Evan Almighty
June 15th, 2007Tim Challies writes about why he won’t be watching Evan Almighty.
And when people walk away from Evan Almighty they will not love God more. I don’t think they will have a greater understanding of the Bible. In fact, I suspect they’ll see the biblical story of the flood as being as fictional as this movie–a quaint plot but completely unrealistic and implausible. Mere fiction. This movie will not and cannot bring anyone closer to God. Rather, it will necessarily project a false image of God, a false understanding of Him. And we’re being told to watch this, to enjoy this, and to bring our families to see it so they can laugh with us.
No thanks.
I didn’t want to say anything until I read Challies’ post in full. You know, to get the context. See, I wouldn’t want to pass judgment on something until I actually interacted with it. What do you think? Is that a good policy? Anyway, I know Tim C. is a good guy. I met him briefly at DG 06. In fact I corresponded with him today via email. Good guy. But waaaay off base here in my opinion. In fact, I think this may be the worst interactions with a film I have ever read - and I have read some stuff by Kelly Boggs!
Instead of writing a weak, pre-release, unreview, I would prefer a real interaction with the ideas and story of the film - how they reflect or contradict what we know to be real, or true. This is yet another example of why the world will not take us seriously. Because we do not take them seriously. Why would they listen to us, when we wont listen to them? Why should they hear our story, The Story of all stories, if we will only condemn their artistic expressions without real consideration?
Joe,
Thanks for the input. I see the value of your approach, and wonder how bad the movie could possibly be — since it’s only rated PG. (Not that movie ratings are always a true indicator of how objectionable a movie is. See below.) I, too, would have preferred to read a reliable review from someone who had seen the movie. But given Tim’s stature in the blogosphere, I thought his post was worth mentioning and discussing
It does raise a question, however. Where should Christians draw the line on what movies they go to see? Some people object to any movies that are rated R, but I think that’s overly simplistic.
Missed you in San Antonio. You weren’t there to hear the motion from the dude who wanted LifeWay to stop selling allegories and fables, like “The Chronicles of Narnia,” that are forbidden in Scripture. I about fell out of my chair laughing.
Well, I would urge you guys to pray about these issues, but urging you to do anything, no matter how biblical, may be interfering with your personal autonomy. (reason Ascol’s resolution was trashed by the convention)
I’m not sure how to read Klay, but you are urging to do something I am already doing - particularly as it relates to engaging culture and art. So I will take it to mean “excel still more.”
Tim, I do think there are lines that each man must draw in accord with the Bible (where it speaks) and his conscience (where it does not).
Challies has a right to his opinion, and I definitely respect his willingness to put it out there for the rest of us. I think his point about the way that this and other films are marketed to Christians is spot-on.
However, one thing I like about Challies is his willingness to interact with all different kinds of books, thoroughly review them, and sort out the good from the bad. I wish he would of applied that standard to this movie.
Joe, your first comment was spot on. I think this quote (and Challies full post) are way off.
I think Challies’ non-review is an example of how we, under the guise of discernment, can avoid interacting with the culture on their ground and therefore fail to impact the culture. His take on Bruce Almighty (which he also hasn’t seen) is also wrong, just as one of his commenters makes clear.
It’s no wonder we aren’t known for our good judgment, but judgmentalism.
“I suspect they’ll see the biblical story of the flood as being as fictional…”
Rightly so! I mean, talking donkeys and snakes, women from ribs and men from dust, virgin births, the dead coming back to life, the sun stopping in the sky… sheesh! Who would believe this stuff unless they were indoctrinated into it? If people do believe it, why? It makes no sense.
I wonder what would happend if somebody made a film parodying something out of the Koran? Lots of laughs would ensue, I’m sure.
…it will necessarily project a false image of God, a false understanding of Him.
Why pick on they movie? This is done more so by many preachers in pulpits every Sunday, communicating that God is a vengeful, mean God who is going to “get them gays and liberals.” This extremely conservative stream of “Christianity” is completely losing its voice to speak into the world and make a difference. They have become a sub-culture. Why not make light of and laugh at a Bible story every now and then? May we use it as a conversation starter to dialogue about the real God, and the real story.
And, for the record, I loved Bruce Almightly. I thought it made some fantastic points (though it cetainly had it’s faults, but when you find a movie that deals with spirituality without its faults, give me a call).
Nick, God is not “vengeful and mean” but He most certainly is “vengeful and just”.
(Romans 12:19 NASB) “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.”
(Ephesians 5:6 NASB) “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB) “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”
(John 3:36 NASB) “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
This is the “real God” revealed in Scripture.
LOL
Well, Klay, I certainly wasn’t quoting you or anything, but it appears I hit a nerve.
Those verses certainly are true. But, I would argue, the world doesn;t need more spit fire preachers spewing judgment at them. it needs people to love them.
In addition, we see Jesus give his harshest rebuke to the most religious folks of the day, the you’s and me’s of today. Those who were outcasts of the religious society he loved and accepted. I dont see much acceptance in the churches I was referring to earlier.
This is the “real God” revealed in Scripture
Oh, okay. so I guess all that “Prince of Peace” stuff was a hoax.
Nick, I think you have “type-casted” me wrongly. The church I pastor ministers to persons who have and some who still are struggling with the homosexual lifestyle. And I receive them just as Christ would receive any repentant sinner, including you and me. However, the most loving thing I can do is to speak truthfully about God’s revelation.
I’m not sure what Wisconsin is like, but here in South Florida we have plenty of diversity, including the homosexual MCC church 2 miles down the street. Two blocks away is the UCC congregation publicly recruiting unrepentant homosexuals. Twenty miles south is the AIDS & Homosexual Capital of the Eastern US (Ft. Lauderdale). Like I said, the most loving thing I can do is to speak clearly and truthfully about God’s revelation.
Christ indeed spoke most harshly to the “religious elite” of his day - because their self-righteousness resulted in pride rather than brokenness and repentance. “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” However, he lauded John the Baptist who certainly told the truth loudly and clearly - yet with a personal sense of brokenness and all motivated by a Holy love. Sadly, you must not know what this looks like. I am sorry for that.
No, there was no “nerve” touched. My concern was your apparent rejection of the righteous wrath of God towards human sin. Apart from an understanding of God’s justice, you simply will never fully apprehend the power, love, or depth of the Cross. True love becomes an empty clique when the reality of wrath is rejected.
Your mockery of the “Prince of Peace” shows an unbalance in your thinking. Peace only comes to those who are reconciled to God through the blood-atonement and imputed-righteousness of Christ.
(Romans 5:9-10 NASB) “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”
Hope this helps clarify.
Klay,
My last comment was a bit rude. My apologies. I take that last statement back.
Thank you, my brother. May God’s grace richly enfold you!
Klay,
I may have typecasted you wrongly, though I didn’t mean to. None of my comments had you in mine when I wrote them, except that last statement in my last post, which I took back.
I was referring to, as I said, some of the uber-conservatives who feel that shouting the hellfire and brimestone message on street corners is helpful to the Gospel. I dont think that is you. I think we need to be great lovers, before we are great judgers. The outcasts I am referring to loving are those who are broken…who feel unloved and unwanted. I am not necesarily referring to the prideful self righteous opponents of the gospel. though, I would still argue that the hellfire message does not help them either. even to these people, I think love, dialogue, sharing what we have in common etc. goes a lot farther than judgement.
Jesus was certainly peaceful to those who were not “saved by His life,” so you cant say that the Prince of Peace label only applies to Christians. Jesus was even peaceful to the Roman soldiers who were crucufying him.
Again, if I made any personal attacks, I apologize. I didnt intend for this to degenerate to condescending banter, though it seems it has.
Nick
After reading the last few posts, all I can say is, “Huh?” I’m not sure exactly what you guys are arguing about, but I am fascinated!
I once heard a drama minister at church say that it’s almost imposible to put deity on a stage and not offend virually everyone. I think that any movie that portrays God is going to fall woefully short of the reality. Folks are offended when real flesh and blood are wrapped around God. Hmmm.
Anyway, I agree with Joe completely, we can’t expect the world to take us seriously when we won’t even engage ourselves in the converstion. It’s like the world came calling and we hung up at “hello.”
Guys,
What is good about the movie? Challies has been criticized for not watching the movie first, but what would have been the profit for him to watch the movie? It seems to me that this movie is the very essence of taking the name of the Lord in vain.
Lets not make the mistake of projecting the image of some whacked out far right pastor onto anyone who has criticism for a movie. I think that Challies has a legitimate concern about this movie. It is not just that this movie does nothing to advance the Kingdom of God, but I think that this movie does damage to the Kingdom of God.
Whatever the case, I have a terrible feeling most of the jokes will be funny because: “Oh, because he’s Noah.” and “Oh yeah, it’s Noah’s Ark.”
Oh that’s right. We can’t laugh at anything in the Bible because folks might actually think we have a sense of humor. Please people. Can’t anyone see how Jesus used humor in his teaching? What’s funnier than a guy trying to take a speck out of someone elses eye when he has a log in his own eye. I’m afraid that Challies wouldn’t go hear Jesus speak for fear that he would be too….well…funny.
Joel,
Do you hear how incredibly negative you are being. Apparently this has hit quite a sore spot with you. You just said that Challies wouldn’t go hear Jesus speak because he had criticism for “Evan Almighty.” What bothers me is that you didn’t even deal with the biblical issue at hand.
Does this movie square up with the 2 commandment? It does not matter what the world thinks of us, and our sense of humor is not the issue. We must strive to be biblical, and if you can biblically justify seeing this movie then fine.
Stand by your position from a biblical perspective. Don’t shoot arrows at someone who has been very faithful in the past (and is not here to defend himself). My guess is that, given the opportunity, Challies would love to hear Jesus teach.
As I look at the church in America today I can’t help but think that the world thinking we don’t have a sense of humor is not high on our list of problems.
Christianity in America has become obsessed with laughter. Our churches need fewer funny boys in the pulpits and more men who feel the weightiness of our message and the seriousness of God’s holiness and human sin.
Count me among those who won’t be going to see this movie.
Hey Marty, let’s NOT go see this movie together!
It’s a deal. I’ll buy the popcorn.
The verse that keeps coming to my mind when I think about this movie is Genesis 19:14. Lot was warning his sons-in-law of the coming destruction of Sodom, but to them he seemed to be joking.
Whether it’s Sodom and Gomorrah or the flood of Noah’s day or the judgment at the end of the world, the world will always laugh at the idea of God judging the wicked.
There is something flawed about a movie which portrays God as a human being not named Jesus (of course Hollywood is entitled to make whatever blasphemies they can think of, they of course, will have to answer to God later on)
What is more messed up is the way believers throw discernment to the wind and fall over themselves to endorse any movie with biblical themes.
And Laz that’s what’s happening. I receive this weekly Christian Bible Studies e-mail and this week it was a message asking me to “Go watch the trailer now! In theaters on (date)!”
They are totally marketing it to Christians.
I’d like to ask how young earth creationists can think the story of Noah is true?
Answers in Genesis calculates Noah’s flood happened in 2304 BC. That’s 4,311 years ago (2304 + 2007).
In China, a very old civilization, they just celebrated their new year 4,704. The math does not add up. Christians, please give this some thought.
Give what some thought? That because AiG might or might not have the date right, that means that the story of Noah didn’t happen?
China might be a very old civ but I thought Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization, were not the first cities from that region?
Most experts agree that any attempt to date the flood or the events preceding it is tentative at best. Just because AIG says it happened in 2304 BC doesn’t mean all Christians and biblical scholars agree with that. In fact, they don’t.
And just because there is no consensus about the dating of the flood, doesn’t mean that the story of Noah isn’t true.
Evidence for the flood can be found in most ancient cultures, including the Australian aborigines who supposedly were cut off from the world for 100,000 years. Many disparate ancient cultures have a flood story, evidence that it happened. The biblical version has credibility because of the dimensions of the ark, which follow the proportions of a modern ocean liner, the most stable floating device you could ask for.
I’m just looking at math that doesn’t add up. It’s the year 4,704 in China. That only means that’s how old the Chinese calendar is. Their civilization goes back thousands of years before that. And as Laz and Craig pointed out, civilizations in the Mesopotamia, Egypt, Australia, etc. are even older. So, why do they have a continuous history if everyone was wiped out by the flood except Noah (Evan) and his family? Mathematically, something has to give here. If you interpret Noah’s flood literally, you are going to have to make some concessions to reality and move the date of the flood way back. Or, as most Christians who watch “Evan All Mighty”, they will view Noah’s flood as a metaphor.
Cineaste is absolutely correct, well, at least about the math. 4704 is greater than 4311. However, the early Chinese calendar was quasi-based on mythology- not on a solar year. They started their modern calendar from a mythical calendar- not very scientific. It is possible that they are lying about their age.
Don’t you all watch 24? The Chinese cannot be trusted.
I would disagree that “most Christians” see Noah’s ark as a metaphor. Do you have any data to support that conclusion?
Tim, he might not have data but he might have definitely something a lot more convincing, a pre-supposition(s)…
Hi Tim,
I deliberately said most Christians who watch “Evan All Mighty” will view Noah’s flood as a metaphor. You left that part out. What do I base this on? I base it on the sentiment of Tim Challies when he says…
To me, Tim Challies presents a good indication of how religious fundamentalists (”religious fundamentalist” meaning those who take either the Qu’ran or the Bible as the literal truth) will react to “Evan All Mighty.” Basically, they won’t go see “Evan All Mighty.” So, those Christians who do pay to see a spoof about Noah will likely be those who view Noah as a metaphor.
As far as data, I just thought this was interesting…
“Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.”
Source: The Christian paradox:
How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong
That’s 36 million Americans. Now, Tim Challies will be aghast because it shows how ignorant Americans are about the Bible. I’m aghast at how ignorant Americans are about Joan of Arc and history.
I see what you mean, but I’d still disagree with your conclusion. You’ve seen yourself in this thread the disagreement among Christians as to whether the movie is something they’ll watch (and those here who have supported it would disagree that the story is a metaphor). I’d still say that of those Christians who will see the movie, most of them will not view Noah’s ark as a metaphor.
And I’m aghast at that statistic as well, because it shows how ignorant Americans are about the Bible and how ignorant they are about Joan of Arc and history.
I’m not sure what Tim Challies would think, because he’s Canadian.
“I’d still say that of those Christians who will see the movie, most of them will not view Noah’s ark as a metaphor.”
You might be right about that. I guess it depends on how representative your blog readership is of Christians and movie goers. Personally, I’ll wait for “Evan All Mighty” to reach cable. I do take Noah’s flood as a metaphor.
A question about Christianity if I may; do you consider Christians who take Genesis, Noah’s flood, etc. as metaphor, Christians at all? I think there are some Christians who don’t allow any metaphorical interpretations of scripture which makes it exceedingly difficult to nail down just what “Christian” even means anymore. Which Christians should I believe about other Christians? Your answer will help me ascertain if we are comparing “apples to apples” when we use the word “Christian.” I view Christians as anyone who thinks of themselves as a Christian. This includes Mormons, theistic evolutionists, etc. So, if we use my broad definition for Christians for those paying to see “Evan All Mighty,” I think I’m on safe ground thinking that most view Noah’s flood as a metaphor.
Cineaste,
Anyone who believes in the atoning work of the Christ of the Bible and have placed their faith in His redemptive work on the Cross in such a way as to wrought good works, they are a Christian. Of course, this presupposes God’s efficacious calling and the depositing of the Holy Spirit.
So, this would not require doctrinal exactness when it comes to Genesis’ flood narrative. Although it would exclude those who do not hold faith in the Christ of the Bible such as Mormons, Jehovah Witnessess, or others who hold up a different Jesus than that given in Scripture.
j razz
Who are you to tell them they aren’t real Christians?
Who are you to tell them they aren’t real Christians?
I am not saying they are not real Christians, I am saying they are not Christians period. Either you are a Christian or you are not. There is no need to distinguish with descriptive adjectives. Who am I to say that? Nobody. So how can I say that? Simple, scripture says it. If you want to know what constitutes a Christian, look at what scripture says constitutes a Christian. It is very plain to see that Mormons and Jehovah Witnessess do not align themselves with the Christ of Scripture.
j razz
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses believe in Jesus. Isn’t that what makes them Christians? Why is your interpretation of scripture anymore valid than theirs?
Cineaste,
Read this and once you finish then come back and we can discuss this matter further.
Now, just to answer your question in short, it is not about interpretation, it is about what scripture plainly says; I think you will see this more fully if you read what I linked to above.
j razz
Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in Jesus, in that he was a historical figure, but they don’t believe Jesus, what he said about and claimed for himself (with the testimony of the Father and Spirit.) Mormonism and JW both have roots in ancient heresies, Arianism and Gnosticism, with a touch of 16th century Socinianism. Doctrine that has already been weighed against scripture and decided by the apostles and ancient Church need not be decided again.
j razz, I read the paper. It really didn’t answer my questions. I guess what you are trying to communicate is what makes one a Christian is not belief in Jesus, rather it’s HOW they believe in Jesus. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. don’t believe in Jesus in the right way. According to the paper, in order for Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. to be Christians, they have to be Protestants. Do you consider Catholics as non-Christians because they believe salvation comes via baptism instead of accepting Jesus as savior like Protestants?
Cineaste,
If you read the paper, you would have seen very clearly what seperates a Christian from a Mormon. It is not about HOW we believe in Jesus, but in what Jesus do we believe. That is the crux.
As for your statement above: Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. don’t believe in Jesus in the right way.
I don’t know where you got that from. It is not that they don’t believe in the right way as if there is some sort of theorem to believing, it is that they do not believe in the Jesus as set forth in Scripture. It is not how one believes, but in whom that belief is placed.
According to the paper, in order for Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. to be Christians, they have to be Protestants.
I see how you might have come to that conclusion seeing that you do not understand Christian doctrine and that the paper was written with a protestant slant. It is not that they have to become protestant, it is that they have to …[believe] in the atoning work of the Christ of the Bible and have placed their faith in His redemptive work on the Cross in such a way as to wrought good works… Of course, this presupposes God’s efficacious calling and the depositing of the Holy Spirit.
To answer your question about Catholics, if they efficaciously believe in what I have typed and quoted above, then they can and should be classified as a Christian.
j razz
“…it is that they do not believe in the Jesus as set forth in Scripture. It is not how one believes, but in whom that belief is placed.”
So, when a Mormon or JW says to you that you should believe in Jesus, you should reply that they themselves don’t believe in Jesus. Interesting. Would they say the same thing about your beliefs or would they say that they themselves are not really Christians but you really are? Why do they even consider themselves Christians when obviously they don’t believe in Jesus “as set forth in scripture?”
“…if they (Catholics) efficaciously believe in what I have typed and quoted above, then they can and should be classified as a Christian.”
I don’t think they do. What you typed is, according to religionfacts.com, what Protestants believe, not Catholics. Isn’t that why Martin Luther “protested” against the Catholic church? Therefore, under your stated terms, Catholics are not really Christians. I find that interesting considering Protestantism came from Catholicism. Aren’t Catholics the original Christians and all denominations who came after simply variants of the original Christianity? I’m trying to understand the big picture of what it means to be a Christian because it seems your definition excludes those who don’t agree with the Protestant interpretation of what scripture actually says.
this movie was truly moving to me and my kids, they got a simple yet powerful story from it, and it was biblical, it made my heart swell from the simple truth and love from God
if you want a good clean ,funny, warm and wholesome movie to take your family or date to GO SEE IT!
I’m trying to understand the big picture of what it means to be a Christian…
I would then encourage you to look to scripture and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit. There are plenty of Christian Doctrine books out there that are written by men who could offer up some aide in your quest to understand, but note this: they are not inspired writings but mere interpretations of the texts.
j razz
“I would then encourage you to look to scripture and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit.”
The holy spirit does not speak to me j razz.
Cineaste,
Do you have any empirical evidence to prove to me that He does not speak to you?
Really though, I would ask how you can be so sure that He doesn’t. It could be that you just choose not to hear Him… or in other words, you do not have ears to hear.
Seriously though, if you ever come to a point in your life where these things lie heavy on you and by the grace of God you are open to understanding the bible, I will be more than happy to invest time into dialoguing with you concerning these things. Have a good night Cineaste.
j razz
“Do you have any empirical evidence to prove to me that He does not speak to you? Really though, I would ask how you can be so sure that He doesn’t.”
In all seriousness, the same way I’m sure fairies don’t speak to me. I don’t have empirical evidence against the existence of fairies either.
“It could be that you just choose not to hear Him”
It could also be, God is silent. Why the silence? It could be, God is not there.
“Seriously though, if you ever come to a point in your life where these things lie heavy on you and by the grace of God you are open to understanding the bible, I will be more than happy to invest time into dialoguing with you concerning these things.”
Thank you for that, j razz. I’d still have to decide which religion, let alone which Christian denomination is true, if any. I am a philosophical guy so I’ve been reading a lot of Greek, Enlightenment, and especially, Existentialist literature. In the meantime, I’d like to extend the same courtesy to you. If you ever become skeptical and have questions, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.
Cheers!
Your last post reminded my of a book on my shelf - a Francis Schaeffer trilogy:
The God Who is There
Escape from Reason
He is There and He is Not Silent
I’m going to go back and read these. And Cineaste, no kidding, if you’d read it, I’ll buy it and have amazon ship you out one.
Under the category of “typical fence-straddling”, Christianity Today seems to approve of the movie…
Funny you should mention that review, Jason. Here’s what I wrote in an email I sent to a CT editor on Friday about that very review:
I read Carolyn Arends’ review of Evan Almighty and had some feedback. I’m not going to get into the issue of whether this is a good movie for Christians to see or not. For the record, I have not seen it.
I read a review of the movie by James Dobson, who noted that “My greatest objection to the film is its use of God’s name irreverently in eight or 10 instances, as in ‘Oh my ____.’”
Carolyn, meanwhile, makes no mention of this flippant use of the Lord’s name, even going so far as to say, “It’s actually a bit surprising that it’s rated PG rather than G, given its conscientious avoidance of objectionable content. The only potentially offensive material is the animal poo/bathroom humor typical of Shadyac films …”
As a parent, I’d certainly prefer to see CT in its movie reviews raise the issue of how the name of God is used in a movie. That is certainly offensive material to me, as I think it should be to all Christians. To suggest that a movie should be rated G when God’s name is taken in vain eight or 10 times seems a bit irresponsible for a Christian publication. I’m afraid it’s proof that we are so saturated by this misuse of God’s name in our culture that it doesn’t even bother us anymore, and I think that’s a shame.
“That is certainly offensive material to me, as I think it should be to all Christians.”
If someone thinks something is personally offensive, why is there an expectation OTHERS should also find it personally offensive? I guess what you are really talking about is, blasphemy. Is blasphemy appropriate in a comedy spoof about Noah’s flood? I’d say it’s almost necessary for laughs. Christians should be careful that they don’t take themselves too seriously.
Is blasphemy an appropriate way of criticizing Islam? Yes? How about Christianity? I supported Jyllands-Posten’s blasphemy when they published the Muhammad cartoons. I think blasphemy is part of our right to freedom of speech. The overreaction of Muslims to perceived blasphemy demonstrates they think all people should have the same sensibilities as they do. Christians shouldn’t make the same mistake, even with other Christians. IMO
Cin
Cineaste,
It’s the third of the 10 commandments: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. The use of “Oh my God” is taking God’s name in vain. That’s why it should be offensive to all Christians. This is not a personal preference, but a biblical command.
I understand your objection, Tim. Your objection to Carolyn Arend’s review was “Evan All Mighty” blasphemes by violating commandment number three, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.” Therefore, all Christians should take offense.
When Jyllands-Posten printed the Muhammad cartoon’s, Muslim fundamentalists were saying ALL Muslims should be offended because Islam teaches images of Muhammad are blasphemy.
(Note: I’m only comparing the underlying principle of Christian vs. Muslim concepts of blasphemy. They both took offense for essentially the same violation of divine injunction. In no way, shape or form am I implying Christians would react as violently as the Muslims did to perceived blasphemy.)
I’m just trying to put the seriousness of the “Oh, my God” “blasphemy in context of “Evan All Mighty.” Who among you or your spouses hasn’t blasphemed with those words, especially in bed, at one time or another? Did you take offense? It’s fine if you did but I’m not sure that it’s fine to expect others to take offense. At the heart of it, I think blasphemy never even occurred to Carolyn Arend considering the context of the “Evan All Mighty,” a comedy spoof of Noah’s flood. I just think pointing out the blasphemy in “Evan All Mighty” is taking a comedy way too seriously. That’s all I have to say.
Again, I refer you to what I just said: “This is not a personal preference, but a biblical command.” I’m not the one expecting others to take offense at the flippant use of God’s name. That’s what the Bible has to say about it, not me. I understand that you don’t believe the Bible, but that’s why I said that all Christians should take offense. These are people who claim to believe the Bible.
“…that’s why I said that all Christians should take offense. These are people who claim to believe the Bible.”
And, that’s why they said that all Muslims should take offense. Those are people who claim to believe the Qu’ran.
I do understand your point.
Those who take offense are not guilty of taking a comedy “way too seriously.” The problem is that the name of God is not being taken seriously enough.
Whether this movie intended blasphemy or not is not the issue. God hates blasphemy, intended or otherwise.
It probably doesn’t occur to most people what they are doing when they use God’s name as a byword. If you would tell them that they are guilty of sin by doing so many would respond by saying “I don’t mean anything by it.” Exactly. That’s the whole problem. God does not want His name used in a casual, light, flippant, mindless way.
I understand. But, Muslims violently rioted because Muhammad didn’t want his image “used in a casual, light, flippant, mindless way.” It’s the same principle.
Nobody’s suggesting otherwise, Cineaste. If the Koran teaches that Muhammad’s image shouldn’t be used improperly, then Muslims should be offended when it is — just as Christians should be offended when God’s name is used improperly.
Of course, some Muslims took their offense way too far, but that’s not to say they shouldn’t have been offended.
Tim, I agree. Those Muslims who were offended certainly should be. But, was it appropriate for offended Muslims to chastise other Muslims for not being offended by blasphemy? I’d answer, no.
I’d answer, yes.
What happened to “That’s all I have to say.”?
Slight correction … the use of “oh my God” can be blasphemous, but is not necessarily so. When speaking of God, the speaker should be either speaking to God or about God. The language should not be (as Marty called it) a “byword”. The OMG combination is only blasphemous if not authentically in reference to God Himself.
As pertains to this movie, I’d say that #2 is also in violation - making an image of God. This is the constant trouble with mankind - though we were created in His image, we seem to want to recreate Him in our own image!
Cineaste,
I find it odd and insightful that you are telling Christians that they should not be reminding other Christians of what scripture plainly states. It would be like me telling you not to tell another athiest they are not to pray to something that you hold does not exist because their athiesm should not be affected by your personal beliefs as an athiest.
Neither of those are personal beliefs; they are doctrinal issues that weave the fabric of what it means to associate yourself with either group. You cannot be an athiest and hold belief in a god. In the same way, you cannot be a Christian and blaspheme God and still be true to what it means to be either.
j razz
“What happened to “That’s all I have to say?”
I haven’t added any new ideas since the first sentence of my initial post on the matter…
“If someone thinks something is personally offensive, why is there an expectation OTHERS should also find it personally offensive?”
You’ve basically answered, because the Bible or the Qu’ran says so.