The Evangelical Universalist Forum

'God's Not Dead' Movie

:smiley: Has anyone seen this film?

It was showing in the uk a few months back but I didn’t know. :frowning: It looks really good. One bit in the clip talks of God disowning us if we disown God, which we know is not true :smiley: but other than that, it looks good. :smiley:

I heard it was fantastic. Can’t wait to see it.

I saw the trailer a while back and thought it looked terrible :smiley: I might see it at some point just to see if it was as annoying as I found the trailer

I’ve put an alert on Amazon to let me know when I can order it. :smiley:

I actually liked it, but the atheists I read commenting on it weren’t impressed. Not a surprise, but you know. These atheists didn’t actually counter any of the arguments used against the “evil professor,” and I’d like to have seen their answers to them. I did think the “You deny Him; He’ll deny you” bit was heavy handed. Peter denied Him after all. I’m not minimizing relational sins, but I have a problem with the simplistic presentation of this matter, because kids are going to watch this and think they’ve committed the “unforgivable” sin. As GMac says, no sin is forgivable – all must be destroyed. But there are certain sins that can’t merely be “passed over” and in showing love, destroyed in passing. Some sins really separate us from God, and we need to denounce and actively forsake them. It doesn’t follow we can’t be forgiven when once we’ve fallen prey to such a sin.

Anyway, watch it, Catherine. I’d love to hear what you have to say to it. And I’d be especially interested in what your DH thinks, if he’s willing to watch it and to give you his take on it.

Love, Cindy

My blue ray copy has just arrived today all the way from Amereecah. :stuck_out_tongue: It was annoying that I had to have the blue ray, as it’s only available in region 1. I can hook my lap top up to the telly or watch at my daughter’s as she has a play station. Some of the ladies from church want to come and watch it too, so I’d better get the nibbles and shloer in. Can’t wait. :smiley:

I saw it Catherine. It is wonderful! Very uplifting!

HI Cole, I’m glad you liked it. :smiley: I can’t wait. I’ve rung the ladies and we’re going to watch it round my daughters on Friday night. :stuck_out_tongue:

I saw it and enjoyed it too. I especially liked how it was brought out that the professor wasn’t really an “athiest”; rather, he was an “anti-thiest”! I appreciated the struggle that the student had in standing up for what he believed. It was a little unrealistic though to have all the non-Christians repent and believe. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.

Careful now…don’t give the story away…not seeing it til Friday. :wink: :smiley:

Hey [tag]Sherman[/tag] Is it really unrealistic to have ALL the non Christians repent and believe? :smiley: ALL of them…? :laughing:

Well, the film was very good, but very anti UR, so I’ve been feeling churned up inside. The bit I mentioned in the OP which you can see in the trailer, is where the bearded man speaks about Jesus disowning us if we disown Him. I forgot that this is in the Bible: Matt 10:33. So that’s left me feeling very unsure about what Jesus means here. The other anti UR bit is when someone has to accept Jesus before they die, otherwise it’ll be too late once they’re dead!! That bit doesn’t freak me out, just the Matt 10:33 verse… :confused:

Hi Catherine
That’s a very good point and I would also like someone to give some thoughts on how this saying is reconciled with UR.
I know that Peter denied Jesus three times and yet Jesus did not deny him and yet this verse does state that Jesus WILL deny/disown anyone who disowns Him - so what are we to make of it?

Hi Pilgrim, just as I was posting this I saw your reply. This may makes sense to you:

I’ve found a really interesting reply by ‘Cardinal’ on Tentmaker, that makes sense of this verse: (reply 8) … thew-1033/ :slight_smile:

Wow! That’s a great find Catherine. Thank you for raising the question and thank you again for reference to 'Cardinal’s reply on Tentmaker. If I read him right, he’s saying that the context is about God (the Father) being able to empower the work we are trying to do on earth and whilst we are not being a true reflection of His son, then His Son will not be able to endorse us (and our requests) before the Father. ie the context is not about salvation at all but about our witness to others on earth being endorsed and empowered in heaven??
Have I got it right?

Hi Pilgrim. :smiley: Yes, I think that’s what he means. I’ve been reading the rest of that thread on Tentmaker and Cardinal explains it even better in Reply 25. Here’s a bit of reply 25:

''So as I explained in my first post, denying Him is not a one time finite event in time, but a progressive work of the Spirit in teaching us to choose the good and not the evil. Today I may walk in what I’ve been shown lately (not denying Him), but tomorrow thru the weakness of the flesh, I may give in and not walk in it (denying Him).

He “denies” me to my Father, the same way He denied Jerusalem; He could do no great works there because of their unbelief. Were they cast away forever? No; but for OUR sakes, for a season, until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in.

An evil heart of unbelief is what has to be dealt with in all of us, at many different levels. The progressive work of the Spirit revealing His will to us in all things, is what “uncovers” this heart of unbelief, if we shrink back from walking in what was shown. Blessings…’’

Read all of reply 25 to get the full gist of what he’s saying. :wink:

Possible Spoilers Since this is a discussion about the movie, it must be assumed that one has seen it already. If you haven’t, go see it before engaging in this thread.

Actually, I thought that was kinda of a cop-out on the part of the writers. I find it hard to believe that this professor is representative of all athiests. I don’t believe all athiests are anti-thiests. Some are just genuinely unconvinced in the existence of God. To portray this professor are such suggests that he was most likely at one time a believer in God or at least acknowledged God, though something in the past caused him to disbelieve and become vendictive against a belief in God. In the end, it made the professor wishy-washy, not based on facts, but rather his personal beliefs.

I think it would have been a better movie is the student stuck to facts and not resort to emotional appeal. Afterall, his conclusion is that it was up to the class to "choose’ to believe in God. Nor do I find it realistic that everyone in the class decided right then and there to believe “God is Not Dead”.

On a positive note, I do like the discussion about the Big Bang and comparative beginnings found in Genesis.

I’m not sure there is such a thing as “facts,” nor that we as Christians need to stick to what the scientific crowd would accept as “fact.” You can make a good philosophical argument for monotheism, and a quite good one even for Christianity specifically (and especially Trinitarian Christianity. (See Jason’s Sword to the Heart for an example – linked below all his posts and a free download.) But no atheist (let alone anti-theist) is likely to sit still for that. Besides, it’s pretty dense philosophy and precisely zero of the atheists I’ve encountered are able (or willing?) to follow that sort of thing despite the “fact” that they’re all of genius level intelligence. (Just ask them.) :unamused: But as to actual “facts,” I can’t think of a single thing I could say that would persuade any dedicated atheist. I’ve NEVER seen a situation where an atheist is honest/wise/clever enough to admit that the “evidence of our senses” is purely subjective, even if we all believe we see the same things. Nor even that a thing which cannot be measured on our instruments or at least hinted at by our maths could have other markers for its existence, nor be taken seriously.

Of course, these are the “angry atheists” one typically encounters in the internet. Normal atheists might be reading along, but like the bulk of the normal people on forums, they don’t typically post. (Unlike me! :wink: ) I do think that many people are atheists because they simply cannot believe, and for those people, it might be helpful to engage in a discussion regarding problem scriptures they have questions about (and honestly, most of the time the doctrine of plenary inspiration, infallibility, and literal interpretation are at the core of their problems with the bible.) In order to even gain a hearing with most of them, you will have to disavow hell straight up-front, and even if you do, they’re likely to continue arguing with you as though you DO believe in it (in the way they think you believe in it.)

I’d be interested to hear any factual arguments we could offer to on-line atheists and receive (at least occasionally) a respectful response and an entree into an in-depth discussion. Nothing I’ve tried so far has worked, but I’m always very much open for suggestions. :wink:

There is a big difference between the following two sentences:
“Human beings are comprised of material elements”
“Human beings are comprised of material elements”

The first sentence is factual (but incomplete imo)
The second sentence may be factual, but also may be reductionist.

We are in FACT made up of material ‘stuff’, but to go further and say ‘material stuff and nothing else’ is, I think, unwarranted.

This is where a theist might part company with an atheist - the atheist has a truncated view of reality; the theist accepts material reality - he recognizes the same ‘stuff’ that the atheist does, he recognizes scientific methodology as well as a priori mathematical certainty, etc, - but finds the meaning of that reality to lie OUTSIDE of that reality. Finding that meaning is in fact warranted, justified and rational, but not rationalistic.

In addition, there is little doubt that the rational choice for/against God draws on deeper springs than the rational mind. For instance, a compelling case has been made that many famous atheists have ‘projected’ their experience with bad fathers, absent fathers, cruel fathers - onto the world, and that is the spring of their anti-faith. Yes it is the same type of projection that many famous theists have experienced, but with good, attentive, and loving fathers in their background.

It is tempting to call our intellectual findings completely ‘rational’ but in fact we often are only justifying what lies deepest within us.


There are two people in my life that are ‘ex’ Christians like the professor: my son and my ex husband (who I’m still good friends with). My son is going to watch the film with me, so I’ll let you know how that goes. I’ll also let my ex husband borrow it. He wants to believe again, so he’s half way there anyway. :smiley: