Worst Anti-Christian Films of 2007

nijjhar »

Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hi,

Copy of email sent to a Media Christian web site not disclosing the information unless you pay them. What type of God they are worshipping?

I see that the information is hidden in Mammon. So, your services are not God orientated but Mammon. No wonder you glorify the soldiers who died fighting for Empire and you proclaim to have died for God and glorified Him. Your Bible and Hymn Books have Copyrights in Mammon, then how could they sing the praises of God? You mean people with no common sense called holy spirit. How could you love Gospel of God? Here are some Gospel Videos on Youtube and no wonder you hate them.

Atomic War is around the corner and you still worship Mammon? How could hireling Priests sing the praises of God when Mammon is their Master? Was my anointed Elder Brother Christ Jesus or the tyrant Saul, a hireling of Mammon? Both were devoted to God. Can I expect that you would promote my Gospel Videos given for FREE?

Hi Brethren in Christ Jesus and Christ Nanak Dev Ji,

I have put over 220 Videos on Youtube; 26 rendering Exposition of the Gnostic Gospel of St.Thomas, 68 in Punjabi on Satguru Nanak Dev Ji, Christ Jesus and other Indian religious aspects and the rest on the expositions of the important Parables of the New Testament and my articles. These Videos would give thorough understanding of all the aspects of Christianity and Sikhism with introductions to Judaism, Hinduism and Real Islam of Allah.

Gospel is received by grace of God and not by works. My lectures are free. University professors and the dog collared clerics, they hold monopoly over religion and they are like the dogs sitting in the manger not allowing any one else to eat the spiritual food. If you like my views, please pass my email to others interested in Gospel. Gospel is for the solitary twice born seekers and not for the psychic hirelings of Mammon for they cannot preach the Gospel of God but rather teach the sugar-coated sermons of Mammon. You do not accept payment in Mammon if you want Gospel Treasures from God.

My expositions are original in spirit that is mostly unknown to the people of the West. My challenge may seem very odd to most of you but just listen to them for the curiosity’s sake.

Here are couple on Easter:-

1. Why the Fig Tree was made to wither :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8m235LjFOU
2. Why call Easter? – Part 1 :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsTVHGd4gR8
3. Why call Easter? – Part 2 :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wvkneHo5m0

I can explain the Parables in details in Lectures and the whole New Testament, I can explain in a couple of weeks.

seedplanter »

Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I may need to reread the article on the religious poll to completely understand the implications of those referring to themselves as non-religious. It would seem to me however that they could have easily enough stated that they were agnostic if they were so inclined. By the way, my numbers were off a little, it was 1.2% atheist and 1.6% agnostic. I think that for a person to claim agnosticism it implies that for the time being they are in fact atheistic in their approach, with either a spiritual openness or recognizing the intellectual feasibility towards the possibility of some kind of a god; for now they side with the atheist. It would seem reasonable to suggest that for those tending to agnosticism that lean towards theism would not necessarily call themselves agnostics. This is born out in the fact that agnosticism is often times viewed as a more intellectually tenable position than atheism.

Agent: “I agree with you on religion, particularly Christianity, and how it’s more inherent to evangelize. But this is the result of the teaching of savings others ‘souls’ that are in jeopardy or lost.”

This is true, but evangelism (proclaiming the good news [of Christ]) does not only pertain to salvation.

It has been an interesting dialogue; we came this far to express whether or not the Christian criticisms of The Golden Compass are in fact justified. And whether or not it incorporates hostility towards Christianity, thelordismylight thinks that it singled out the Catholic Church. Others think that it singled out John Calvin. In either case, it is not Christian friendly and it seems to be a reaction to The Chronicles of Narnia.

agentorange20 »

Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

“Evangelism is not inherent to atheism. As a matter of fact it seems counterintuitive by its very nature. For Christianity, not only is evangelism embedded in its very nature, but it is commanded by its founder.”

Anything can be taken to such lengths to be evangelized though. Anything that is profound, perhaps appealing for it’s novelty, and gets people motivated to spread the new knowledge (a meme) is effectively self-fulfilling and in turn resorts to as sort of evangelism.

One could say the Enlightenment was a sort of evangelism of the reemergence of science knowledge that had laid dormant for a millennia. This evangelism didn’t make it’s way out of Western Societies until recently and still hasn’t been heard by all. In this form, atheism, although not adhering to some code of ‘spreading its version of truth or knowledge’, could to be evangelized and spread as others find its appeal.

I agree with you on religion, particularly Christianity, and how it’s more inherent to evangelize. But this is the result of the teaching of savings others ‘souls’ that are in jeopardy or lost.

agentorange20 »

Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Also, it is important for you to know that Christians such as myself that do not believe in six-twenty four hour days of creation, can also be fundamentalists,"

I thought you wouldn't take that part literally, and perhaps others. As when I read that partt I come to the same conclussion that it's eluding to gods perspective and not neccisarly humans concept of a single day.

“Actually I guess what I should say to qualify more precisely is what is often called ‘confrontational evangelism.’”.

True, however JH, Mormons and certain Christian denominations also are quite outspoken (Phelps Family), or at least proactive.

Good analogy, however the premise involves the persons evangalizing to believe that indeed their views are certain or at least worth while. You can know for certrain your neighbors house is on fire b/c of all the evident objective evidence. But for faith as it pertains to religion, I don’t think it’s quite the same. I don’t find flyers from churches as ‘militant evangalism’ per see, but rather actions like the Phelps family where they are disrepecting people as they picket funerals. Now that, is fundimentalism!

‘It says something like 1.5% are atheists, 1.6% are agnostics. What is left of the 16% just don't bother with religion’

From my reading of that Pew Article, it put atheists, agnostics, and people that are basically indifferent to religion into a group ‘non-religious’. The indifferent folk, which I would define if anything in terms of spirituality to be similar to agnosticism, as they are basically fence sitters of a sort. The key they noted was people change or leave their faiths, especially Catholics and JH and that it’s becoming more polarized in terms religion.

Strudelcookies »

Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Who's flagging all these posts? Someone has a rock in their shoe.

seedplanter »

Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I wonder whats up with all the flags.

wordinflesh »

Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:25 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

i agree with most of this story with the exception of the passages that say daniel day lewis' acting is "over rated" and it's "easier to play a villain than it is to play a good character." Lewis was well deserving of the oscar, and to say he had an easy role is just not correct. Church, wake up!! the world does a lot of things better than we (Christians) do. accept it, and improve.

seedplanter »

Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

One more thought Agent. Evangelism is not inherent to atheism. As a matter of fact it seems counterintuitive by its very nature. For Christianity, not only is evangelism embedded in its very nature, but it is commanded by its founder. It is also naturally propelled by the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

seedplanter »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I might add one more thing; the religious poll that you were referring to reads a bit differently than you may have thought. It says something like 1.5% are atheists, 1.6% are agnostics. What is left of the 16% just don't bother with religion. I think it was less than 1% who hung up on them. They would probably be in the same catagory.

seedplanter »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

When I said, “When I use the term ‘militant atheist,’ it is only to mean to actively proselytize believers or any one else to become atheists.” I was not excluding Christians who engage in evangelism. Actually I guess what I should say to qualify more precisely is what is often called ‘confrontational evangelism.’ This is a cold cut approach of the Gospel that goes straight in both guns blazing. Again, this is one of many colorful illustrations that are not intended to be taken literally. And you are right in that many of these PR men have been fired more or less; actually they have revamped their approach. This does not imply arguing per say, but it is not very personable. Anyway, you would probably not understand this from a non-Christian angle. Nevertheless, I will give it a shot. If your neighbor’s house was burning, you would no doubt go and warn him, without worrying about angering him or wondering if it would bother him. It is this concept that often times is involved in what is considered ‘militant evangelism.’ It is in no way intended to come across hostile. I will say that as the media has been ultra sensitive along with the general public with any kind of literal militant insinuations, most have dropped the term not wanting to be misunderstood.

At any rate, militant atheism is a confrontational approach to engage with intent of proselytizing, which is what is taking place here on Christian Post. I am not condemning this, although I do find it a bit perplexing in a certain sense. I can explain later if I have time, if interested.

seedplanter »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

“People that literally believe the world is 6000 years old, or that martyrdom results in 72 virgins I’d call fundamentalists, b/c they are following the very fundamentals of the teaching.”

The problem that I have in grouping the two together as is common by many knee-jerk secularists, is that there is a stark difference between the two belief systems. For Muslim extremists it would mean to blow themselves up in jihad. For Christians it would means different things; it can mean living sold-out to God; it can mean to live to make a difference in people’s lives; it can mean evangelism or even missionary work; it can mean preaching on the street corner or handing out blankets to the homeless. More often than not it is associated with taking personal risks; financially, physically (working with street gangs, etc), etc. or giving up everyday peripherals that Americans take for granted to spread the Gospel.

Also, it is important for you to know that Christians such as myself that do not believe in six-twenty four hour days of creation, can also be fundamentalists, in that we mean to take the Bible literally where it is intended to be taken literally. This might mean that the days are referring to indefinite periods of time; that it is referring to time in God’s point of view; or that the author is trying to point something else out entirely, that has no intension of being read as a historical account scientifically speaking. Christians have not always been against evolution or an old earth theory. It was primarily two scientists who made that popular back in the late sixties.

agentorange20 »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Seed,

“The term militant and fundamentalism have both been used in a derogatory sense”

It all depends on context, if they are used correctly and if it’s applicable. People that literally believe the world is 6000 years old, or that martyrdom results in 72 virgins I’d call fundamentalists, b/c they are following the very fundamentals of the teaching.

“When I use the term ‘militant atheist,’ it is only to mean to actively proselytize believers or any one else to become atheists.’

Nice logic Seed. So regular religious believers, Christian or not, can evangelize their faith to others to become believers and not be coined as being ‘militant’ but the second non-believers attempt the very same tact THEN that is somehow militant? Get real pal.

“It is actually quite strange how even on the mainstream media terms that are explicitly Christian are now being used in various contexts where they don’t really apply: such as evangelism, gospel and Bible”

Such as? Haven’t you heard the expression that a given document won’t be taken as ‘gospel’, that means that it’s malleable and not something set in stone. Is it derogatory? I don’t see how it is, if so explain.

“One more thing: I know of Christian ministries who have called their evangelistic endeavors militant evangelism.”

Well their PR guy needs to get fired then. Pure word semantics I guess. So what, then they are coining their own terms, this doesn’t mean the vernacular is actually consistent with the words meaning. Why not progressive evangelizing? Sounds a little more docile than militant. Fine, I agree the recent efforts by the godless of contrary to the past, more aggressive then in recent times. Some of this also stems from how many people have turned away from religion, last I recall the recent 2008 PEW study showed non-religious folk made up 16% of the populace, up from 13% in 2001. Some of this is a correlation of a growing trend, so more outspokenness should correlate, and it does. But militant? Holding guns to peoples heads and ordering them to check their faith at the door? No, that’s not what’s happening.

www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/non_religious_outnumber/

seedplanter »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Well agent, I do understand why you would take offense to the idea of militant atheism. The term militant and fundamentalism have both been used in a derogatory sense. When I use the term ‘militant atheist,’ it is only to mean to actively proselytize believers or any one else to become atheists. It is actually quite strange how even on the mainstream media terms that are explicitly Christian are now being used in various contexts where they don’t really apply: such as evangelism, gospel and Bible. One more thing: I know of Christian ministries who have called their evangelistic endeavors militant evangelism. This in no way insinuated a gun-toting, explosive-strapped preacher. It was however similar to the new atheists’ efforts of religious persuasion which can be summed up in a word, aggressive (that is to say in contrast to just sitting around waiting for a conversation starter, one seeks out opportunities to spread what is thought to be true).

(I flagged myself)

aritonang »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jakarta- 5 October 1965, the day of the dead generals funeral procession, a military propaganda campaign began to sweep the country. Both Indonesian and internationals saw that it was an atheist communist coup, and that the murders were cowardly atrocities against Indonesian heroes. PKI denials of involvement had little effect. The atheist communist party and its alleged front groups were banned. Indonesian army, acting on orders by Suharto began a campaign of agitation and incitement to violence among Indonesian civilians aimed not only at atheist communists but the ethnic Chinese community and toward President Sukarno himself. Leading PKI members were immediately arrested, some summarily executed.
The anti atheist communist purge quickly spread from Jakarta to the rest of the country, the worst massacres of known, suspected, and simply alleged atheist communists, were in Java and Bali where PKI support was at its strongest. The situation varied across the country, in some areas the army organized civilian groups and local militias, in other areas communal vigilante action preceded the army. For many youths, killing atheist communists became a religious duty. Muslims in Java and Sumatra but also Christians and Catholic students in the Yogyakarta region and Hindus in Bali took part in the massacres. Though most suspects were identified by locals, the CIA supplied the Indonesian military with lists of suspected atheist communists.
Between 300,000 and one million atheist communist were killed in the mass killings following the arrest of PKI members in Sukarno cabinet on October 6, 1965. Ironically, a CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that in terms of the numbers killed, the anti PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century. Many others were also imprisoned and for the next ten years people were still being imprisoned as suspects. It is thought that as many as 1.5 million was imprisoned at one stage or another.
Indonesian today is still on the look out for more atheists communist to kill.

thelordismylight »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

September Second, 1996, an Evangelical group staged a huge "three-day inactivity protest" in which people would remain in their homes doing nothing for three days. The impact was enormous, they were demanding that any books considering the KKK, Elizabethan Inquisition, and other crimes committed by the Protestant faith be removed from all public library shelves. Needless to say, they got their wish. One man shouted to a camera during a victory speach "take that you dirty papists"... Hmmm... This three-day inactivity thing... maybe we should give it a shot? I am sure we could accomplish what these Evangelicals did on a much much much larger scale. The Catholic vote has carried politicians over before! I wouldn't be bashing the Catholics like they are, but instead I would be sucking up to them! I mean we make up what... like 1/5 of American population? My stats are hazy right now... but we are the majority religion by far. I think we should totally try that 3-day inactivity thing. We would be able to sweep Da Vinci Code and Golden Compass right off the shelves.

thelordismylight »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Oh please, the Golden Compass wasn't anti-christian, it singled out the Catholic faith. Stop whining. In America basically every single Christian group has gotten themselves hate crime protection. But Catholic bashing is still completely politically correct. They know we will take it. Look at the Da Vinci Code for crying out loud! OBVIOUSLY a hate crime against Catholics. Do you know what word the Golden Compass series uses to describe the evil people? It uses the word "magisterium" which just so happens to be the teaching body of the Catholic Church. And it refers to the king of evil as "His Holiness" (obviously the Pope) and there is a point in the story where, previously always called preachers, the writer must have accidentally let slip the word "father" when referring to a preacher. Hmm... don't pretend the Golden Compass is against all Christianity. Da Vinci Code... Golden Compass... they were targetting Catholicism, not overall Christianity. Trust me, if there were a movie called "KKK, the Religion Behind the Scenes" that featured a Baptist or Episcopalean minister as the leader of a KKK group, then the producers would be instantly slapped with a civil penalty for hate crime. The only time a hate crime isn't a hate crime is when it is against Catholics.

agentorange20 »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"orange,
Miltant: "Agressively active (in a cause)" So, yes, it is a militant action. "

So, by your definition anything that is aggresive in action is coined militant then? People who evangalize aren't considered as being 'militant', now why not? They are after all, by the very own description engadged in a very active, and aggresize promotion of something. By your definition they too are militant.

A movie or a book are ventures in free speetch. If you like, or are interested in said media then you will attend, if not, then not. It's quite simple. If you don't like the station, turn the channel, there are plenty of choices to pick from. Defning something as 'militant' denotes active force, not a passive choice. In media we have choice and are welcome to choose what we will atend to, wheather it be book, print, or radio, etc. If this type of media was the only choice, or people were forced to watch said media, then this would be an act of militant force.

One would think such a label as 'militant' would be more reserved for such descriptive behavior...like flying planes into buildings...or blowing up buses or trains, but I guess you label them as something else then.

Prophet »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

orange,
Miltant: "Agressively active (in a cause)" So, yes, it is a militant action.

agentorange20 »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"I would concur that it is an outright militant atheist attack, fantasy or not. "

9-11, ya that's obviously a militant faith based act....but somehow a movie is being compared as being militant act now too?

How exactly is a movie, a book, or anything protected under free speatch 'militant'?

agentorange20 »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

seedplanter,

Yes I understand, we all have our own views. howerver, how exactly are the 3 I pointed out at least anti-christian? Harry potter...give me a break. Sico...uh, it's about universal healthcare for the entire populous...I guess that's not biblical now?

psalm3734 »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:02 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Wondering if most anti-Christian movies were made by same companies/producers. The most powerful message we can send to these movie studios is WE ARE NOT BUYING YOUR TICKETS. To all of us, kindly be aware on certain 'politics' played by movie studio owners. If they are not getting your money, they'll learn the lesson. CBP (Christians Buyer Power) must be realized!

seedplanter »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Agent, everyone has their own opinion. For an example of the diversity within the Christian community, check out Christian Spotlight on Entertainment.

Brian Godawa use to have some very interesting reviews online, but I can't locate the sight.

As for The Golden Compass, from what I understand about the movie, one has to know a little bit more about Christian theology to recognize the various insinuations that reverses the Christian role of salvation. I would concur that it is an outright militant atheist attack, fantasy or not.

agentorange20 »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

“The Fools Gold Award "The Golden Compass" – Worst Atheist Role Model”

‘Atheist role model’? Are you kidding me, it’s a fantasy movie. MOVIE, it’s fake, it’s not reality. WHAT is this guy thinking? Where is even the notion that this is an atheist role model movie?

“The Friendly Witch Award "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" – Worst Anti-Biblical Rebellion”

Poor Harry Potter can’t catch a break huh? And why exactly is this movie so anti-Christian? It’s a fantasy movie folks, it’s fake, it has no amount of being a ‘true story’ so why exactly is it anti-Christian for kids to watch a movie on fantasy? If witches and goblins as fantasy are really anit-christian, then why don't these same christians protest against the annual dress (Halloween) up that kids an adults partake in?

" The Snake Oil Huckster Award "Sicko"– Worst Liberal Propaganda"

Is this movie critic kidding us? How is a moive about how awefull the state of healthcare is in the USA an anti-christian film? It’s a documentry on how horrid the healthcare really is, and what other nations do and how they top us in this regard, so suddely it’s somehow anti-christian?

One would think that this movie principle message of 'health care for all' as something so obvious and mirrors jesus’ messages of caring for all, young and old regardless of their wealth as something as christian. I find it hard to believe jesus or anyone (except big pharma) would be against concepts like universal healthcare.

savannah »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

I looked at the list of top best 10 movies from the "Christian Oscars" and I'm reminded why I don't take Christian critics seriously.

I'll take the worst movies for 500, Alex.

Topekan »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hmm, I haven't seen any of them. I guess I didn't miss much.

prodriver »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Well, majority doesn´t convince me.
I believe in him, because he convinced me and maybe one day we two meet feeding the poor!?
Or is this just a christina duty?

Mic »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:17 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Movies still influence people. There will be a judgment day for those who mock Christ and his people. Christians feed the poor, help the oppressed, and are valued by many all over the world. Hollywood movies that blast Christianity are subject to condemnation.

JesusChristXXX »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

Thank you for posting this story. Now I know what movies I need to go see. By the way, There Will be Blood was excellent.

FullGospel »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:44 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

We need to remember that Hollywood is not a community of on-fire believers, and I'll leave it at that. You can find where Jesus is by where most of the attacks from Hollywood are directed. Let our hearts be as steadfast as Paul's in these trying times, praying for those who persecute us.

Phileo »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

See my review of "I Am Legend" at my blog http://woeckener.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-am-legend.html#links

I Am Legend oozes Christian themes all over it.

RBB »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Well, that would explain why the media was so bent on promoting "There Will Be Blood".