Bruce Almighty=astoundingly good.

[Epoetker]

It entertains both as a quite blatantly Christian movie in its own right and serves as a self-deprecating commentary on Jim Carrey's career since Liar Liar. Actually, from the Truman Show to BA, not much really happened that one didn't want to forget.

And I really think that some screenwriters have been listening to certain skeptic-Christian debates deeeeeply.

[Sher]

Epoetker,

It is as sacrilegious as the previews make it look? Or just good humor? Sometimes previews are not representative of the movies ... and I didn't want to miss a good JimC movie (I loved Liar Liar's humor)

[Piebald]

I have no problem with the idea of a man taking God's powers for a particular time if it's a satire .. especially if it's going to prove a point. From the previews the movie didn't look like it took itself too seriously. Still, Images of God as a benign old man in the sky who just wants to watch the sopranos on HBO and live and let live with humanity do kind of irk me :^/

Can you tell us anything more about the movie, Epoetker? I'm prob'ly gonna rent it when it comes out on video.

[Jaltus]

It was worth it to see in the theatre. I truly enjoyed the movie and was made uncomfortable only once or twice. It is not antiChristian by any stretch of the imagination nor is it disrespectful toward God.

The ending, which does seem a bit obvious, is just the way any Christian would want it to turn out (and no, I am not referring to the love story).

[dawnghost]

Today @ 07:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107883#post107883)
Epoetker:

It entertains both as a quite blatantly Christian movie in its own right and serves as a self-deprecating commentary on Jim Carrey's career since Liar Liar. Actually, from the Truman Show to BA, not much really happened that one didn't want to forget.

And I really think that some screenwriters have been listening to certain skeptic-Christian debates deeeeeply.

woohoo, I'm gonna love that movie!!!

:yipee:

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 09:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107991#post107991)
Jaltus:

It was worth it to see in the theatre. I truly enjoyed the movie and was made uncomfortable only once or twice. It is not antiChristian by any stretch of the imagination nor is it disrespectful toward God.

The ending, which does seem a bit obvious, is just the way any Christian would want it to turn out (and no, I am not referring to the love story).

Thanks Jaltus :thumb:

[dawnghost]

Yesterday @ 10:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107941#post107941)
Hamster:


OH MY GOD!!!! :shocked: IT'S MOGWAI!!!!!!!!!

:yipee: :joy: :joy: :yipee:

[yxboom]

Sounds interesting.

[Epoetker]

(Looks like Bruce beat the Matrix! Way to go, Carrey!)

Now now, Sherbear, I can't be telling too much about it...

All right. It's all the best parts of Liar Liar with a good bit of slapstick from The Mask (quite a few parallels from that one, methinks) for the first half, with a much more serious and deep second half. Morgan Freeman is entertaining as God but never loses the fundamental seriousness of his role or throws out any one-liners to twist the genuineness of God's character. The movie strays neither toward God's complete lack of involvement in the world or any amount of over-regulation. Somewhere some screenwriter better be getting his wings.

And I truly like the fact that Skeptic-Carrey is actually shown to be reacting harshly to particular trying circumstances intimated as tests, rather than a seemingly endlessly vindictive universe-despite his troubles, he had it gooooood boss and girlfriend-wise, both of whom genuinely love him but are sorely tried by his quest for glory that he simply doesn't fit in any sense.

[garthoverman]

MINOR SPOILERS BELOW!

In the movie God instructs Jim Carey (JC) that one of the rules assumed upon being bestowed the powers of God was that JC was not to interfere with free will. Then, later in the movie, JC is shown making a fool out of his nemesis by manipulating his nemesis' face and voice whilst the man anchors a live news broadcast. This is flagarantly in violation of God's prohibition of interference with free will. Maybe I'm being a little too nit-picky but that issue really stuck in my craw.

Of course, I'm sure that this is not really a contradiction. I'm probably just taking the scene out of context, ignoring the intent of the original authors, anachronistically projecting current conventions of language onto the movie, etc... as is usually the case when such contradictions between the supposed nature of God, His allegedly inerrant revelation, and reality seem so obvious. :lol:

Yours,
Garth

[Epoetker]

ANSWER INVOLVES SOME SPOILERS

It ain't a violation of free will, it was merely a modulation of what
everyone else saw when they looked at him. The decision to actively LOVE someone(which involved a very real choice at the level of the heart, rather than involuntarily muscle spasming) on the other hand, totally de-powered Carrey.

Y'see, when looked at through the larger picture of God's interaction with the universe, the contradiction disappears! If only you could watch the movie with a first century ANE context...

[Sher]

Today @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109574#post109574)
Epoetker:

If only you could watch the movie with a first century ANE context...

:rofl:

:thumb:

Thanks for the summary, Epoetker

I'm pretty sure I will check it out now ... between what you and Jaltus have said.

JimC really makes me laugh with those faces of his ... :shrug: what can I say?

:angel:

[chance]

I had been waiting for Bruce Almighty to come out for a good 4 months and was excited to be able to get the details of it.

I thought it was pretty good, though I expected it would be just a little better. I am planning to take a youth group in the South Bend area to see it soon and have dinner afterwards to talk about it.

Does anyone else think that would be a good idea? To take a youth group to see the movie and discuss it afterwards?

[Sher]

I haven't seen the movie yet, Chance ... so I am probably not the best one to answer for this movie. However, we have a local think tank at one of the churches in town that does this on a weekly basis (except they do it with the DVD's that come out). They watch the movies and then discuss them from both the world view and (the often opposing) Christian view. So, it might be a good idea ... even if it isn't entirely Christian in theme, that might make for additional topics to discuss.

[geebob]

I thought it was a good movie but not excellent. The humor was occasionally hilarous, often funny, and once in a while, a bit too cheesy.

Of course I gotta love the contact points it made with open theism, such as the notion that even God is vulnerable when entering free reciprocal loving relationships.

[Epoetker]

And yet the movie managed to communicate its very deep theology and philosophy much more effectively and openly than the convoluted 'Matrix' ever could.

[Patroclus]

I thought it was an amazingly well done movie. I totally agree with what both Epoetker and Jaltus have said so far. I also think it raises some great questions concerning the interraction between God and humanity. I wouldn't mind taking a youth group to see it. A few parents may balk at some of the language, but I think it adds an element of reality to it. The writer is not afraid of the vernacular.

I also like that, contrary to popular to Hollywood form, the people who were the most sympathetic, for the most part, were people who prayed.

[dawnghost]

I wanna watch that movie!!

but it's gonna take ages for it to show here in Brazil

[mattbballman19]

Overall I thought is was an entertaining, theologically better-than-average Hollywood comedy! Parts of that movie had me laughing so hard that I couldn't breathe! There was one part in the movie that I though a little theologically suspicious: it was near the end subsequent to the truck-hitting-bruce-and-then-dying scene, when God and Bruce are surrounded by that all-encompasing whiteness almost swallowing their visible recognition. God was asking Bruce what his true prayer was. God, seemingly expecting him to say that he wanted to reunite and mend past pain with his girlfriend, was surprised (or at least give the impression, since after Bruce's surprising answer to the contrary, God's head tilted in an air of inquisitivness). I guess this would sit well with Open-theists, but I could be wrong, since I'm not particularly aquainted with that view to my full satisfaction.

Those are my initial thoughts!

matt

[dizzle]

I liked it very much though there were some parts I groaned at..... but.... I think the whole dumbing down of God to our buddy next door is just.... well wrong on several levels. What ever happened to a healthy reverential awe of God. There was none of that... and that, I dunno, left me feeling wrong. The part where Yahweh was substited for Yahoo was blasphemous as far as I am concerned. The name Yahweh is NOT to be trifled with in such a manner.

[mattbballman19]

I agree with you there Dee Dee. The movie put too much emphasis on one aspect of what God might be: our best friend. A friend, of course, with unimaginable power. But the absolute and utter holiness which is God (the scene in which God could not even show Noah His face, or the time when Isaiah saw the majesty of the Almighty) is absolutely lacking. I also agree that the name of God being translated over to a computer software system designed for tracking prayer requests via email was inappropriate humor. Sure, it made me giggle a little, but further reflection on what it is that that name actually stands for compells me to recognize its misplaced effect on the Christian viewer.

[Patroclus]

06-21-2003 @ 10:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129913#post129913)
Dee Dee Warren:

I liked it very much though there were some parts I groaned at..... but.... I think the whole dumbing down of God to our buddy next door is just.... well wrong on several levels. What ever happened to a healthy reverential awe of God. There was none of that... and that, I dunno, left me feeling wrong. The part where Yahweh was substited for Yahoo was blasphemous as far as I am concerned. The name Yahweh is NOT to be trifled with in such a manner.

DeeDee, you hit on one of the toughest peoblems of literature, and art: how does one adequately portray God? The answer is, one cannot. At least, it has not been done.

John Milton tried in Paradise Lost, and failed. He had this extremely aloof and seeming egocentric character than nobody thinks very worthy of a diety. In fact, the only way to look at God's character in a positive light is to look at Lucifer's character, and reverse all the bad things about him. It is a problem.

I think the idea of awe was implicit in Bruce. For instance, (Spoliers Ahead)the situation where Bruce pulls the moon closer to the earth in order to woo Aniston's Character is followed-up the next day with a devestating news repor--a monsoon that killed hundreds of people. Of course, Bruce never knows about it, and Aniston's character doesn't figure it out. But, the audience knows (at least the should). Bruce finally gets a taste of the awesome power of God when he learns the consequences of giving everybody a share of the lottery.

Furthermore, the Yahoo/YHWH thing is supposed to be (at best) sacreligious because it is Bruce's contrivance. Everything that Bruce does is wrong, right up until the end where he prays (i.e. realizing the folly in his power) for Aniston's character to be loved as God loves her.

Although I do not think that God was portrayed perfectly, I think he was portrayed rather well. Keep in mind instances in the Bible where God meets somebody face to face. With Adam, they walked together. The Bible also says that Moses met with God as a man meets with a friend: face to face. What Bruce does is balance the very personal part of God's nature, and his desire to commune with his people with the awesome consequences of divine power.

[dizzle]

Today @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130882#post130882)
Patroclus:



DeeDee, you hit on one of the toughest peoblems of literature, and art: how does one adequately portray God? The answer is, one cannot. At least, it has not been done.

The Bible does (only halfway kidding). I don't think the idea was to accurately portay God, but to portray the parts even nonbelievers are comfortable with. Where was any mention of sin? I mean real sin?

I think the idea of awe was implicit in Bruce. For instance, (Spoliers Ahead)the situation where Bruce pulls the moon closer to the earth in order to woo Aniston's Character is followed-up the next day with a devestating news repor--a monsoon that killed hundreds of people. Of course, Bruce never knows about it, and Aniston's character doesn't figure it out. But, the audience knows (at least the should). Bruce finally gets a taste of the awesome power of God when he learns the consequences of giving everybody a share of the lottery.

I dunno, that doens't do it for me. God is more than a guy who can do really neat tricks that may have bad results if not done right.

Furthermore, the Yahoo/YHWH thing is supposed to be (at best) sacreligious because it is Bruce's contrivance. Everything that Bruce does is wrong, right up until the end where he prays (i.e. realizing the folly in his power) for Aniston's character to be loved as God loves her.

I understand but nothing was ever said, rebuked about the sacrilege, and when you consider how God views His name in reality.... well that is a heavy thing.

[Patroclus]

Today @ 01:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130883#post130883)
Dee Dee Warren:



The Bible does (only halfway kidding). I don't think the idea was to accurately portay God, but to portray the parts even nonbelievers are comfortable with. Where was any mention of sin? I mean real sin?

Well, if your movie is not about sin, but rather about trusting God...

I dunno, that doens't do it for me. God is more than a guy who can do really neat tricks that may have bad results if not done right.

Look at Gideon and his fleece. There is a trick. Bruce's character is not sympathetic for his desire for proofs. As far as the other tricks, those are Bruce's, not God's. It is not stated directly that God has power to do terrible acts, but it is very much implied. Also, what is implied is that humans forget that God can do terrible things, but chooses, instead, to love.

I understand but nothing was ever said, rebuked about the sacrilege, and when you consider how God views His name in reality.... well that is a heavy thing.

Did it need to be said that Bruce screwed-up? It was all over. Everybody in the audience knew that Bruce was a total loser at playing God.

[Patroclus]

You know, the more I talk about this movie, the more I like it.

[dizzle]

Today @ 04:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130890#post130890)
Patroclus:



Well, if your movie is not about sin, but rather about trusting God...


You cannot trust God without turning from sin. It is our sin that separates us from God. He was living outside of marriage with a girl. Nowhere was there any idea that this was wrong. Nowhere was there any mention that maybe that needed to be dealt wiht. Now maybe it wasn't the medium for that, perhaps, but I do think it was simply a God we could all be comfortable with. But the real God is decidedly uncomfortable at times. There is not one person who was at those movies lost as a rock that would have left with any inkling that they were. I know, that wasn't the purpose, but that is God's purpose.


Look at Gideon and his fleece. There is a trick.

But that is in a context that shows the rest of the picture. Again, this is a God we can be comfortable with. I know that if my flesh is comfortable, there is soemthing wrong with the picture.


Bruce's character is not sympathetic for his desire for proofs. As far as the other tricks, those are Bruce's, not God's. It is not stated directly that God has power to do terrible acts, but it is very much implied.

It was joked at. There was no reverential fear of God.


Also, what is implied is that humans forget that God can do terrible things, but chooses, instead, to love.

Which is something that almost everyone wants to believe anyways, but it is the judgment part that is going to happen, that we are not confronted with. Again, a Comfortable God.

Did it need to be said that Bruce screwed-up? It was all over. Everybody in the audience knew that Bruce was a total loser at playing God.

To me this was the message (please excuse any sarcasm)

Okay now mankind, before you go on being too hard on God, now see? He has a very hard job to do and He is doing the best He can.

Yes, I think they know he was a total loser, but not inthe uncomfortable ways. And not one person left there knowing it is not right to use YHWH as the name for a search engine. Now that's the funny-lovikng God we always wanted.

Again excuse any sarcasm, not intended to be offensive. I am just concerned at what we as a culture are making God into.

[spl_cadet]

Dee Dee, you are mssing the point of the movie and being a bit legalistic frankly. The point of the movie is to illustrate some truths about God, the importance of prayer, and such forth. Of course to set the plot and tell the story there is some sacreligious stuff. But it is there simply for the story, it is not meant to be sacreligious.

I think you are just miffed over the parting of the Red Soup :tongue:


And really, you guys have been asking for a movie like this to come out forever. Now is not the time to be complaining about story elements that didn't meet with your satisfaction.

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130906#post130906)
spl_cadet:

Dee Dee, you are mssing the point of the movie and being a bit legalistic frankly.

Perhaps. Wouldn't be the first time. But then again, I think legalsim is a word that is overused when God becomes uncomfortable.

The point of the movie is to illustrate some truths about God, the importance of prayer, and such forth.

I understand that, but I think some truths taken out of context are dangerous in keeping us in our comfort zones.

Of course to set the plot and tell the story there is some sacreligious stuff. But it is there simply for the story, it is not meant to be sacreligious.

Actually we cannot know that, we are not the writers. I do not that the use of YHWH was not necessary. Other things could have been done.


I think you are just miffed over the parting of the Red Soup :tongue:

Tomato soup makes me want to retch.


And really, you guys have been asking for a movie like this to come out forever. Now is not the time to be complaining about story elements that didn't meet with your satisfaction.

"You guys"? I never petitioned Hollywood to tell me about God. I am not for "feel good" only representations of God anywhere... at Church or at the movies.

[Patroclus]

Today @ 01:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130898#post130898)
Dee Dee Warren:



You cannot trust God without turning from sin. It is our sin that separates us from God. He was living outside of marriage with a girl. Nowhere was there any idea that this was wrong. Nowhere was there any mention that maybe that needed to be dealt wiht. Now maybe it wasn't the medium for that, perhaps, but I do think it was simply a God we could all be comfortable with. But the real God is decidedly uncomfortable at times. There is not one person who was at those movies lost as a rock that would have left with any inkling that they were. I know, that wasn't the purpose, but that is God's purpose.

You are right, it was not the medium for it. And, maybe we did get a God that people are comfortable with. However, it is a darn-good first step (at the end, the couple is engaged). For instance, telling somebody about worms that eat without lack of flesh is not ususally the best evangelizing tool (not that this movie was intended for evangelism). However, answering people where there needs meets real life, and God can intervene, is.

But that is in a context that shows the rest of the picture. Again, this is a God we can be comfortable with. I know that if my flesh is comfortable, there is soemthing wrong with the picture.

Bruce was as comfortable as Gideon about the whole meeting. He wanted proof, Gideon wanted proof. True, from that point, the two stories take wildly different turns, but one is a comedy, one is a mini-epic. That is the limitation of literature. You jest that the Bible does a much better job at portraying God. But remember that the Bible has thousands of pericopae that deal with fine-tuned aspects. For instace, read the nice honkin satire of Jonah, as compared to the Passion. Even then, we only scratch a very minimal surface. For one story, I do not see that it is too problematic. It is a comedy, and a comedy requires some level of comfort.

It was joked at. There was no reverential fear of God.

Not for Bruce, perhaps. But, I think it is there for the audience if they think longer than two seconds about it. And yes, there is humor involved because this is a comedy.

Which is something that almost everyone wants to believe anyways, but it is the judgment part that is going to happen, that we are not confronted with. Again, a Comfortable God.

It was a comdedy that tried to deal with a very limited number of aspects. A comedy--from the same Latin root as common and comfortable.

To me this was the message (please excuse any sarcasm)

Okay now mankind, before you go on being too hard on God, now see? He has a very hard job to do and He is doing the best He can.

Or, God has a reason for the blessings and failures in each life.

Yes, I think they know he was a total loser, but not inthe uncomfortable ways. And not one person left there knowing it is not right to use YHWH as the name for a search engine. Now that's the funny-lovikng God we always wanted.

Again, this story is not about retribtion. Furthermore, if you want to get technical about YHWH, coming from the mind of Bruce, it is no more of a sacrelige than the way we have used it here.

Again excuse any sarcasm, not intended to be offensive. I am just concerned at what we as a culture are making God into.

True, we do not do a very good job. But, this is one of the best examples to date, inmho.

[Patroclus]

Comedy, by definition, is "feel good."

[Patroclus]

I really think that the best way to deal with God in literature is to do so indirectly. For instance, in Danté's Divine Comedy, one learns a lot about God without ever actually seeing him.

[Alien]

Hi guys, I just found this thread.

I saw the movie a week ago and frankly don't relate to much you are saying about it. First, do you have any reason to believe that the writers intended to convey any deep theological meaning here? (Serious question - if you know that they did, then my opinion changes somewhat).

I thought the first part of the movie was very funny (I quite like Jim Carrey in small doses), then descended into awful cheesyness. Just about the only part that made me sit up (mentally) and remember conversations I have had with Christians was when Bruce says "How do I make someone love me without interfering with free will?" and God replies "Welcome to my world!"

It annoyed me that Bruce continued in his self-absorbed attitude so totally after meeting God. I would have thought that even a character like his would have been somewhat taken aback and shown at least a little concern over what might follow from his irresponsible use of the powers he had been given. When he was having trouble with the prayers, I kept wanting him to actually use the powers in a sensible way, like having the computer sort the prayers into categories or extending his personal time so he had some breathing space to deal with them.

Yeah, I know that it was supposed to show him as a total jerk (before his amazing and unbelievable turn-around) but did they have to use such a huge sledge hammer to make the point? No-one's that dumb.

I agree with Dee Dee about the overall message (Okay now mankind, before you go on being too hard on God, now see? He has a very hard job to do and He is doing the best He can). On the other hand, what option was there? If the movie started showing God as vengeful and awesome and damning immorality and so on it wouldn't have been funny and who would have gone to see it? I guess the choice is an uncomfortable one for Christians that want a movie with a Christian message - accurate or entertaining? I doubt you can have both.

It's just clicked what the movie really reminded me of. Its the endlessly repeated story of the guy that gets three wishes and screws things up so badly that he has to use the last wish to undo it all.

Oh well. :)

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130933#post130933)
Alien:

I agree with Dee Dee about the overall message (Okay now mankind, before you go on being too hard on God, now see? He has a very hard job to do and He is doing the best He can). On the other hand, what option was there? If the movie started showing God as vengeful and awesome and damning immorality and so on it wouldn't have been funny and who would have gone to see it? I guess the choice is an uncomfortable one for Christians that want a movie with a Christian message - accurate or entertaining? I doubt you can have both.

Hey for the record, before I am the bad guy who dissed Bruce Almighty, I liked the movie for entertainment, I didn't like some of the theology, or more accurately what was missing behind some of the theology. And if it wasn't for the YHWH/Yahoo thing I probably wouldn't have said anything. But God's name is holy... oky, okay I have said all that already.

But Alien I am glad you see my point. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is what I saw as the message of the movie. It was very creaturely. None of Paul's, "Who are you O Man to question God," or God's retort to Job, "Where were you when I......." Of course I would disagree with Alien's characterization of the flip side, but there is a flip side.

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130912#post130912)
Patroclus:

You are right, it was not the medium for it. And, maybe we did get a God that people are comfortable with. However, it is a darn-good first step (at the end, the couple is engaged).

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I think half of whole pictures can be very misleading.


For instance, telling somebody about worms that eat without lack of flesh is not ususally the best evangelizing tool (not that this movie was intended for evangelism). However, answering people where there needs meets real life, and God can intervene, is.

God is not there to intervene for us. See, that is my issue. We are created for God, not vice versa. I am an Evangelism Explosion Trainer, and we have an illustration that talks about faith, and how so many people have a "now faith" which is that God is there like the Cosmic Genie to get us out of jams. But what about Daniel's friends who said that God can deliver them out of the fiery furnace but even if He doens't we ain't bowing to your stinking idols (paraphrase, my pastor said that and I thought it was funny)


Bruce was as comfortable as Gideon about the whole meeting. He wanted proof, Gideon wanted proof. True, from that point, the two stories take wildly different turns, but one is a comedy, one is a mini-epic. That is the limitation of literature. You jest that the Bible does a much better job at portraying God. But remember that the Bible has thousands of pericopae that deal with fine-tuned aspects. For instace, read the nice honkin satire of Jonah, as compared to the Passion. Even then, we only scratch a very minimal surface. For one story, I do not see that it is too problematic. It is a comedy, and a comedy requires some level of comfort.

Of course, and in a society that had a balanced view of God, that would not be much of an issue, but all we have and want (and I say "we" very loosely you know that) is a God that is manageable, one that doesn't ask too much of us, and one that will let us live our lives our way, and just handle all that heaven and hell stuff.


Not for Bruce, perhaps. But, I think it is there for the audience if they think longer than two seconds about it. And yes, there is humor involved because this is a comedy.

We have made so light of God's name that I do not think it would occur to a lot of people.


It was a comdedy that tried to deal with a very limited number of aspects. A comedy--from the same Latin root as common and comfortable.

Again I know it was a limited medium. But you know, some treatments true to their medium are not particularly helpful overall. I didn't hate the movie.. I guess I am just being the curtmudgeon here.


Or, God has a reason for the blessings and failures in each life.

I think everyone already wants to believe that.... and still I think the overall theme was as I said. Next time we want to play God, we better remember that He has a tough job.


Again, this story is not about retribtion. Furthermore, if you want to get technical about YHWH, coming from the mind of Bruce, it is no more of a sacrelige than the way we have used it here.

I do not believe we have been sacriligous with God's name. That is one thing I would never want to do. Ever.


True, we do not do a very good job. But, this is one of the best examples to date, inmho.

Well I do not care for many movies, so I am the wrong one to ask. Now Paulie, that was a masterpiece.

[Kyle]

I thought this movie was great. The coolest part of the movie was how Bruce would affect everything in a bad way by his actions. It was so hilarious when you heard about the flooding and the angry mob.

I thought this movie was great apologetically in that it answered one of the most crucial questions- "Why does bad stuff happen"- in a funny way.

Also, another great part was when Carrey asks for a "sign" and a whole truckload of signs pulls out in front of him, but he does not notice. In my opinion, it is very true that sometimes people look in the wrong place for answers to prayer.

[Alien]

Dee Dee: But Alien I am glad you see my point. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is what I saw as the message of the movie. It was very creaturely. None of Paul's, "Who are you O Man to question God," or God's retort to Job, "Where were you when I......." Of course I would disagree with Alien's characterization of the flip side, but there is a flip side.

By flip side, I guess you mean my "vengeful and awesome and damning immorality ...". Well, I wasn't trying to describe God totally in a single phrase, just mention a few aspects that might put the average person off attending the movie. :)

As a matter of interest, do you have any feel for a movie that would accurately portray God as you understand Him to be, but the average person would want to see?

We have made so light of God's name that I do not think it would occur to a lot of people.

You're right. I didn't occur to me that anyone might be offended by that until you pointed it out.

Kyle: Also, another great part was when Carrey asks for a "sign" and a whole truckload of signs pulls out in front of him, but he does not notice.

Yeah, that was funny. A Christian friend had a cartoon pinned to his wall years ago. It was from the "BC" series. A guy is praying: "Lord, if you're up there, give me a sign". A large illuminated sign with light bulbs round the edge crashes down. It says: "I'm up here". :)

[Patroclus]

Alien,

I don't much care what the authors intended. I really think that is of very little relevence. But, I come from a background that values the actual content more than intent. So, I am a little biased.

Even so, I do not think there is deep theological meaning. However, as a movie that tries to portray human struggles with God, I think it did a good job.

-DDW
God is not there to intervene for us. See, that is my issue. We are created for God, not vice versa. I am an Evangelism Explosion Trainer, and we have an illustration that talks about faith, and how so many people have a "now faith" which is that God is there like the Cosmic Genie to get us out of jams. But what about Daniel's friends who said that God can deliver them out of the fiery furnace but even if He doens't we ain't bowing to your stinking idols (paraphrase, my pastor said that and I thought it was funny)

C'mon DeeDee, you know that "intervention" does not mean "fix." In fact, the big criticism that I had with this movies is that God allowed Bruce to live after getting hit by the semi. Keep in mind that even in teh movie, except for the end, nothing was ever "fixed."

You know that the movie is not perfect.

You understand that it is a comedy, so that certain aspects are not going to be portrayed.

You understand that it has entertainment value.

I think the point that you and I disagree upon is whether or not the movie managed the Character of God with dignity. I think it did, you think otherwise.

[Alien]

Patroclus: I don't much care what the authors intended. I really think that is of very little relevence. But, I come from a background that values the actual content more than intent. So, I am a little biased.

Even so, I do not think there is deep theological meaning. However, as a movie that tries to portray human struggles with God, I think it did a good job. [Emphasis added]


You don't consider the two italicized parts to be contradictory?

I'm not trying to be overly critical of your opinions. I thought the movie was very funny in parts. I just wasn't that impressed overall.

[Patroclus]

No, I do not see anything contradictory in the statements that I made. One deals with what the authors intended, the other with what the movie actually conveyed, or appeared to be conveying.

The reason why there is a difference is because of the intentional fallacy. In short, what it means is that one can never know exactly what the author's intended beyond doubt because, even if the author gave a direct answer upon being interviewed, the author could be lying. However, one can make inferences about the authorial intent. This is called historical/ biographical criticism.

What the movie says, or tries to say, is something completely different. This is based on the assumption that the work in question has meaning apart from just what the author may be trying to say. This kind of criticism deals only with what is in the text, and is called formalism.

[Alien]

Patroclus:

All righteee!

Like a flower might have a meaning assigned to it by a human that has little to do with what the plant "intended" it's purpose to be?

Interesting, thanks. :smile:

[Patroclus]

Today @ 08:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131474#post131474)
Alien:

Patroclus:

All righteee!

Like a flower might have a meaning assigned to it by a human that has little to do with what the plant "intended" it's purpose to be?

Interesting, thanks. :smile:

Yeah, if you mean, for instance that, biologically, it is for pollenation and the support of bee-hives (to name a few examples); but for some human it is a tool to getting the girl he wants.

[Epoetker]

Who said plants have intentions? Maybe the traits you so anthropomorphogenetically assign to it are the one's little to do with its true purpose :rose: :mononoke: :gim:

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132670#post132670)
Epoetker:
Who said plants have intentions? Maybe the traits you so anthropomorphogenetically assign to it are the one's little to do with its true purpose :rose: :mononoke: :gim:

That's why I put "intended" in quotes.

[luv1another]

:woo: It finally got released over here on DVD and video and I watched it last night. I would say it is one of the funniest movies I have seen for a while. If you get a chance to get the DVD out you got to watch it and also the extra bits ... its a very cool film and I would give it a 9 out of 10 ... only because there was one stage when it got more serious and I actually stopped laughing and got to where I wanted it to get funny again :teeth:
but anybody who gets the chance do watch it at least once :thumb:

[Stephen]

I agree with what DD said way back when, some of the theology is really messed up, and it seems to me that the whole theme of "it's hard being God" is kind of dumb. I mean come on, He's God!

Unlike DD though, that YHWH thing cracked me up :lol: Okay, it was probably heretical or something, but what do you expect from a secular movie?

It was very, very funny, but I don't agree with the pastors who are recommending it as good theology. The God in it didn't show any anger towards sin, which was one of the only major flaws in the movie in my opinion.

Following Luv's example and bringing back a dead thread

[$cirisme]

I haven't seen it and really don't care to.

[luv1another]

well guys I didnt watch it for the theology of the thing :doh: or to learn anything about God... I watched it for the entertainment value. maybe I am just thick or something but I didnt pick up on most the bits everyone else did:shrug: I didnt see it as offensive and yes God is God and can do anything. Anyway I found the movie funny and also at times thought provoking as to my own personal walk. :tongue:
I don't know why people would be recomending it as a theological movie:doh: but then I guess they were trying to parallel the matrix to Christianity too :doh: I didnt see anything in that except one vague refrence which I have long since forgotten :shrug: