no. However, in order to, say, change the way Bob Jones feels (I'm not picking on you Bob - not yet at least LOL - and I'm not even sure that you want to hear about my faith - that is yet to be determined), you must love him like Christ does. Seriously, did Jesus at any point tell His disciples to argue meaningless points in order to make someone see His truth?
Bob Jones - you are a great debater from what I can tell. However, there are times when you appear to be intolerant of Christians and the teachings of Christ. I fully believe that tolerance is a two way street and that we have to agree that everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Here's the rub - far too often, people who do not follow the teachings of Jesus go out of their way to prove to those that do follow Him that they are wrong to do so. Then, when the issue of tolerance arises, as it always does, they cannot figure out why Christians are so incredibily intolerant of their intolerance toward Christianity. Again, it is a two way street.
Being the intelectual that you appear to be Bob, it must be painful when you read things that are posted by those who agree with you thinking and are so incredibly vulgar (doggystyle?). I would think that this is just a painful for me to read about those who use their faith as a means to destroy (crusades?). The problem with any belief, or non-belief, is that there will always be those who have their own personal agenda an feel the need to go to extremes. This tarnishes all people and does nothing to build anything up.
The need for man to confirm that his feelings of what is right is often the biggest reason for atrocity.
Lastly, I found it incredibly interesting that a movie review could start such a long debate. A movie review that, I might add, does not even really follow the simple rules of reviewing a movie. The review in question was more of a statement by the author to the fact that they couldn't believe that this particular movie made as much money as it did. The author of the "review" is obviously against "message" films. In addition, he goes on to post a video that he finds proves his case as a film reviewer? I don't get how that fits into a movie review at all. Personal agenda? Yes! Movie review? No.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Largely I agree with you.
Frankly I enjoy a spirited discussion, and yet I understand how that can be off-putting to observers and participants.
I know that in my spiritual journey it was my intellect that drove me away from religious people and religious institutions, and my intellect that further compelled me to seek relationship with Christ.
It is my hope that others may read this discussion and find that there are intellectual answers to the questions raised in the world and by skeptics.
II Tim 2 says "Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth"
I re-read my postings, and while I have been fervent in my assertions that all stay on point, I have not criticized anyone's character or person. It is my hope that I have been gentle and patient, but concede that some of my postings could be read otherwise.
The points I've raised in this discussion were fundamental to my becoming a follower of Christ. As such, it is difficult for me to conceive that someone may see them as meaningless, but that may be merely because of my journey.
Respectfully
Tom
"You’re correct Bob. I did think you’re a liar, but you’ve convinced me that you just can’t draw rational conclusions."
Tom and Mrmoss:
you have both already proven via (your rhetorical propaganda filled) defense that your arguments are just plain too silly to bother with, as "You can lead a Creationist to knowledge but you can't make it think"
I made it very clear to you my position on your "Fred Flintsone view of science and nature ;however, I am not alone.
The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
The text of this document says that European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It said the "intelligent design" view defended by some United States conservatives was an updated version of creationism.
Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.
I said before that defense of your pseudoscience makes me (and millions of others) "chuckle uncontrollably", and this is for good reason which has been proven time and again on a world stage. The reason I will not take anything you say seriously, is that proponents (such as Cameron and Davies) lie about the work qualified scientists (or are you saying Gould was a liar, and Keith came back from the dead)
Chris: I respect your words of contrition :however, I will not stand here and allow Tom, Mrmoss, and others lie to you, and Lisa etc. in the name of your Christian God, as everything I have said about creationism can be proven as fact. I believe that when you provide people like this black and white evidence, then it should be there duty to stand up for truth, and not for those hypocrites that would lie in their Gods name.
Regarding Fireproof the movie:
I do not like this film for the following reasons.
1. The dialogue was poorly constructed and stereotypical
2. While I may have liked the initial concept about saving a failing relationship, I felt the actual execution of the project was poorly rendered via a heavy handed message.
3. The performances (from a mostly novice cast) are laughable, with a few exceptions
4. I take offense (as a former fireman myself) to the way firemen are portrayed on the screen. The firehouse comradry rang false, (and much worse) the professional behavior (such as the removal of an SCBA "Self Contained Breathing Apparatus" and other "leather lung" behaviors (in a fire situation) run counter to basic lessons taught in fire school, as they put other innocent lives at risk. In other words if say a fireman takes off their gear to be a hero and becomes trapped, then that will in turn require one of his fellow firefighters (who uses common sense) to risk their life in a rescue attempt.
5. Kirk Cameron's laughable and out of character Southern California accent in a land where everyone sounds like a extra from Gone With The Wind.
6. The production values don't justify the $8 ticket price. The fact is that it just isn't on the screen, and plays like it belongs on TV as a movie of the week.
Finally (and I address all of you on this thread) will you please just accept the fact that I don't Like Fireproof, just as I don't need your very intrusive, rude, thoughtless, pushy, fictionally based, coercive, fanatical, irrational, prejudicial, offers of conversion. All of you assume that I am not a Christian because I am not someone who suspends my own factual belief system. I have news for you all, I happen to believe in a Christian God ;however, I just don't believe he is a judgemental asshole like you make him out to be. (Regarding creationists) The Bible says to "beware of false prophets" I have proven to you (with concrete evidence) that this is a pseudoscience based on the lies of those with their own agenda of Promoting a "museum" (at $23 bucks a head) and the sales of DVD's (via the "Way of The Master") and yet you people still "Just Don't Get It!
I feel like the man in "The Poseidon Adventure", who tries to convince the other survivors in the dining room (of the overturned ocean liner) that to survive and escape the horrible fate of drowning, that you must strive for the "light" of day through your own efforts. I don't believe God wants us to live in ignorance, but I do believe that there are people out there (Tom Mrmoss) who want us to live with an false view about God and this is in itself is sacrilege. I did not state my religion earlier, because I knew what to expect from such tolerant Christians (and I was right) but I believe that my kind and loving God will forgive me (regardless of what you might think) One thing my God does show me is that salvation is championed by truth and honesty, while Hell, damnation, Purgatory, etc. all is found by following a trail Lies, Ignorance, prejudice, Corruption, hypocrisy, and darkness (traits that all seem to be alive and well on this thread) Whats the old saying? oh yeah "physician heal thy self" and here is another one you should all be familiar with "forgive them for they no not what they do" and by the way I really did not like the movie Fireproof, no matter what you might say.
I rented Iron Man today and it really kicked ass (unlike Fireproof) thank you for suggesting a great movie pick. I hope you are feeling better, and thank you for your earlier concern. I'm feeling a little better (thank you) and I think I am going to kick back and watch Terry Gilliam's Brazil, which is a film I highly recommend (unlike Fireproof) doh! :)
"Bob Jones - you are a great debater from what I can tell. However, there are times when you appear to be intolerant of Christians and the teachings of Christ."
First I thank you for the compliment. Second(and Let me make this perfectly clear) I have the greatest respect for followers of Christ ;however, I do not (and will not) respect anyone who presents an argument supporting creationism (which is based on lies) as this is a distortion of Gods word. I will not blind my self to what I know (via factual data) to be true. I wish you well and would like to just say thank you for your earlier words of wisdom.
Brazil is a classic.
Glad you liked Iron Man,,,,
Hey (shameless plug) would love it if you checked out my first dvd movie review on
www.movieguys.org
Feeling a little better today.
Thanks. :-)
790
If you're a believer, then I have a few questions for you. Why were you so hostile and uncharitable to people who claim to be fellow believers in Christ? (Specifically Chuck - you were filled with unwholesome talk toward him.)
Secondly, if Genesis 1-11 is largely (or completely) allegorical, then why does anyone need a savior?
Respectfully,
Tom
Wow. I just want to say, wow. I challenge the others reading this forum to read your last incredibly long-winded post and find ANYTHING supporting evolution besides what some European council said. You obviously do not know remotely enough about this debate to discuss it logically or, just as importantly, SCIENTIFICALLY. The repeated "Fred Flintstone" labeling is REAL effective and real classy.
Quit while you're behind.
I agree with you on many levels about the acting and other elements of the film. I also agree that the "heavy-handedness" may be a little too much for some. Also, in respect of your previous profession, I admire that you are more intelligent about the facts of fire fighting and rescue.
I can also see that you don't believe the "young earth" theory and you are not alone. Many Christian scholars believe in an old earth as well.
You also indicate that you believe in a loving God. I too believe in Him as well. Purely because of the fact that Christ was sent to earth to prove God's love for all mankind.
Tom Cooper - I hope that you did not take offense to the statement about "meaningless" discussions. I offered that up to point out that all of the arguments by Christians that do not follow the teachings of Christ divide. In order to further His kingdom, we are to meet others where they are and share with them Christ's message.
In addition, I do not make light of how you came to Christ. We all walked a different path prior to going to Him.
Your points on Christianity and creationism aren't well taken, and certainly not proven.
But, I do appreciate you finally getting down to movie-making specifics as reasons you don't like "Fireproof."
Though you're clearly in the minority in your review, it's a big improvement over where you began. You know, where you said the Kendricks are just after money, Kirk Cameron is a whore, the movie bashes black people and women, etc.
Very tolerant and mature, Bob.
I agree with you that the fire scene was unprofessional. The comic relief was a little forced as well. In the fire when Caleb took off his gear, I said to my wife "That's ridiculous!" How was he supposed to save the girl when he removed the gear protecting his own life! Clearly it was a plot device, and I suppose that the filmmakers felt that it added drama to have his face unobstructed during the rescue. It was a poor artistic choice.
Also, I have been thinking this and have not posted it. I live in a country where my freedom of religion is protected by a benevolent military force. I understand that and know that I cannot fully appreciate the sacrifices made to protect my freedoms. With all of my heart, I want to thank you for your service to our country.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
I took no offense, and agree with you that we need to meet people where they are. Based on my life experience, knowledge and understanding of the applicability of specific creation with respect to my need for salvation is a fundamental truth, and I'm VERY grateful that someone was invested enough in me to bear with me and show me the light.
In Christ,
Tom
I would first like to say Thank you for being a rational being who does not take offense to constructive criticism. I wish I could be so charitable to Tom and chuck ;however, they still don't get it and insist on living in darkness. Chuck since you say:
"Your points on Christianity and creationism aren’t well taken, and certainly not proven."
You have proven to me that you choose to believe the lies of a former 80's sitcom star and that you are thereby an idiot. Everything I said can be proven.
Are you saying that Gould never said:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
which is proven via this text written a quarter century ago (and is a book I've had since highschool)
[Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.]
(by the way this is called evidence Chuck)
If you are saying that Cameron never put words in a dead mans mouth, why do he and Davies make statment's in their Way of the Master DVD"s that prove otherwise (you can't have it both ways)
By the way regarding the following:
"Though you’re clearly in the minority in your review, it’s a big improvement over where you began. You know, where you said the Kendricks are just after money, Kirk Cameron is a whore, the movie bashes black people and women, etc."
First of all I am not in the minority in my views (you forget non Christians have opinions too) Second I stand by my opinion of Mr. Cameron being a liar (which I've proven) and a "fame" whore, and also the fact I find the way African Americans and women are portrayed to be offensive. By the way you seem to ignore the fact that I have proven (on this thread) that you have lied about me, so why should I have respect for you or your comrades? I may believe in a Christian God, but that doesn't mean I have to be a fool.
Thanks for your concern, but I choose to believe God over Gould. I couldn't care less what Gould says, and you couldn't care less what Genesis says.
And, you are either a liar or unable to draw rational conclusions.
I can't stop giggling (Gravity is irrelevant) BA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!
You are an ignorant bonehead that supports blasphemy.
Still in bed, man that sucks.
I hope you get better and check out the DVD soon !!
"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is very informative film, that think everyone here would find interesting.....
Even if you don't care for renting the dvd my re-view explains what's going on with the MPAA.
Also make sure you watch the film with the commentary!!
Thanks again and get better soon!!
790/ www.movieguys.org
I went back to your review of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" and left some great feedback. I find it refreshing to hear about a good film for a change, as I can't seem to get the taste of (This dreck known as) Fireproof out of my mouth. DARWIN RULES!!!!!!!!
Hey do you like Star Trek or Bab5??
Yes, I believe Genesis happened word for word. "Without faith, it's impossible to please God," so I don't need to understand every detail of how God did it.
I believe Adam was the literal first man created, there was a flood, etc.
The genealogies and Jesus' words later in scripture indicate that the first 5 chapters of Genesis are actual, not figurative.
I hope you're up and well soon, and can get back to school.
Remember not to get caught sneaking into those R-rated movies without an adult.
Son, God loves you, and I'm workin' on it.
Chuck: I have been taking Thera-flu so and am slowly getting my sea legs back, and I thank you for your concern.
(Be that as it may) I still think Fireproof is a bad film.
I respect your opinion...
I would like to say I am sorry. I went back and read this thread, and I would like to say thank you for the words of appreciation regarding my and others military service. I know I can be very aggressive in my beliefs (something I'm working on) but I was taught to never back down, when you believe you are on the side of honesty and light. I honestly believe what I am saying about creationism, and hope you understand why I cannot take it seriously as a science, as it runs counter to all things logical and factual in my life. Thank you again for your kind words.
Time to end my part while everyone seems to be cordial with each other.
I'm thrilled to see that Fireproof will be playing its 3rd week at my local theater.
I'll leave it at that!
Young Earth Followers 0 (due to lack of any actual evidence)
Followers of the Scientific method and Common sense: Game Point and Match!!!!!
So long and thanks for all the fish
What have we learned? Creationists are in major denial, and Fireproof is a poorly produced film starring a minor 80's sitcom star with very little talent, and he likes to lie to us in the name of Jesus Christ. Now everyone go down to your local library pick up a book and read about this fantastic earth we live on. Just because I have proven that Creationists are wrong, does not mean that Christianity. Please note: There are men and women arround the world who have spent their lives studying in their various fields, and after 50 years or so they many people call experts.
Why do people think that Kent Hovind and his bogus PHD (Kent Hovind had been charged with falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, felony assault and battery (charges later dropped),[115] and various tax-related charges. He was convicted of federal tax offenses and related charges, for which he is currently serving a 10-year sentence.) Kirk Cameron (who only has a High school diploma, and his Way Of The Master buddy Ray Comfort who is a poorly educated itinerant preacher) Lee Strobel (who is a lawyer and not a scientist!)
WHAT IN THE WORLD MAKES ANY ONE OF YOU OUT THERE THINK THEY ARE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. REMEMBER JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING IS "IN JESUS NAME" DOES NOT MEAN THEY THAT THEY ARE NOT BE LYING TO YOU!!!! THESE MEN ARE NOT GOD, AND THEY WANT TO KEEP YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN AS IGNORANT OF RATIONAL THOUGHT AS THEY ARE! (DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!!!)
THEY HAVE CREATED AN AMUSEMENT PARK TO IGNORANCE, AND THIS SHOULD BE PROOF FOR YOU TO BE AS DISGUSTED AS I AM, BECAUSE IT IS AN ABOMINATION IN GOD'S EYES. WAKE UP!!!
And then it was so silent you could hear a pin drop (cue the chirping crickets).........................
Fireproof is a poorly constructed film starring a moderately talented former 80's child star (don't waste your money wait for it on dvd)
"Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"
Do you notice the paralell to all this misinformation handed out by these creationists (double plus good) By the way I hope I didn't sound too crazy in that earlier post, its just that I only got three hours of sleep, and I get very grumpy and frustrated when I'm this tired. I think the cold medicine might have helped in that also :)
I refuse to defend either Comfort or Cameron. I don't know what they said, and therefore am ignorant and unable to comment.
Please tell me - what do I have to gain from lying?
(of course not) so why would you allow people like Hovind and Lee Stroble give you advice on what you should believe as a Christan?
God would never discourage you from asking questions, and yet these men expect you to suspend your own belief structure. This is like believing a con man who tells you not to look at the fine print on a contract because he says he goes to church on Sunday.
Did you ever consider that I have absolutely nothing to gain by convincing you otherwise?
What *if* what you believed was in error? I'm not demanding that you believe that to be the case, just asking what *if*? *If* you were mistaken about your belief, would you want to know?
God wants us to ask questions - and I believe that He respects those who wrestle with His truth more than those who are indifferent to it. I *do* ask questions. No one tells me otherwise.
Respectfully,
Tom
Also
If you want to see some Big Brother activity make sure you rent that "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" dvd. 8-)
(The MPAA is Double-Plus Un-good).
All say this about organized religion.
At least the fine folks on this site arnt satanists.
Peace everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is what I know for a fact. Kent Hovind (one of the young earths leading proponant's currently sits in jail for breaking not only man's law, but Gods law as well (for bearing false witness) I know there is a museum that is open seven days a week (including the Sabbath) that claims to support a literal interpretation of the Bible.
(isn't that rather hypocritical?) I know that 27 million dollars was spent on a 60,000 sq ft facility which calls itself a "museum" and that people pay $23 a head to visit it. I know that this facility and its founders tell people lies about (and put words in the mouths of) scientists (both living and dead) so that they can manufacture facts which will conform to a literal interpretation of the bible, and that this is not science. No matter how you slice it these are lies, and this is also big business.
Earlier I posted a comment about how in 2007 The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted “in forms of religious extremism†and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
After I posted this I recieved a response from Mrmoss which read:
"I challenge the others reading this forum to read your last incredibly long-winded post and find ANYTHING supporting evolution besides what some European council said. You obviously do not know remotely enough about this debate to discuss it logically or, just as importantly, SCIENTIFICALLY."
Notice how he ignores all of the black and white evidence, and just dismisses the The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly as " some European council "as if he were qualified to dismiss it out of hand. I ask you what makes him qualified to do this?, remember he provides no evidence for this.
The whole concept of creationism is an idea presented by men, and men are fallible (Remember what I said about the character of the messengers) There is nothing in the primary source that both you and I believe (E.G the Holy Bible) that says anything (in any interpretation) about dinosaurs on the ark (This is unprovable speculation and not based in fact) The problem is we now have men who want this taught as fact to children, and that they are actually changing the intent of the Bible to fit there own agenda. (did you ever wonder what you will say to god if your wrong?) as I said to Chuck earliar:
"Are you just gonna say well gee God these guys told me I didn’t have to study or think for myself or believe pesky things like evidence."
Like I said before, please look at the messengers character.
I forgot to answer the following:
What *if* what you believed was in error? I’m not demanding that you believe that to be the case, just asking what *if*? *If* you were mistaken about your belief, would you want to know?
If I am wrong in what I believe, I am not convinced that God will forgive what would be simple case of ignorance and not a deliberate additional man made intentional addition to scriptural meaning ;however, I don't know that he will be so happy with people who are making a leap of faith based upon the word of liars, lawyers and felons. What if you are wrong?
"I am convinced he will forgive what would be a simple case of ignorance (on my part)"
I am very tired and still kind of out of it from the flu.
I have seen the BBC version however I have not seen the 2005 movie (how is it? I'm curious about fry) I'll tell ya though I'm gratefull I'm not dealing with Satanists also. (they can be pesky little bastards)
At least I felt that way.
I feel compelled to discuss your "Darwin Rules" comment. Can you share with me exactly what you believe to be true in the sense of Darwin's Theory of Evolution that leads you to make this statement?
While you and I may agree on the earth age issue, I do happen to think that intelligent design does have some merit when refuting Darwin's theories. Case in point - Darwin made the bold claim that we (humans, that is) all descended from a common ancestor. His thoughts went far beyond the ape/man descention to literally primordial ooze (although he didn't call it this purely because he did not have knowledge of that concept).
This is where Darwin's theory starts to have holes. Darwin made his assumption of evolution based upon observation of variation in a particular species. You know the story. However, Darwin theorized that a new species could arrive from another species. However, Darwin himself stated that evidence of one species actually turnign into another species has never occured. To date, this has not been proven to have occured as well.
Since you have obviously read Gould, I thought you might enjoy this quote - “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.†Stephen Jay Gould.
However, the "fit" would have to come from the "unfit" and that does not make any sense whatsoever. How could this occur?
I'm sorry that you're still sick. That must be REALLY annoying. I hope that you get better soon.
I have never heard of Kent Hovind. I cannot and will not attempt to defend what he says, does, or has done. I have never been to the museum, and don't care how much private money was spent to build it.
With respect to your idea of "big business" it occurs to me that simple math says that at $23/head it will take more than 1 million visitors to recoup the initial investment you claim was made. When one considers the operating costs (electricity, staff, etc) it will logically take a lot more visitors than that to make back that money. I just don't see how you could call that big business - I doubt they've had that many visitors, or if they've done much better than breaking even. Doesn't "smell" like a big business to me.
Regardless, the character of a man I've never heard of, or the profit or (likely) loss on a private investment in a museum is not relevant to the question of whether God created the earth as described in Genesis.
I have never heard of "The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly" and have no idea who they are or why I should care what they think about the idea of creationism. I did look on the web and found the following. The thrust of their argument appears to be that a) evolution is scientific, b) Creationism requires an unprovable origin which cannot be evaluated using the scientific method, and therefore should not be taught as science.
I agree that *ALL* theories of origins are unprovable. None are evaluable using the scientific method (propose a theory, test the theory by observation and measurement, validate or invalidate the theory) and ANY theory of origins should not therefore be taught as science.
Since non-creationism persists in our classrooms as supposed science, I assert that creationism belongs there too. Take non-creationism out of science class, and I'm totally fine with removal of creationism.
You said "an idea presented by men, and men are fallible"
Here we VIOLENTLY agree. People who believe in creation have lied, and people who believe in non-creation have lied. Men are fallible. The lies and opinions of fallible men on either side of this question do not influence whether creationism is right or non-creationism is right. The question is what is TRUE?
The idea of non-creationism is an idea from men as well - for most of human history it was not even considered a possibility that there was NOT a creator. It was only after Darwin's theory was proposed that the idea of a non-creator gained some traction.
I look at evidence and I see that natural selection appears to be valid. We see that there are variations in types of creatures - lots of different kinds of cats, different dogs, etc. We see that where there are favorable traits, those favorable traits ARE repeated and preserved. Rabbits with white fur thrive more than brown fur in snowy climates, and the brown furred rabbits diminsh over generations. This is scientific, measurable, and undeniably true. I think that you and I would agree violently on this point as well, do we not?
Where it gets more challenging is this. The idea of speciation from natural selection has a *tremendous* dependency on many many cycles of life and death in order to sustain the idea of small changes gaining dominance over time to trend from one species to a completely different type of species. We are unable to repeat this in the lab, and we have some fossil evidence that indicates this MAY have happened, but in my opinion that is speculation based on the underlying notion that there was no original specific creation of individual species.
I have skimmed the *long* statement on the Council of Europe's website, and this stuck out to me: "In every creationist experiment, faith imposes a preconceived idea of the expected result." It seems to me that non-creationists too have preconceived ideas about the expected result.
If you start with the assumption that creation CANNOT be true - as many many scientists do, then they will look for ANY explanation, no matter how implausible, to support a notion consistent with their "a priori commitment to naturalism" (to quote Gould.)
The concept of creationism is *from* the Bible. It starts with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Respectfully,
Tom
You said about the museum "open seven days a week (including the Sabbath) that claims to support a literal interpretation of the Bible.(isn't that rather hypocritical?"
I don't believe that to be hypocritical. Christian understanding (mostly, with the exception of a few groups) is that the principle of the Sabbath should be observed, but the legal requirement to observe it was removed when Christ came with the new covenant. Even as a fundamentalist, I don't believe that it's a requirement to fulfill all of the civil and ceremonial requirements of the old covenant in the old testament.
Respectfully,
Tom
About the only truly well done Christian film I've ever seen is "The Hiding Place" about Corrie Ten Boom. The acting was good and it's based on a true story so it was realistic. It was done in the 70s and is much better than the crap put out these days.
Chris: my comment about Darwin was meant for the sake of levity and comedy relief. (nothing more nothing less) I thought you would take it in the spirit for which it was intended (I was wrong). I never said "The Origin of the Species" was infallible and without arguable points ;however, I am saying that it has proven to be invaluable to "respectable" scientists all over the world in the development of new scientific and medical advances. I ask you (and others) what scientific medical or social advancements or devices have creationists given man?
Tom: You and I will just have to agree to disagree. I say to you once again, that Creationism is a unprovable pseudoscience, and would like to leave you with another message from the scientific community (this time from the National Center for Science Education). The NCSE collected over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the museum (Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement which reads:
"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis"
Tom, all of these 800 well respected University professors and scientists are saying is that teaching Creationism (as fact) is harmful, and that impressionable children (who believe creationism theory as fact) will have to relearn, even the most basic scientific principles. (are they all lying?)
I cannot help that you are not familiar with “The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly†or the men that I have mentioned ;however, I challenge you to pick up a book, or just Google the questions, so that you will understand that the information I have provided is relevant. I cannot do all the research for you, and there comes a point where that becomes your task.
Regarding your comment about recouping the $27.000.000 cost (donated by people like you by the way) of the "museum" Currently there are approximately 250,000 visitors a year (some say more) so it should be payed off by 2012 (what happens then?)
In an ironic twist, the American Museum of Natural History failed to find backing for their planned exhibit on the life of Charles Darwin.
I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing Fireproof, and would just like to say that your impressions are correct. I would also like to say ;however, that I have had the pleasure of seeing the brilliant 1975 Julie Harris film (based on the life of Corrie Ten Boom) that you mention in your post. This was an incredible true to life film, about the selfless courage of a Christian family, and I would suggest (to all readers of this thread) that you would be better off renting and watching "The Hiding Place" (with your family) than you will ever be watching Fireproof"
I'd encourage you to go see "Fireproof" so you'll be able to comment first-hand about the movie, and not just the preview, which Alex saw--correctly, in my opinion and in the opinions of many on this thread--as good.
Churches never before supported a Christian film to the tune of $13 M in 12 days, so "Fireproof" just may be different than those you were disappointed in!
I agree with your commendation of "The Hiding Place." I still catch Jeanette Clift (George) live at her A.D. Players theater in Houston.
I think you'll be equally well off seeing "Fireproof."
I concur. We must agree to disagree - However, I think that we agree on more than you might ever imagine! If you look carefully at everything that I have posted, I never said that creationism was science. I *did* say that origins is not a question which science can answer, and I said that I believe creationism to be true, but never said it was science.
With respect to your men, organizations, and money; my point was that they are not, as you suggest, relevant to the truth or untruth of the creation account. If you read carefully, I did some research and quoted them as I responded to you!
The numbers show that the creation museum is FAR from big business - with operating costs considered it will take far longer than 2012 to break even, so if they are motivated by profit, they are either stupid or really bad businessmen. I suppose *you* may argue that they are both. :) My gut tells me that profit is not the purpose.
I read your quoted statement from your 800 scientists. Even Gould admits that evolutionists have an "a priori commitment to naturalism" and that "phyletic gradualism was never seen in the rocks." Of course there are large groups of evolutionists who hate creationism! Suggesting that evolutionary scientists be in support of creationism is like suggesting that PETA would support pro-lunchmeat ads!
Again, I agree that we should disagree, but I would like you posit this: Why does the issue of origins as a result of supernaturalism engender such a passionate response on the part of naturalists? If I said that Mars was populated with little purple people who control each of the earth's governments, I would rightly be thought a kook and completely ignored.
Why is it that the concept of supernatural origins is so upsetting that it is unthinkable and strongly opposed? I submit to you that there is more than mere intellectual objection to the idea.
Finally, you said "I ask you (and others) what scientific medical or social advancements or devices have creationists given man?"
I'll spare you the sarcastic comment about doing the research for you but provide this *quite abbreviated* list of men of science who were followers of Christ - and creationists!
Johannes Kepler - discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Blaise Pascal - mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle - founder of modern chemistry
Anton van Leeuwenhoek - discoverer of bacteria
Michael Faraday - giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel
Gregor Mendel - pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin - physicist of thermodynammics
I could go on, but what's the point? It seems to me that belief in creationism is not detrimental to science - but rather to the ideas proposed by people who oppose a creator!
Respectfully,
Tom
PS - hope you're feeling better today
Bob Jones-
In response to your 800 NCSE signatures, I have 800 signatures too(Well, just under 800. Upper 700's by now, I would guess.). The Discovery Institute, based out of Seattle Washington has published an on-going list of leading scientists in cosmology, biology, physics, and many other fields from all over the world. This is in response to scientific discoveries made in the recent DECADE. The scientists on this list openly dispute darwinism and evolution. The list, called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" states the following: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The website is here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB...
Here is an sample of the first page(cut and pasted, so it may be kinda scrambled):
Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K.
Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science,
Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science
And the list goes on for another eighteen pages.
So to insinuate that there is no part in the scientific community that runs in contrary to Darwinism is absolutely false. There are many who would like for this list and other publications like it to be squelched. Check out the list on Discovery Institute's website. It's thoroughly impressive.
I should have been more specific regarding my comment. I should have made clear that I meant advancements since the time of "Origin of The species" by young earth follower. Kepler died in 1630 Pascal 1662 Boyle 1691 van Leeuwenhoek 1723 Faraday 1867, Herschel 1871, Mendel 1884 and William Thomson, Lord Kelvin......
I single out Lord Kelvin who (although a brilliant man) never the less stated in 1895 that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", and also in 1896, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning...I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society." Kelvin is also known for an address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement. This was just three years before Kittyhawk, and Kelvin's own death in 1907.
The point I am trying to make, is that there are no significant and "recent" advancements made by Young Earth Followers.
What I find most offensive about Young Earth Followers, and other Creation theorists, is the fact that they attack the scientific method and thereby undermine our ability to advance the infrastructure of our civilization. Creationists make "real scientists" waste valuable time, when they are forced to dispute the disinformation of nonsensical ideas provided to an audience with a poor understanding of science.
Did you ever consider the possibility, that we might both be right?, and that the question comes down to man's interpretation of Gods definition of time. Strict Creationists have reached a conclusion that only they understand time, and only pay attention to the evidence that supports that conclusion (This is not science)
The primary reason countries in the middle east are so far behind the rest of the world Socially, Scientifically etc. all is that they have a similar belief structure ;whereby, religious dogma is taught to generations of children as fact, and the state bans any evidence that runs counter to what is taught as fact.
Ask yourself why it is OK to teach the "Christian" version of creation (in public schools) and not any other religions version. This is a country that espouses freedom of religion, and when you introduce legislation that says we are only Christian, you create a domino affect that threatens our freedom of speech and all the other freedoms that I joined the military to uphold. Would you like so called men like Fred Phelps to be our judge and executioner? He and his "church" are an example of how the Holey Bible can be warped in its meaning (when taken literally) from a message of love and forgiveness, to one of fear, condemnation, and control.
(sound familiar?)
I am feeling quite a bit better today (many thanks), and hope to be out and about more Thursday. I think the dog (Basset hound) is getting angry at me for keeping her cooped up, and so I think we will head for the park. I am sorry for my earlier sarcasm, and hope I did not offend you too much. I tend to write my opinion quickly (as a train of thought) and so I am not as careful as I might be otherwise.
Regarding your earlier comment about Chuck: I have not been as charitable with Chuck, as he chose to call me a liar and has never managed a sincere apology (plus its kind of fun) Hey I said I believed in a Christian God, but I never sad I was perfect :)
Respectfully
Bob
So, Bob, your point is what, other to be argumentative?
If churches didn't push other Christian-themed movies such as Hiding Place, that fact only speaks favorably about Fireproof's reception from those churches.
I spoke favorably about Hiding Place and Jeanette Clift (George), so why whine and moan about me doing it a disservice?
I think you should take your own suggestion and focus on reading rather than watching, Bob. You seem to have trouble recognizing a good movie when you see one. Perhaps you can do better spotting a good book.
Bob Jones-
In response to your 800 NCSE signatures, I have 800 signatures too(Well, just under 800. Upper 700’s by now, I would guess.). The Discovery Institute, based out of Seattle Washington has published an on-going list of leading scientists in cosmology, biology, physics, and many other fields from all over the world. This is in response to scientific discoveries made in the recent DECADE. The scientists on this list openly dispute darwinism and evolution. The list, called “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism†states the following: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.â€
The website is here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB...
Here is an sample of the first page(cut and pasted, so it may be kinda scrambled):
Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K.
Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science,
Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science
And the list goes on for another eighteen pages.
So to insinuate that there is no part in the scientific community that runs in contrary to Darwinism is absolutely false. There are many who would like for this list and other publications like it to be squelched. Check out the list on Discovery Institute’s website. It’s thoroughly impressive.
The Discovery Institute’s primary mission is to fabricate reasons to deny 150 years of research that backs the theory of evolution because it contradicts a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.The main financial backer is a wealthy savings and loan heir by the name of Howard Ahmanson,who spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, which is a "theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law." I spent four years of my life defending this nation that believes in a separation of church and state, not to defend, a religious right wing think-tank, that is well-known for its strong opposition to evolutionary biology and its advocacy for “intelligent design which a principle backer, that advocates the destruction of a judicial system that I served to uphold.
Evolution is NOT a belief system. It is simply the best explanation we have which is based on observation and measurement for how species have changed over time. (and you don't like that) With this in mind you and others like go out of your way to discredit it, using misinformation, that (as I said to Tom) "makes “real scientists†waste valuable time, when they are forced to dispute the disinformation of nonsensical ideas provided to an audience with a poor understanding of science."
YOU (AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU) ARE A DANGER TO THE VERY FREEDOMS OF THIS COUNTRY THAT WE HOLD SO DEAR!!!!!!!!!
"I think you’ll be equally well off seeing “Fireproof.â€
You are essentially trying to imply that Fireproof is comparable to a classic piece of cinema like "The Hiding Place" and nothing could be further from the truth. Saying something like this is the equivalent of comparing an episode of the "Love boat" to the movie "Titanic"
I believe "me" makes the strongest point when he or she says:
"And everyone thinks that just because it’s a Christian movie you have to only say positive things about it. I would never see a secular movie this poorly done and I won’t hold Christians to a lower standard."
The fact is nobody purchased blocks of tickets for "The Hiding Place" (because they didn't need too) the movie was a success in 1975, (and it stands on its own today) because of its artistic merit ;however, Fireproof is a miserable failure since most of the people who have seen it were coerced, and it was poorly written and produced to begin with. You will be hard pressed to find that many non Christians who have seen or will see this film of their own free will. Fireproof is a bad film, and you just can't accept the fact that not all people (Christian's included) are giving it a glowing review, just because it has a "Christian" background. I am not saying Christian's can't make good films, but I am saying that this isn't one of them.
How much further to 300? :)
You said "Did you ever consider the possibility, that we might both be right?"
I think that we agree on more than we disagree on. As I have said before, there is no question that evolution occurs - that variation is present as a result of natural selection. Evolution is true, when you speak about small changes over time within a species. That is incontrovertible. However, I don't feel it is possible to reconcile our positions.
We differ in two areas:
1. That speciation is a result solely of evolution, and
2. That science can offer an explanation of origins. As I've said before, it simply cannot, because it is impossible to employ the scientific method to measure or observe origins.
The key reason that I reject #1 is theological, not scientific. There is *much* reason for me to be a skeptic about it form an evidential perspective, but nonetheless, I concede that the primary motivation is the theological implications. Christian doctrine explicitly teaches that the first man and first woman Adam and Eve, specifically sinned against God. This specific sin separated all of mankind from God, and there was no way to reconcile man and God without a savior. The new testament is explicit about this. To make the first man and first woman allegorical would make the need for a savior an allegory as well, and that requires that one twist the plain interpretation of Romans beyond the breaking point.
I could go on for many days (and we have, haven't we?) about how based on physical evidence, and the lack thereof I believe that speciation as a result of natural selection is the least likely possibility for explanation of the biological diversity we see. I think that wold largely be a waste of your time and mine, and out of respect for you I won't bother to do so.
2. The conventional wisdom within the scientific establishment is committed philosophically to naturalism. It is illogical to suggest that something naturally came from nothing, and yet, given the scientific predisposition to fundamentally reject the possibility that the cause of the universe was non-material, they are unable to consider that option. Is this not exactly what you (and the council of Europe you quote) find so objectionable about intelligent design - presupposition about the outcome?
With respect to your complaints about the discovery institute; regardless of the motivation of the founder of that organization, there are apparently hundreds signatories with advanced scientific degrees and who hold positions from notable institutions around the world. If the discovery institute is corrupt (and it may be, I have no idea) that doesn't make the education and ideas of these scientists completely wrong. It seems that there is some diversity of thought within the "official" scientific community, and that is not reflected solely in religious institutions, but apparently in quite secular institutions as well.
Respectfully,
Tom
PS - glad to hear that you're better. Hope the dog enjoys the park.
Be honest: What you're really saying is that you hate Kirk Cameron, and the idea of Christians making films that include the message of salvation, and the reality that an evangelistic film starring Kirk Cameron is having success are measured by $13 million in 12 days.
Go back to your early comments, and you'll remember what the cold medicine probably has caused your to forget--that I'm accurate.
"Go back to your early comments, and you’ll remember what the cold medicine probably has caused your to forget–that I’m accurate."
Do you mean as accurate as when you said you never called me a liar? (and never acknowledged that you were "in fact" the liar)
The fact is that Fireproof is a poorly made film, and it wouldn't matter who made it. I have stated very clearly point by point why the film is bad, and backed my opinion via evidence (oh I forgot you don't believe in stuff like that) I am far from the only person to have that same opinion, and it wouldn't matter if I liked (your Idol) Kirk Cameron and it were to make $250 million at the box office. The proof of the quality of a film is not in the numbers. FIREPROOF IS A POORLY MADE MOVIE, AND I DIDN"T LIKE IT. MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME OPINION, AND YOU CANNOT HANDLE THAT! GET OVER IT!!!!
Hey Bob, I hope you were at least doing that on carpet or some kind of softer surface. I hope you didn't bruise your feet and fists with all that kicking and punching. Calm down and have some juice from your sippy cup.
The dog is much happier today ;however, I'm still working on it (but I thank you for asking) I think that we agree on more than we disagree also ;however there are key points that we will simply have to agree to disagree on and leave it at that. I would like to say, that this thread is supposed to be for having a discussion about a movie, and it has gone way off track. I stated my own negative opinion about the film, and I have now spent an enormous amount of time defending my views regarding this crappy film, my own personal beliefs about (and distrust of organized) religion, the separation of church and state, corruption, Darwin, Creationism etc. etc. etc. The fact is, that I am tired of arguing about things that have nothing to do with the lack of quality in this poorly made film.
I believe you are a nice guy, and I respect the way you have handled yourself in this discourse, but please know I only came to this thread to give my opinion on a film that I feel was sub par. I have simply spent too much time and energy on this discussion which has not just been with you, but rather with many other people that just pipe up with their two cents to muddy the waters. You know where I stand on these issues (and I understand your position as well) so lets just get back to discussing this crappy film and call it a day OK?
Respectfully
Bob
Thank you for reminding me of why the world laughs at your unprovable pseudoscience. (it gives me hope)
Check it out:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB...
Gravity Is Irrelevant BA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of your main movie-making complaints is that "Fireproof" wrongly depicts firefighting techniques. You should consider the following from Firefighters for Christ (FFC) website:
"FFC leaders Jerry Sillcocks, Mike Anson and John White have a heart for the Gospel and a passion for ministry, which is why they went the extra mile to meet up with each other on a movie set in Albany, Georgia. It was the set of Fireproof, the fall 2008 film from Sherwood Pictures – producer of Facing the Giants.
. . . Fireproof not only tackles tough issues. It also includes some dramatic fire scenes. Therefore, having been through personal trials and fought numerous fires, the FFC trio went to lend their expertise and support to the cast and crew."
All three of these FFC leaders were 9/11 responders. So, I think Sherwood and the Kendricks went to responsible lengths to seek experts in order to honor those in this brave occupation.
Luke 21:12 Says
"But before all these, they shall lay thier hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up into prisions, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake."
I invite anyone who desires to truly understand who Jesus is to read these passages
Luke 21:16 Says
"And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death."
Dr. Acula Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Aww man… This just makes me more ancy for Maher’s “Religulousâ€.
I really hope an organized, acknowledged atheist movement comes about in the next few years.
This day is coming soon, but you will have no peace. I have read the end of the book guys and trust me the true christians win, Thank you Jesus!!
My point is that the makers of Fireproof sought out advice for staging firefighting scenes.
And, I'll add that--unlike you--some competent, brave firefighters don't have their boxers in a wad over Fireproof's fire and rescue scenes. This is more than likely because--unlike you--these brave, competent firemen have neither a personal hate for Kirk Cameron, nor disdain for a church's making movies to spread the message of Christ.
These men wear boxers, but your's might be something else, Bob.
I guess if you slap the name Jesus on topic of discussion (even a really bad movie) "wrong" becomes "right" and "fiction" becomes "reality". If you people are what "true" Christians are like I would much rather go to hell, with people who know how to respect individuals with a different view . This thread is for discussing a film, and not and excuse for offended "Christian's" to play martyr, and I'm tired of listening to you wine if someone doesn't like this crappy film.
On behalf of Christians, please let me apologize. We should be known for the way we love. Some posts here don't reflect that.
I'm sorry. Please forgive us.
Respectfully,
Tom
Regarding my choice of under garments I wear boxer briefs, and I slide them over my prosthetic leg every day (as I said before I am retired) I don't regret my service to this country, even though I do run in to "good" Christians like you from time to time.
Thank you:
You are a scholar and a gentleman.
My apologies for stooping low on the boxer comment. Again, I wish I hadn't written it.
I searched for God, found Jesus, found something called forgiveness, mercy, and grace. What a treasure of peace I have, my hope is you will search too.
Love through Christ,
Jesus was and is interested in his followers being good and wise stewards--even shrewd--with what's entrusted to them--even material things like money.
I don't know that He's proud of Sherwood--but I'm sure He is pleased. So are those brave Christian firefighters and a lot of other people who love the movie and the message.
To quote Dickens, "God bless us, every one!" You're included, Bob.
I don't know about proud, but I'm sure He is pleased with the movie makers. So are those brave firefighters, and many others who love the movie and the message.
I hear you. WAAAAAY too much emphasis on money by some claiming to follow Christ.
Clearly Christ doesn't need the cash.
On the other hand, he told this parable about "the talents" where He gave talents - some invested, others buried the talent. Christ excoriated the one who did nothing with the resources he had been given. As a Christ-follower it is my job to use every skill He gifted me with to bring Him glory, honor, and praise. Sometimes that's about artistic expression, and sometimes it's about leveraging artistic expression to make money. Christ expects those who are gifted at doing that to make money and then use it to tell others about Him.
Also, I'm thrilled that something with a compelling story without shootups and illicit is in theaters making money. Most movies are dreck. I understand that you feel this movie is, too, but to each his own....
Respectfully,
Tom
"The churches purchased up to 95% of all the tickets sold on this film. They bought the tickets and gave them away. You will see a drastic drop after a few days."
I don't believe for one minute that churches bought 95% of the tickets.
Here we are, two weeks later and the movie has now grossed almost $17 million. It just opened in over 300 additional theaters this weekend.
Let's see how long it continues to pull in the viewers. Then let's see how well it does later when it finally comes out on DVD.
I'm glad the film has an audience.... If you re-read all my comments I don't believe I ever downright bashed the film.
If anyone here is a Mark Hamill fan , you might want to check out my re-view on his last dvd effort. Not too many ppl have heard of the film, and its a good family film.
www.movieguys.org
Peace!
Fireproof touched a nerve. The church is experiencing higher divorce rates than those outside of it. A movie doesn't have to be perfect for me to invest ten bucks in it. I just need to be interested in what the makers wish to convey to the public - and they have to do a reasonable job at entertaining me while doing it, sadly not too unlike what we expect from church. The Kendricks brothers have succeeded once again.
No one is going to disagree that low budget movies leave room for improvement. So, if you want to slam Fireproof, go ahead and do so for it's message. By the same token, I think every republican in the USA and every christian on the planet should boycott the next Matt Damon movie for his. When actors and comedians stick their noses into politics and religion the reaction should be swift and immediate.
It would be appropriate to see the next Bourne movie gross $100,000,000 less because Damon thinks that average americans who grow up in unlikely places or happen to believe the Bible can't be president. I thought both were supposedly foundational to Obama's platform! Guess not.
The truth is, this movie is awful, not for the message but for its quality including the wooden acting, and how it forces the message down your throat. But it is designed for those who question nothing and accept everything they are told by their churches. To rave about this poorly written, scripted, acted, and produced movie shows that you are not able to think for yourselves and that your unabashed acceptance of it as a great movie is based on peer pressure, not genuine objectivity. Those who criticize this film do so because it belongs on free television due to quality, as do many non-Christian films that are likewise criticized. The fact that the people who watch this crap and tell everyone how it is some kind of Oscar-worthy, life-changing drama is why most people see you Jesus freaks as frightening as the radical Muslims.
I could not have said it better myself.
I'm a pretty outspoken defender of the Christian worldview, and I disagree. There have been plenty of films, shows and programs made in the name of Christ which were a complete embarrassment to the cause of Christ. In my view, Christian or non-Christian; movie made for Christ or not, It is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't like this production."
I *do* like the movie, but that's not merely because of the intended Christian message. I liked the production values and the story. Others do not - that is their prerogative.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
It is clear that you did not enjoy the film. Sorry about that. None of us likes to waste our time or the money spent on a ticket for a film that is poorly made. I respect your right to your opinion about the film.
I understand that when one desires to make a point in speech or writing that one frequently uses hyperbole, but really - Christian fundamentalists as scary as radical Islamofascism? Wow.
In a society where free speech is one of the foundational points, it is interesting to me how the exercise of the right to talk about Christian beliefs is so offensive that merely talking about those ideas is raised to the level of extremism where people strap bombs to their bodies and blow up themselves, innocent children and women in public places.
I mean, look at the story in the film. Once becoming a Christian, Caleb listens to his wife, learns from her, shows compassion toward her, gives up his savings for her priorities, and sacrifices selfishness for her benefit. Each is totally consistent with the biblical teachings about what Christian men should do. Pretty dangerous stuff. It should immediately be stopped!
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
Your post reveals what is true about many people who are not Christians, that being your errant assumption as to what Christianity truly is all about.
Being a Christian does not make one fail-safe nor bullet-proof. Being a Christian does not mean you'll not have the same temptations to do wrong (i.e., cheat in a relationship, as this movie depicts). Being a Christian does not mean you are any better than any other person on earth. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Being a Christian means that you DO understand our inherent sinful nature and that I/me/you/we are all guilty. Being a Christian means that you DO realize that we were not created to behave as such and that as is the case throughout, there are consequences when we do wrong. Being a Christian means that you DO understand that your sin separates you from a relationship with God who created you. Being a Christian means that you understand, accept and receive the payment for sin that Christ gave your me, you, and every other person; past, present and future. Being a Christian means that you seek to be Christ-like in your daily walk through life, i.e. "Christian." Being a Christian means that you realize you'll deal with issues just the same regardless of the fact that you are a Christian.
Sounds to me like there are a lot of self-made decisions involved in CHOOSING to become a Christian, not letting someone else choose for you. How one could perceive that a person does not think for themselves when they CHOOSE to live a Christian life and they make CHOICES each and every day as to how they will deal with issues, is puzzling.
What are YOUR choices based upon? Who gave you the information that leads you to feel the way you do about Christ, about God, about people who choose to be Christians? Did you conceive all of those thoughts totally on you own or did you base them on something that someone else told you? Who is doing your thinking for you?
As far as acting is concerned, it is plain to see that this movie is made up of volunteer actors (with the exception of ONE character). I'm not acting expert. I have no acting experience with the exception of plays in my days of school and in church. But I've seen tons of movies made with nothing but paid actors, and that cost LOTS more money to make than did "Fireproof," and I've seen worse acting many times over. Those who played their parts in "Fireproof" actually brought a realism to the feel of the story. Those people seemed to behave like normal, everyday people.
I won't nominate anybody for an award for I'm not expert nor an authority. That was not my intention in watching the movie in the first place. My intention was to receive the message conveyed in the movie, which is the intent of all movies, all music, all books, you name it... conveying a message.... presenting a story.
With divorce as rampant and destructive as it is today (I know, I've gone through one, myself, and have watched the wake of destruction it left in the lives of MY innocent children who were the innocent victims), a movie like this is HUGE and it can make a difference in the world in which we live and early indications are that it is already making a big, big difference... to people who profess to be Christians as well as those who don't.
You are probably a very intelligent person. Delve deeper into what Christianity is truly all about. I feel complete peace in knowing that if you really search for the answers to your questions, you WILL find them.
I agree with christova when they say:
"If you are a true Christian, in your life and in your marriage, then why do you need a schlock movie like this to help you with your marital problems? Shouldn’t your faith and belief in Jesus"
and also when they say:
"Those who criticize this film do so because it belongs on free television due to quality, as do many non-Christian films that are likewise criticized. The fact that the people who watch this crap and tell everyone how it is some kind of Oscar-worthy, life-changing drama is why most people see you Jesus freaks as frightening as the radical Muslims."
Just accept the fact that there are people in this world who can state their honest opinion about this crappy film, and are not influenced by the views of their church or place of worship. The sooner you do this, will be the day that people will have respect for anything you say as individuals. You are not trusted, because you speak as a collective group, and yes this is as scary as radical Islam. After all violence weather bombing an abortion clinic or killing an author that insults Mohammad is still violence. Just because you invoke the name Jesus does not make your actions any less evil.
Us "Jesus freaks" responded to direct attacks not against the movie but against a belief system. People like you make routine nasty remarks and when someone calls you out on it you become quite defensive as well as furthering YOUR OWN preaching of whatever ideology it is you have in your life.
I find YOUR behavior to be the one which is frightening and not trustworthy. Nobody attacked your ideology. Nobody attacked your belief system. You are the one who spews forth the double-speak.
When you launch your attacks against someone's beliefs and somebody replies you try to turn the table and imply it is they who are the zealous ones trying to impose their belief system on someone else.
Anybody who goes to see this life-changing movie willingly and knowingly buys a ticket to do so. Leave them to their choices and leave those who have a belief system that differs from yours to their choices as well.
Bombing an abortion clinic is incredibly unbiblical.
Nothing could be further than that from what most of us Christians believe to be God's will. Please refrain from generalizing all Christians into that extremist activity. I believe you are the one putting Christians in a "collective group."
If someone were scaring anyone away I think it would be your obvious hatred of people simply because they ARE Christians. Thank you for being transparent and letting others see what you're really all about.
I know there is something there, something underlying, which causes you to have these strong feelings toward Christians as you do. Share those thoughts and maybe somebody can offer a word that may change your whole outlook and your entire life.
God is in control of all things. Don't think for a moment that neither I nor you can alter that.
Glad to see your back in action, and heathy,, :)
But, as has been said many times, the message conveyed in this movie is a Christian theme. Marriage, in and within itself, is a covenant created by God.
It's kinda hard to avoid the subject.
:^)
I just wanted to see if these idiots were still trying to out preach each other, instead of talking about this crappy flick. I am amazed that these "fooled again" Christians are still at it. I will check in with movieguys shortly, so I can have the chance of talking about a film worthy of my time. Thank you for your concern, and please know I am feeling a lot better now. I look forward to talking again soon, as I find time.
Having said that, out of all of the movies I've watched over the past year (not a ton but several) "Fireproof" has the most important and most compelling message, especially in the present-day social climate in which divorce has become so rampant and has left such a wake of destruction. I highly, highly recommend it.
From Box Office Guru:
"The faith-based drama Fireproof eased a mere 15% to an estimated $2.7M bumping the cume to a healthy $20.7M. Budgeted at a mere $500,000, the Samuel Goldwyn release has displayed great staying power and could end up with $30M making the Kirk Cameron starrer one of the surprise hits of the year in terms of profitability."
You're either not a very good film critic, Bob, or you just missed on this one. I think your mistake was getting all emotional and subjective, with your almost fetish-like hate for Kirk Cameron and churches.
I know several firemen here in town and have worked with the fire dept. on several projects, and the personalization of the firehouse and action was spot on. Its predictable that non-Christians wouldn't care for it, but then, I wonder how many of those posting here actually saw the movie?
Coming out of the theater, I saw a poster for Sex Drive (Coming Soon!) and it made me realize how trivial and narrow most of our entertainment is. I guess people would rather get off watching mainstream trash than having a lifelong relationship with another human being, or watching a movie about the same.
I'd say some $20 million-plus speaks volumes about who cares about the movie.
People besides you have opinions, son.
I'll never see a nickel of the movie. Why would it matter to me, personally? I'm just happy to see it be successful.
I'm also happy knowing that all three of the movies those guys have made and have fed into bigger and better projects with the success of each one.
:^)
This movie was wonderful. For the first time, probably ever, I was able to watch a movie without being embarrassed by the near-pornographic nature of pretty much everything that's either on TV or at the theater these days. Fireproof was *clean*, was quite funny, was thoughtfully put together, and I thought it simply and clearly communicated the core of Christian faith: that God is the source of love, and through His love we can unselfishly have relationships with those around us.
Forgive all of us who have been poor Christians, put aside your pride, and consider seeing this movie.
OK, sorry to be short but I have to go now. I have some lying, cheating and hating to do. I'm way behind my quota for the day.
Meanwhile, you be sure and continue displaying your hatred of Christians in this open forum as you've done so clearly. Then, continue to reveal just what a hypocrite you are by even daring to point the accusing finger to anyone else.
From the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, verses 1 through 5, King James translation (sometimes I like the eloquence of the language used in the KJV):
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
I do not like this film for the following reasons.
1. The dialogue was poorly constructed and stereotypical
2. While I may have liked the initial concept about saving a failing relationship, I felt the actual execution of the project was poorly rendered via a heavy handed message.
3. The performances (from a mostly novice cast) are laughable, with a few exceptions
4. I take offense (as a former fireman myself) to the way firemen are portrayed on the screen. The firehouse comradry rang false, (and much worse) the professional behavior (such as the removal of an SCBA “Self Contained Breathing Apparatus†and other “leather lung†behaviors (in a fire situation) run counter to basic lessons taught in fire school, as they put other innocent lives at risk. In other words if say a fireman takes off their gear to be a hero and becomes trapped, then that will in turn require one of his fellow firefighters (who uses common sense) to risk their life in a rescue attempt.
5. Kirk Cameron’s laughable and out of character Southern California accent in a land where everyone sounds like a extra from Gone With The Wind.
6. The production values don’t justify the $8 ticket price. The fact is that it just isn’t on the screen, and plays like it belongs on TV as a movie of the week.
Now all of you get off your God dam soap boxes and get on with your lives!! Kirk Cameron is not the messiah (he is just a no talent has been 80's child star), and (no matter how much money the church lays out) this film will never be good. I could give a shit how much money it makes (after all a fool and his money are soon parted) and weather if it was produced by Jews. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or sun worshipers for that matter. The fact is that this is still a crappy film and you people are a bunch of fundamentalist Whacko's who think that you trample on other peoples beliefs because you are somehow superior to everyone else. Like I said before you need to concentrate on other things, if you think a half assed movie of the week is the solution to your problems. Let it go.
The "heavy-handed message" was there by design and anyone who knows who produced the movie knows that is part of the package. It is a church who made it. It is the third such movie they have made, with this one being the biggest thus far.
The movie was made by an almost-complete volunteer cast and crew. Having seen some real winners come out of Hollywood in my time I'd say that this movie had as good or better acting than have many movies that cost way more money and had much higher hopes than what they garnered.
In a day when Hollywood is pulling every rabbit out of a hat that they can to just make ANY movie (remakes and movies about 70's-era TV shows, old-school cartoons, etc.), I found the original storyline to be a very refreshing change.
The movie doesn't rely on a force-feeding of pyrotechnics, gunfight scenes, or spectacularization of some form or another. It has a straight-forward storyline about a real life situation which happens to far-too-many real people, and which is designed to, hopefully, make somebody think twice before they take that big step that is virtually irreversible. For once, a movie that was DESIGNED to help improve the world in which we live.
I have no desire, whatsoever, to trample on anyone's beliefs nor do I have an inkling of thought that I am the least bit superior to ANYONE. Hardly!
I am a sinner, just like you and just like everybody else on this planet.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
We are ALL sinners and we ALL were born into a world in which we are separated from a relationship with God who created us. But God in His immeasurable love paid a debt that we could never pay (that rings well as a very understandable metaphor in this time of financial crisis).
All I ever did was to accept His gift of love and am thankful to have had the opportunity to do so. There is not one thing I can do to work and/or earn His gift of love and forgiveness:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I've done NOTHING to EARN it. It was and is a gift.
OK, I'm going to really switch gears here, because you obviously have watched a ton of movies and you observe movies quite closely.
I have quite a twisted taste in movies, although I don't have a large library of gems of which I can speak.
These are some of my favorite weird/twisted movies:
Pi
Gummo - Yeah, I know... tons of foul language that you have to wade through, and pretty detestable behavior, but the concept behind the movie is very original and it does lift the cover off of a far-too-common way of life that we'd all rather have just left alone.
Requiem for A Dream
Jacob's Ladder
Then a few more "mainstream" but just good ole' movies:
Best In Show
A Mighty Wind
Spinal Tap
Outlaw Josey Wales - I like it because of its historical context; it is almost a verbatim history of Jesse James. The very first DVD I ever bought.
The Princess Bride - Excellent, cute, wholesome story; well done.
The Gods Must Be Crazy - A very cute low-budget classic.
What did you think of the ending to
Jacob's Ladder??
Also have you seen Artifical Intelligence, and what are your thoughts on the ending of that film???
And, yes, I did see Artificial Intelligence... only once and a long time ago. To be honest, that movie bothered me. That "boy" had gone there with the hope of being turned into a real boy and he waited and waited and waited, etc., until a doggone ice age had come.
Interesting to think what the species that found him must have thought had been our civilization, eh?
Oh, and I forgot to mention "Memento" as a favorite.
(Jacobs Ladder) was a very spiritual film...
The entire film was the minds eye vision of Jacobs future life he would never see, as he lay dying in a Vietnam MASH hospital....
At the end he went into the light.......
^
(Artificial intelligence), was also a very spiritual film....
When David (the android) was activated to love, he became the first mecha to experience that programming.
That same programming lived on past its "Creator" mankind..... and spawned a new cybernetic LIFE FORM.... That life form are the "alien creatures" you saw at the end of A.I. Mankind was there GOD and they were looking thru the remains of Eden.
Just something to think about. ;-)
Those are all great films, and I am especially fond of A Mighty Wind, and Best Of Show, as they seem to be reminiscent of Robert Altman's Nashville, and an early 1970's film starring Dick Van dyke and another great ensamble cast called "Cold Turkey" which was about a entire town that quits smoking for one year.
"The God's Must be Crazy" is another great choice. Independent film is a wonderful venue for great films, and I find it to be much more creative than a lot of Hollywood blockbusters. What I said earlier about Fireproof is my opinion based on the quality of the film, and for me to enjoy a film it must stand up on its own merits. The defense I hear about this movie seems to be all centered around how and why it was created and also the amount of money it has made. While I think the team effort of its back story is admirable, I think that the quality of the end project does not live up to the hype. (Its just not up there on the screen)
I think you do have great taste in film, and I am happy to be talking about movies for a change ;however, I don't like it when this type of thread is used as a venue to prosthelatize about a persons religion. I have always believed that this is a private matter, and if a person wants to talk to me about it in person then that's fine ;however, for a person to presume its OK (just because we are on-line) to assume that they know me and that it is somehow an OK opportunity to convert me (when all I want is to talk about a movie) is very insulting.
I loved the concept behind Jacob's Ladder, in that it made me really think about the possibility that maybe we are all already dead, and we are simply going through the review of our lives that many people say takes place just before we die. Anyway I thought it was a great film, and wish it had received more recognition.
I have not seen AI as of yet, as I have heard many mixed reviews. The concept behind it seems interesting, but I have been watching a lot of classic John Wayne as of late, (I watched The Quiet Man and Hell fighter's this weekend) but I might give it a try when find a good film to pair it with. I was thinking of watching a distopic film with Don Johnson called A Boy and His Dog soon (Jason Robards is funnier than hell as the dogs voice) so maybe I will try it with that.
My thought on Jacob's Ladder was that his life was passing before his eyes as he lay there dying, rather than a future he never had. It has been a while since I've seen it. I'll have to watch it again and do so with your description in mind. Very interesting.
Yes, what bothered me about Artificial Intelligence was the fact that people, out of convenience and self-desire, had created these androids to fulfill a void or a desire in their life. Then, when they found it wasn't exactly what they thought it would be like they'd just try to get rid of them... kick'em to the curb, so to speak. Watching David act simply as he was programmed to act and seeing him beg his "mom" to not leave him out in the woods broke my heart. It seemed too real.
Knowing that there are real people in this world who DO experience that level of abandonment and then they DO muster up the hope that he did when he went to find the ... was it the Blue Fairy?.... and sat in front of her and waited and waited... that was very gripping. I couldn't stand watching it.
I figured that at the end it was just some form of extraterrestrial life who had come to earth into the far distant future and found him frozen. Your description is pretty interesting, though. Thank you for sharing that with me.
:^)
I respect Christians but you guys have to realise that the scripture sounds "preachy" to some,,, when you quote scripture, believe me it dosnt help.
I'm all for freedom of film let's all just chill out and understand that were all diffferent.
790 ,,,, ?
Those were wise words, I couldn't agree with you any more.
There's so much crap going on with the world we should all be greatfull we can even have this discussion.
The folks at /Film are to be commended for allowing this.......
I have major respect for /Film.....
That is the beauty of life. We all get to choose.
As far as how my choice of Christianity can be paralleled with my perception of the vague ending of a movie... well, I'll let that one be.
"Preachy" scripture... Thing is, the Bible is what it is. I don't know of an older book in existence. It is filled with great wisdom that has withstood the test of time. Nothing we can do to change that.
When I get the opportunity I will check out Jacob's Ladder and A.I. again and keep your perceived endings in mind. Thanks for the info.
This is way the LONG conversation turned to much more than the movie's technical merits--because Bob decided to preach.
Sorry.
I guess my point was that I agree there is a creator, I just don't think he's the judging type that punishes you if you've sinned.
Take care!
I heard it best said this past Sunday at church. Our pastor has been presenting a series he calls "Spent." He's focusing on the present financial crisis and choices we've made that have gotten so many people in deep unsecured debt, how we're spent financially, emotionally, physically, chasing after meaningless things. He used a very good quote from a fellow named Dave Ramsey which says, "Prosperity is having the money to do God's will in your life." So many Christian people have gotten themselves so strapped in debt that they can't even help others who need help. So sad.
But then at the end of his message he said, "God paid a debt for you that you could never have paid. John 3:16 says, 'For God so loved the world that He gave....' He GAVE so that you and I could have an eternal relationship with Him. He gave..."
I thought that was such an awesome way to present that message.
There are many questions which I can't answer nor can anyone. The Bible DOES speak of judgment that WILL come. The Bible speaks of the fallen angel, Lucifer, who tried to elevate himself to the level of God, who created him as well. I certainly don't subscribe to the method of "fearing" anyone into believing (that just does NOT work and is NOT right to do so). But there is certainly a judgment of which we are told and I don't think that we can ignore it.
Life always gives us consequences for bad decisions... bad choices that we make. We DO have consequences for our choices even when we are believers. Even though consequences are made clear to us and even though we KNOW we will sin, God gives us example after example of how He forgives and how He loves us and like the story of the prodigal son in the Bible, He waits with open arms for His child, His creation, to come home. The story says the father gave the wayward son the best robe he had, killed the fatted calf to feed him and celebrate his return, and the ultimate... he gave him the family seal.
I say that God is all about love and He wants nothing more than for us to not choose consequences and assured judgment. It is OUR choice.
You've got the right idea, 790. But, like in all phases of life, there really are consequences for things we do wrong. But we don't have to choose that route. God gives us an option.
"Fireproof" will begin it's 5th week in my local theater--still 4 showings a day. The Express, for comparison, is down to 2 shows a day.
Box office speaks. "Fireproof" is a tremendous success, and so is "The Love Dare" book, #1 on the NY Times Bestseller List last week for paper advice.
Whacko's
Whacko's
You know and I know that the box office success is nothing to do with the actual dollars but is the millions of people it represents who have seen it. There is no denying the powerful, impacting message it presents.
Just think about how many marriages might be saved because somebody saw this movie and it changed their view on love and their view on life and, in turn, changed their life?
How many movies have you read about in recent years where people came out in droves to tell what an enormous change it has made in their life?
I'd say that is the measure of a good movie.
Regarding marriages being saved: Get real this is a movie and for you to say that its message will save relationships is bullshit. This is equivalent to selling snake oil medicine, or a politician making promises they cannot keep.
$20 million at the box office simply means that ? million watched it and were exposed to the message within. THAT is what people are happy about.
Patrons of the film are "chosen ones?" I haven't heard that one before.
Has anyone yet coined the term, "Christianphobia?" Seems like it might be a valid term.
You can lead a fundamentalist to knowledge, but you can't make him/her think (at least not for themselves)
Prai$e JE$U$
Ecclesiastes 5:7 "Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore stand in awe of God."
John 1:1-11 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him."
I can almost feel--and certainly sense--the pain, annoyance, and conflict you no doubt are experiencing. Your misery index must be in the red, ready-to-boil, zone since all the following are current reality:
-- "Fireproof," that (in your opinion) sorry schlock "movie" made by money-grabbing preachers and starring Grade-D, fame-whore "actor" Kirk Cameron, is still hanging around, gaining screens each week and racking up $$, all while preaching about Jesus and his exclusive claims to salvation and God. This, despite the fact that you claim to believe in a "Christian God." You're conflicted, Bob.
-- "Whacko" fundamentalist Christians, like me, must not only have lots of $$ to pad "Fireproof"'s numbers, but they must have enough change left over to make "The Love Dare"--written by the same money-grabbing Kendricks who used it as a prop tool in the movie--number 1 on the New York Times' Bestseller List two weeks in a row. Then, to top it off, "The Shack," another Christian book, tops the list for its fiction category on the Times' list. In print and on film, these dangerous Christians are making too much progress, and you know this must stop! But how? You're baffled, Bob.
-- Today, your Darwinist priests parading as "scientists" are no closer, than when your discussion on this thread began weeks ago, to providing any scientific evidence for their theories, which you swallow in an unbelievably gigantic leap of faith which dwarfs that which is required of fundamentalist whacko Christians like me.
You're inpatient and irritable, Bob.
-- Whacko Christians like me won't quit reminding you that Jesus loves you as much as He loves them, and He'll remove your misery index if you'll just trust Him with your life. You're loved, Bob.
Oh, and Darren, you are doing a better job eloquating your faith and Jesus' love than myself and many other like-minded Christians. Keep it up. They'll eventually see that love is what it is all about.
I'm about to see and review a movie about the utlimate evil,,, "W"
Peace everyone!
790@movieguys.org
I saw "W" yesterday, and it is an amazing film. I find it interesting in that the it tells the tale of a Christian man who believes he has the God Given right to trample over those that appose him. That has always been the funny thing about many Christian's, in that they don't believe in respecting or protecting the beliefs of anyone, who does not share their own narrow view of the world (as we have seen on this board) All you have to do is Just look how centered these people have been to change my mind, just because I don't like a film or believe in a God that they approve of. Can you imagine if people like this actually manage to have their way with the laws of this country?
I find it funny that MrMoss etc. commented on your earlier dialogue which reads:
"I respect Christians but you guys have to realise that the scripture sounds “preachy†to some,,, when you quote scripture, believe me it dosnt help.
I’m all for freedom of film let’s all just chill out and understand that were all diffferent."
He does this at the same time while praising Darren for throwing scripture my way. Obviously those are words that they think don't apply to them (because they are "Christian"). I thoroughly agree with your statements, and respect most Christians as well. The problem I have is that these people continue to throw unwanted scripture and spiritual advice at me when I have been very clear about how I find this to be very insulting. I am tired of all of this, but I am not going to back down either. With that said I hope you enjoy "W" which I think was a surprisingly even handed film. I was a bit nervous with Stone at the helm (especially after Nixon) but this film plays well. Brolen does a great Job as Bush and Richard Dryfus does an scary and almost uncanny Dick Chaney. I am not going to say the film was perfect, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. Once again, I look forward to seeing you on Movieguys.com soon.
Matthew 7:15-23
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
First things first, I don't understand why you cannot direct your quotes directly to me. Are you afraid of what I am going to say? Believe me, if you are respectful and rational, you will get the same in return.
Second, I can see that you get pretty upset when a Christian gives a kind word to another contributor that you count as "on your side." I give 790 credit for being rational and kind with his/her(?) words. But more importantly, I recall a time in the not too distant past when I felt the EXACT same way that 790 does. Bible scripture meant absolutely SQUAT to me, and no amount of proselytizing could get me to throw any kind of bone to those "whacko" Christians. I was, however, respectful to them as 790 has shown him/herself to be. I applaud that, no matter what faith or belief system anyone has. Believe me, I was the last person you would ever find taking part in "organized religion." I saw it as a cult too. I don't feel like I have to expound on the rest of my story. Just know that I know what it is like to have the thoughts you and many others here have now. I just didn't express it they way you do. And I respect others who do the same as 790.
And in the future, if you have something to say to me, please address me directly. There is nothing more disrespectful.
Thank you, kind sir.
PRAI$E JE$U$ & your enormous ticket sales at the holy box office!!!!!!!
Thanks MrMoss,,,
Oh yeah and I'm a dude... Not a dudette... ;-)
Peace!
That was before Darren, Chuck, etc all. started throwing scripture at me again, and continued to try and "save" me. They simply have no intention of respecting my wishes, and I would much rather have a conversation about something besides this crappy film, and other peoples religion. I will contact you via Movieguys.org soon, as I have enjoyed talking to you ;however, trying to hold a worthwhile and enlightening conversation with these people is impossible as they just want to preach to the choir.
Thanks again & I'll Talk to you soon
Bob
My "W." review is up there if anyone wants to check it out...
Peace!
I sadly rest my case. Thank you for effectively proving my point.
I have posted any scripture that is intended on trying to persuade you toward accepting Christ (although, absolutely, it would be great if you did... not for me, though... just for you).
Just because I've posted words from the Bible it doesn't mean that I am "preaching" at you or anything like that.
Take notice, within yourself, though, that for some odd reason just having God's word in front of you causes a very strong negative reaction.
That isn't normal, regardless of your beliefs.
I am a functioning feminist,(not a radical feminist) wife, mother, grandmother who was not offended by the portrayal of roles or the message in the power of spirituality and, being a Christian-I get it! When your time comes, you'll get it Too! There's enough diversity to make the world go round.
(Now preach to the dam choir)
He (Kirk) was an athiest, he didn't want anything to do with God either. It's not something he dreamed up, trying to make himself better than other people. God really showed himself to Kirk because he prayed and asked God to. He really didn't want anything to do with Him at first, just like many of you.
Undoubtedly, if you give this any thought, you will have lots of questions. there are great websites (in addition to the Bible) that answer questions you may have. www.christiananswers.net www.answersingenesis.org, are two very good ones. You must be careful of some sites, they may lead you astray, some have just enough truth in them to look good, but deviate from the real truth and decieve you. The truth is in the Word of God. Read it and study it and you will find true peace, contentment and joy. BUT, REJECT IT AND YOU'LL BE SORRY FOR ETERNITY. Josh McDowell too was an athiest and set out to prove the Bible a farce. Instead he wrote the book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" showing the inumberable reasons we can believe the Bible. Hundreds of prophecies fulfilled to the T hundreds of years after the prophecy...and so much more! Another great book is called "The Answers Book" by Ken Ham (based on scientists findings), I sell that one on my website www.DinosOnTheArk.com but you can also get it at www.answersingenesis.org, the website I listed above.
I could write and write, telling you how awesome it is to be a Christian, yes there are people who call themselves Christians, but have not really invited God to be part of their lives, and they may seem hypocritical and turn you away from God, but I plead with you not to let them determine your eternity. You are responsible for you! Check out God and the Bible, for yourself, you have nothing to lose, but EVERYTHING to gain! Maybe the reason Christians seem a little pushy is cause we're so excited to let you know how awesome it is... knowing the God of the universe, the One who offers us hope in this world messed up by sin!!! (Another thing to keep in mind is that God created a perfect world, it only got imperfect when sin entered the world, read Genesis 1-11.) This isn't the world God intended for us, but He knew we were going to screw it up, so He offered a plan of redemption. Then, when this world is gone, He will make a new Heaven and Earth (Revelation) for us to live in for eternity. But only if we repent and ask Him to be part of our lives.
Again, so much more I could say...I just pray that you will think, search, read and pray before you make judgments that only make you miserable. Thank you!
What has Christ done to you that would give you a reason to be so terribly bitter toward Him?
That is a very poor representation of Christ. Sorry to see you resort to such to try to smear Christ in such a way.
"The Love Dare," inspired by the movie's key plot device, is still #1 on today's NY Times Best Seller list for paperback advice.
I'm going to see the film again tomorrow. It's been two weeks since the last time.
I have no idea of who you are ;however, I do know I am the original Bob Jones (The poster of the comments pointing out the multiple flaws in this film weeks ago) I spent many years in the United States Air force as a driver crew chief in the fire department, and I take great offense to you implying that somehow
A. that you are me and that I have taken back any of my extensive criticisms of this film (Or)
B. That you Via your moniker (USAF - Re that you somehow have the same qualifications, that I possess.
What I do know is that I have said earlier and so I shall repeat myself once again.
Regarding Fireproof the movie:
I do not like this film for the following reasons.
1. The dialogue was poorly constructed and stereotypical
2. While I may have liked the initial concept about saving a failing relationship, I felt the actual execution of the project was poorly rendered via a heavy handed message.
3. The performances (from a mostly novice cast) are laughable, with a few exceptions
4. I take offense (as a former fireman myself) to the way firemen are portrayed on the screen. The firehouse comradry rang false, (and much worse) the professional
Dear "Fraud" Bob Jones (USAF - Re
I have no idea of who you are ;however, I do know I am the original Bob Jones (The poster of the comments pointing out the multiple flaws in this film weeks ago) I spent many years in the United States Air force as a driver crew chief in the fire department, and I take great offense to you implying that somehow
A. that you are me and that I have taken back any of my extensive criticisms of this film
(Or)
B. That you Via your moniker (USAF - Re that you somehow have the same qualifications, that I possess.
What I do know is what I have said earlier and so I shall repeat myself once again
Regarding Fireproof the movie:
I do not like this film for the following reasons.
1. The dialogue was poorly constructed and stereotypical
2. While I may have liked the initial concept about saving a failing relationship, I felt the actual execution of the project was poorly rendered via a heavy handed message.
3. The performances (from a mostly novice cast) are laughable, with a few exceptions
4. I take offense (as a former fireman myself) to the way firemen are portrayed on the screen. The firehouse comradry rang false, (and much worse) the professional behavior (such as the removal of an SCBA "Self Contained Breathing Apparatus" and other "leather lung" behaviors (in a fire situation) run counter to basic lessons taught in fire school, as they put other innocent lives at risk. In other words if say a fireman takes off their gear to be a hero and becomes trapped, then that will in turn require one of his fellow firefighters (who uses common sense) to risk their life in a rescue attempt.
5. Kirk Cameron's laughable and out of character Southern California accent in a land where everyone sounds like a extra from Gone With The Wind.
6. The production values don't justify the $8 ticket price. The fact is that it just isn't on the screen, and plays like it belongs on TV as a movie of the week.
Finally ( and this is addressed to the Fraud "Bob") I would just like to say that it says a great deal about your so called "religion" that you would have to go to such lengths (as to use a similar name as mine) to try and negate my justified criticism of this poorly made film.
Sincerely
Bob Jones
I am so happy He is truly a changed man. My son noticed and asked what s up with him I told him. He said I see it. Love you Donna
Access your email online and on th