Yet Another Movie That Might Change Your Life ... or At Least Make You Think

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by FriendofGod *
Ah, this explains it. The reason every end times movie will contain something about a one world government has nothing to do with conspiracy theories … it has to do with one thing and one thing only … that the Bible predicts there will be a one world government at the end of time…
[/QUOTE[

Would you mind posting a relevant passage? I do not recall Revelation speaking of the UN taking over the world.

A) I don’t believe that; having read the Bible from cover to cover it doesn’t jibe with it, unless you have one hell of a broad definition of prophecy. In any case, your Bible doesn’t even have all the books in it. :slight_smile: and

B) So what? My point was that the “end times” are an insignificant part of Christian faith, at least AFAIC. Waiting for the “end times” is a mug’s game. I’m betting it won’t happen anytime soon.

62

When you post the one-world government passage, could you post where the Antichrist appears as well? In this thread, it is mentioned by tomndebb that the Antichrist does not appear in Revelation.

That hasn’t stopped people from waiting before.

63

FoG, you conveniently ignored most of my argument, a common tactic of the fundies.

But I’ll respond to your counter.

Anyone who claims to believe in the Bible at all ignores the uncomfortable parts. Liberals do it. Fundies do it. The difference is in what we ignore. Your ilk focuses on the vengeance (judgment, revenge, whatever) first. You preach with threats. You rationalize away those parts of the Bible which challenge your conservativism. (Jesus was a true liberal, for example.) You claim that you’re interested in the grace first, but your message screams Wrath, Doom, Revenge, Hell! (And, oh yeah, grace, you guess.)

The fundie emphasis on Revelation is an emphasis on a marginal part of the Bible that just barely snuck in when the very human Catholic (ie, not-fundie) bishops codified the canon oh so many centuries ago.

But you’ll come back with somethin’, won’t ya? Because you just LOVE hell.

64

While I don’t have time to reply to FoG’s review in full, I’d like to say this:

When I saw “the Rapture,” I thought to myself, “This is a movie that fundamentalist Christians all need to see. Unfortunately, it speaks in metaphors, and they will all dismiss it by saying, ‘They got Christian doctrine all wrong! Those unbelievers just don’t get it!’”

-Ben

65

Yeah! They’re obviously not true Christians! (Funny, though, how what qualifies as the beliefs of “true” Christians seems to vary from individual to individual.)

66

RickJay said:

Sigh … I never said the Bible says that “the UN takes over the world”. Go back and re-read. It says that there will be a unified world government. The reason the UN ends up in end times novels is that it makes sense that they would be the body from which a one world government would come, at least at this point in history. It might not be.

For studying it scripturally, try out Daniel 2:31-45, 2 Thes 2, and Revelation 13.

Regarding the Bible being 28% prophesy, all I can say is it makes perfect sense to me. Jesus spoke all the time about his second coming, there are several OT prophetic books, there’s the book of Revelation and Daniel, etc etc.

Protesilaus said:

Check out Revelation 10 and 17, which speak extensively about the beast who will rule the world. Revelation 19 covers his final destination.

bungie_us said:

It’s on page 437 of the grand right-wing conspiracy manual ;). Seriously, what did I ignore that you so strongly wanted me to comment on? I went back and re-read your original post. To be honest, I thought I’d picked out the one sentence that summed up your argument perfectly (‘revenge first, grace second’).

Here’s another quote from your original post:

Of course there’s a reason for God to one day finally reach the end even of His patience! People are constantly pointing out the awful things that happen in life: wars, disasters, death, disease, suffering, etc etc. “How can God let it go on?” they say. Well the answer is … He won’t let it go on forever. There is a limit. The only reason He allows it at all is to give as many people as possible a chance to come to Him before it’s too late.

As for ‘imposing human frustration’ on God, that’s not it. God’s not ‘frustrated’ at all, He’s sad. He wants every person to come to Him, but only a few will do it.

All I can say is, God being God and all, He can see and feel human history at a detail and scope that none of us can. And He knows what the limit is that He will allow.

On to your new post:

Nope. That’s a rather sweeping claim. For most of my life, I’ve been around leaders who make a concerted effort to preach ‘the whole counsel of God’ over time, ie a little of everything no matter how easy or hard to swallow. That’s how I feel about it myself.

[Quote]
Your ilk focuses on the vengeance (judgment, revenge, whatever) first. You preach with threats … You claim that you’re interested in the grace first, but your message screams Wrath, Doom, Revenge, Hell! (And, oh yeah, grace, you guess.)

[Quote]

Whoa! Who’ve you been listening to pal? I actually very rarely have ever heard preaching with this kind of focus in my entire life. Virtually my whole life, the focus of the preaching I’ve heard has been God’s mercy. Again, since those I’ve sat under try to preach ‘the whole counsel of God’, when they do get to a particularly harsh passage, again, they tend to wish they could skip past it if anything. But they choose not to because you can’t accept one part of the Bible and skip over the harsher parts.

The harshness in your tone tells me that you probably have had an awful experience with either an individual or a church at some point in your life, in which they were overly harsh and were obsessed with God’s judgment. Or maybe not. But either way, why are you feeling so harsh about this topic? What got you to this point?

Ben: okay, so how about your take on the movie?

tracer said:

I assume you’re referring to my review of ‘The Rapture’? The definition of a true Christian might indeed vary from person to person, but it’s not a matter of personal opinion. The Bible defines it quite clearly: someone who loves God with every ounce of his being (Luke 10:25-28) who has been saved by God’s grace and not by works (Eph 2:8-9). There are other legitimate ways to word it and explain it, but there it is in it’s essence. The people in this movie were very “religious” (gag), but did not at all give any evidence that they knew God personally. They were like zombies following a script. If the producer had intended for them to be true believers, they needed to get better actors.

67

F.O.G. Are you Catholic? Are you aware the Catholic Church has reaffirmed it’s doctrine stating the ONLY way to salvation is through the Catholic Church? To quote Pope JP2 “all non-Catholic religions are Gravely Deficient.”

If a nonbeliever wanted to follow Christ what path should we follow? Catholic or gravely deficient Protestantism? What’s your take on it? Could you please prove the validity of your religious beliefs vs. Catholic beliefs.

68

Ben –

Your comment reminds me of the hubbub caused by “The Last Temptation of Christ.” I remember how fundamentalists went nuts over that movie. Blasphemy! Heresy! Talk about completely missing the point! That was one of the most beautiful, sincere and intelligent movies I have ever seen about the subject. I cannot begin to phathom how myopic one must be to slander this movie. I grew up Catholic, and now am “recovering.” :slight_smile: I’m a secular person, best described as agnostic. After seeing that movie, I felt for awhile the fervent passion some people have for Christ, and could understand why people would want to be Christians.

69

I am not Catholic. I will merely refer you back to the last comment I made on my last post about how the Bible defines a Christian. I live by the Bible, not by what any man says. If Billy Graham were to say tomorrow that the ONLY way to salvation is through the Protestant Church, he would be equally wrong.

Whatever the Bible teaches. Christianity has nothing to do with following doctrine or joining a church. It’s all about meeting a Person and loving Him with your whole heart.

Probably not anywhere near to your liking, no. All I can say is: examine the lives of people who live by the Bible, regardless of denomination. They can be Baptist, Catholic, whatever. Look for a transformed life.

pulykammel said (Emphasis mine):

I’m honestly not surprised it was short lived. The Bible says that when the real Jesus touches your life, the fruit will last. I hope that you reconsider your ‘recovery’ (;)) and take a second look at Jesus.

70

(Hey $.02 just won’t cover it!) The problem I have with all Christian themed movies is that they seem to flog the same dead horse over and over again: “Those of you who’ve been good will get to go to Heaven, and those of you who’ve been bad go to Hell.” and there’s really no surprise as to whom is going where. It would be nice to see a Christian movie where all the characters one thought were going to Heaven, DIDN’T! As for those folks who saw the film and said that it converted them to God, how many of them were card carrying atheists before they saw the film? Almost none, I’ll bet. The sad part of all this is that the film won’t inspire many people to do an honest research into its subject matter. Oh, sure, they’ll read The Bible, but what else will they read? Will they read any of the books that cast doubt on some of the commonly held beliefs of Christians? I sincerely doubt it. I’m not saying that those books will cause them to cast off their beliefs, but it might make them rethink their positions on certain issues. How many fundamentalist Christians have read, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” for example. If you really want to delve into Christianity and what it all means, read something other than what you find at the Christian bookstores. Try “Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions” by T.W. Doane, “The Hero With a Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell, “The Messianic Legacy” by Biagent, Lincoln, and Leigh, and “The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife” by Rev. Alexander Hislop. None of these books state categorically that the belief in Christ is wrong (Hislop’s book is rabidly anti-Catholic, but still provides useful information if you can stomach the violent attitude he expouses towards Catholics.), BUT they do state that what is commonly called “Christianity” is NOT what Christ practiced or believed. Read any one of those and you’ll never look at Christianity the same way again. You may even decide that you’re a Christian after all, just that none of the Christian sects happen to agree with you. That’s okay. If God is truly merciful, he’ll take those into His bosom that many Christians would reject.

71

FriendofGod wrote:

Um, Luke 10:25-28 define what one must do to “inherit eternal life.” (That’s the exact wording in both the KJV and the NIV.) Ephesians 2:8-9 defines how one is “saved.” (Again, same word used in both the KJV and NIV.) In neither of these verses is “Christian” defined. In fact, the word “Christian” appears nowhere in any English translation of the Bible that I know of.

Also, if you want to pick nits, in Luke 10:25-28, Jesus doesn’t actually come out and say that loving God will grant one eternal life. A student asks him what he must do to gain eternal life, Jesus asks him what the Law says, the student replies that the Law says to love God (and, for that matter, your neighbor), and Jesus replies with, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.” Just “you will live.” NOT “you will inherit eternal life.” The Jesus presented in Luke was an absolute master of the fine print.

72

Unless, of course, they’re gay, 'cause we all know you can’t be both.

(Well, at least according to FriendofGod… :rolleyes: )

Esprix

73

Yer darn tootin’, Fog. We all have. It used to be called the Moral Majority. Lately it’s been the Christian Coalition. It includes anyone that supports this End Times tripe. So, warm and friendly as you’re trying to sound, it includes you too.

Sorry. Listen to yourself, then tell me you’re not fixated on Hell and Wrath before all else.

Quick story: my daughter is actively involved in youth ministry in our area. She works on a statewide youth board as what is called the Inclusive Ministry Advocate. At a recent retreat, she shared that she was often ashamed to call herself a Christian. When asked why, she said because of so many people who call themselves Christian and say things like “love the sinner but hate the sin,” but it’s so obvious that all they really want to do is call down wrath and judgment on people who aren’t like them. For most people, she said, a Christian is a person who hates you for being different while saying they love you. They’re two-faced hypocrites.

She’s a smart, insightful girl. And her ministry never includes talk of hell or judgment. Doesn’t need to.

74

Monty said, on a previous thread:

Of course they aren’t all Christians! Why would you think they would be?

(There, was that worth waiting for? ;))

Back to this thread,
Tuckerfan said … a lot! (Like you said, $1.95 worth!) Here’s a key section I want to comment on:

Very interesting quote! Tuckerfan, this may blow your mind, but you’ve either missed the main point of Christian movies, or they are really that bad at getting the point across! There isn’t a single Christian movie with the theme, ‘Those who’ve been good go to heaven, those who’ve been bad go to Hell’. The message is: ‘ALL of us are bad and deserve to go to Hell. Not a one of us is good enough to deserve heaven. Only through Jesus’ sacrifice can we enter heaven.’

Also … you said it’d be nice to see a Christian movie where someone you thought would go to heaven DIDNT. Well, interestingly enough, Left Behind is a movie like that. There is one character who is a pastor of a church who doesn’t get taken in the rapture.

tracer said:

We are so used to year 2001 American society and our phrases, that we forget that ‘Christian’ wasn’t always the term used to describe Christians. The Bible makes it clear when this began (emphasis mine):

So the word ‘Christian’ wouldn’t have been used in any earlier passages. Interestingly, most scholars believe that ‘Christian’ was a derisive term, and Christians took it as a badge of honor. Today new derisive terms are used (‘religious fanatic’, etc).

As for ‘picking nits’ as you said on what Jesus said, what do you think he meant by ‘you will live’? If someone asked me ‘How do you get to heaven?’, and …

I asked them what they thought, and …
they gave the right answer, and…
I said ‘Yep. If you believe that, you’re right with God’ …
is there any doubt that I am answering the original question using different wording?

bungie_us said:

Wow. I am genuinely sorry you feel that way. You made some rather sweeping and dramatic judgmental statements and presumptions in the above comments. Why are you so convinced of this? I am really interested. Are the only believers you’ve met (besides your daughter) people who believe in Hell and the End Times and that are fixated on it? Do you honestly believe that anyone who acknowledges the existence of Hell and believes in the End Times are by definition fixated on that aspect of Christian doctrine?

Now that is something I’ve seen at least a couple of times in my life. And it is a blight on Christianity when a believer (or so-called believer) thinks he is justified in attacking someone for a sinful lifestyle. It is the exact opposite of the ministry Jesus had. It’s interesting that even non-Christians can take the Bible and use it as an excuse to attack people who are in sin with nasty names. It’s almost like, “I’m not as bad as you are!”

But my point is: at best you are simply ignorant of how Christians live if you think many or even most believers think in that way.

75

Been there.
Done that.
Got the T-shirt.
Right, FoG? :slight_smile:

76

It truly amazes me that you had to be coerced, over a long time, to admit your belief. This is where what you called my insults (which were not such) came into play. {See below.}

It also truly amazes me that you are judging other Christians as to the validity of their Christian belief. But, hey, since they just ain’t Christian, then you can just flat out not apply the Biblical teachings to your actions towards them, right? Except for that little bitty fact that the Bible did not append “Christians” to “Judge not.”

Of course I think they’re all Christians; heck, I even believe you’re Christian…because you state that you are such and that you believe (so you say) in the Christ of the New Testament.

What we have here, folks, is the one, real, honest, and true reason that FoG feels that Christians in the United States are a minority. That reason being that the vast majority of Christians, obviously, just ain’t Christian!

FTR: I asked FoG if he was a member of the Church of the Nine Commandments* or the Church of the Eight Commandments**.

*(a) Those who don’t believe in following the commandment against bearing false witness.

**(b) Those who don’t believe in following the commandment against using the Lord’s Name in vain.

Since FoG has shown by his repeated assertions, in the face of direct and reliable evidence to the contrary, that Christians are not persecuted nor a minority in this land, he obviously belongs to (a).

Since FoG is bolstering his false argument under the moniker of FriendofGod, he obviously belongs to (b) as well.

I leave it to the Teeming Millions to decide what © would be for those who append “Christian” to “Judge not.”

Also FTR: Saint Paul wrote to some folks whose actions he obviously found pretty atrocious and sinful, yet he considered them to be Christians. I guess (d) is those who call themselves Christians and yet don’t read the New Testament.

Good grief!

77

By “validity of their Christian belief,” I mean: Validity of one’s belief that one is Christian."

78

Drat! Made one typo. Make:

to read:

79

FriendofGod wrote:

Huh. I’ll be darned.

I had to do a word-search on “Christians” over at http://bible.gospelcom.net to find what book, chapter, and verse you were referring to, but there it is. Acts 11:26. Plain as day. The word “Christians” really is in the Bible. And in fact, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16 both contain the word “Christian” in the singular.

Considering the persecution complex that a lot of Christians seem to have, I wouldn’t be surprised if “Christian” were originally used as a completely non-derisive, descriptive term, which the early Christians assumed was derisive because it allowed people to talk about them as a group.

When a used car salesman says that the vehicle he’s showing you can accelerate from “zero to 60 mph in 3 seconds”, he is telling the truth. Any car can accelerate from a standstill to 60 mph in 3 seconds flat – if you push it off a cliff. But say you didn’t think of that, and you buy said car on the basis of this “60 mph in 3 seconds” sales pitch. You then take it out onto a flat highway and discover that it takes 10 seconds, at full throttle, for the car to reach 60 mph. Can you demand a refund, or get restitution, on the basis of false advertising?

When Jesus said “Do this and you will live” in Luke 10:28, he was telling the truth. Everybody lives. For a while. If you fail to gain everlasting life, even if you follow the edicts of Luke 10:26-27, can you sue for false advertising?

80

Amen, brother! My mom thinks he’s just it. Ick.