Monday, March 30, 2015

Movie Quote

    I watched an excellent movie tonight over dinner (my parents are out of town, so my brother and I have creative ways to entertain ourselves) called This is our Time by PureFlix entertainment. Some of you might know this as the group associated with David A. R. White's films. Anyhow, today I wanted to include what I thought was an excellent quote from it.

    "So if it's God's call, it's supposed to be easy? 'Cause that's not what Paul would tell you, or Stephen, or Moses, or Jim Elliot and Nate Saint. Do you want me to keep going? Because it seems to me that the most obedient ones in the Bible, the ones who were truly following God's call on a daily basis get thrown into lion's dens and fiery furnaces, and shipwrecked and beheaded and nailed to a cross. And they're all praised for being the most faithful and successful in God's eyes... but this is the call that all of us have received, to be faithful like him (Jesus), obedient unto death."

    Following God's call on your life will not be easy. He never promised that. He only promised it would be worth it.

21 comments:

  1. I totally agree! I like the quote. I did notice that Nik Ripken said that Jesus promised an abundant and good life. I didn't remember any verse that said that! Anyway, I do know that most PureFlix films are good, and most films with David A.R. White are good. Also, I knew Tye knew what PureFlix was!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, John 10:10 is the only verse I can think of that speaks of the "abundant Christian life" that we hear mentioned so often in Christian circles. We are promised an abundant life, but that's not the same as an easy life, and a good life is not synonymous with a comfortable life.

      I think good and abundant are only promised in the spiritual sense, not the physical (as the quote above kinda reflects!).

      Thanks for the comment. Yeah, the PureFlix movies I've watched have all been fairly good, and I really like David A. R. White. The only movie of his I've watched that I didn't like was "God's Not Dead." Besides that, he has some excellent movies (especially "Brother White".)

      Delete
  2. I haven't actually watched Brother White, but I've heard of it. I have seen God's Not Dead, and actually did enjoy that. Sorry to hear you didn't. Any reason why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "God's Not Dead" to me took a very wrong approach at combating atheism. Every atheist in the film was an amoral, loveless jerk, usually irrational to top it off. I've read enough from atheists to know that that is not true. But it accomplished the ends of making every atheist look like a villain. One was a deeply bitter professor, one a completely amoral business man and one an obviously always cynical reporter. Did they not think it worth while to put a "normal" atheist in there somewhere? Your normal atheist is not any of those!

      That's just plain not true. Many atheists are really moral people, who love family and do not commit their lives to ruining a Christian student's life. The film seemed as if its whole purpose was to villainize atheism, and it used some questionable (in my opinion) methods to do so. To me, the film certainly did not show love toward atheists (instead labeling them as completely moral-less and obvious villains).

      Delete
    2. To me, it illustrated at least some of the truth in what atheists say about Christians being very judgmental toward atheists. This film simply contributed to the stereotype.

      Delete
  3. Ok...and that's fine. And some of that is true. But the means and resources that Josh used to combat the atheism portrayed in the movie was good, I think. Sure, the setup might have been a little off, but I do think that Josh's information used was good. It was good to know that about the atheism and about his Christian information as well. So, while there is a time to say: "Ok, that's not right, and this isn't realistic", step back and look at it - what movie IS realistic? And not only that, but focus on what you can get out of the movie, not what's wrong with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, I get what you're saying, but even his convincing of the atheist professor was all based on making him angry enough to confess to hating God, which the movie claimed was irrational if you believe he doesn't exist. I think it's quite natural for an unbeliever to be angry with the concept of a God, even if they're not angry with the person since they don't believe he exists.

      True, most movies aren't realistic. Then again, most movies are not trying to prove a particular world view wrong. Look, it's nothing against the movie or its makers, I just didn't like the way it went about attacking atheism. Anyone who has not actually read from atheists would walk away from that movie believing they were amoral, bitter idiots, because that's how the movie portrayed them.

      Think of it this way. I am a firm believer in Jesus and that's how the film came across to me. Just imagine how it came across to atheists. They probably felt rather blanket judged, exactly how I have felt when I'm told that only fleshly Christians enjoy CCM or only liberals believe in grace. No one feels love during a blanket judging!

      And point taken. I should be more positive. You did ask though... C'mon, you know what happens when you ask me why I believe something!

      Delete
    2. (Sorry, thought I'd replied already.) Well, I understand your view, and I understand my view a little better, but I don't think there's any sense going on about it. (If you want to, I don't want to clutter up your blog, so just send me an email and we can deal with it privately.) Anyway, I do know what I'm getting myself into, and that's why I ask over internet, so that I can take a snack break, or a bathroom break, or TV break, or nap. Because when we talk in person, I just kinda have to wait on all those things. :)

      Delete
    3. And I asked why you didn't like the movie, not what you believed in and what you didn't concerning the matters discussed. But it's nice to know, and that might save you a blog post or two.

      Delete
  4. What's with the new dancing robot after you prove you're not a robot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not my fault, I didn't do it! Don't blame me! It doesn't show me the dancing robot (cause I've got the author privileges). Can't help you I'm afraid!

      Delete
  5. Oh well. Well, with your author privileges, can you tell "Blogger" that I'm OK, and that I don't need to go through "robot check" Every Single TIME?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so. I'm still not sure you're ok!

      Delete
  6. Hey! Well, if you block any comments, I'll just comment as someone else, and see if they can get your attention. :) I just won't approve any of YOUR comments on my blog, then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tit for tat, huh? I'll have to post about doing good to your enemies on here later then!

      Delete
  7. You do that. And also post about obsession. Obsession with a certain music artist. You know, obsession and addiction or semi-synonymous. It would help a few people I know. Oh, and did I say that you were my enemy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no verse in the Bible condemning a fascination (not obsession) with a particular music artist. And if you are supposed to do good to your enemies, how much more should you do good to me? :)

      Delete
  8. As a friend recently (like in the last 20 seconds) turned enemy once said, "A+ for manipulation tactics, F convincing." Recognize that? And would you call it fascination, or as I already stated, obsession/addiction? I vote 2nd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep in mind that I can delete your comments, you unruly visitor! I would definitely vote fascination, although you could say addiction if you want!

      Delete
  9. Visitor? Let me see...Oh yes, I just UNfollowed you. According to everything I've seen (and heard, and read,), it's obvious it's fascinating obsession.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And the dancing robot's gone.

    ReplyDelete