35 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Red Dawn (1984)
2/10
A Product of the Paranoia of its Time
5 June 2024
Warning: Spoilers
This movie came out in 1984. There were Communist regimes in power in Cuba and Nicaragua. There was a big nuclear disarmament movement in western Europe. The Soviets were in Afghanistan. American hawks saw Communists everywhere. It didn't take much to go a few steps further in this movie to where Mexico has fallen to Communists, the Green Party wins in West Germany and NATO eventually dissolves, and the U. S. stands alone. That's the perfect setting for an invasion of the U. S. from Mexico, and across the Bering Strait into Alaska then down through Canada. Meanwhile, most of Europe, except for the United Kingdom, having been through two wars in the 20th century, doesn't resist the Soviets. The only other people resisting the Soviets are 600 million Chinese, down from 1 billion before the war.

This movie couldn't have been made Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union and relations began to improve with the West. Oh, there were still some American hawks at the end of 1987 who were so hardline that they called President Ronald Reagan, who was no liberal, a "useful idiot" of the Soviets when he signed the INF treaty. But they had to eat their words as glasnost (openness) continued in the Soviet Union through the 1980s and the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

The movie definitely seemed laughable after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This had been a country that couldn't even win a war in a backwards country like Afghanistan, where 15,000 Soviet soldiers died and 35,000 were wounded. Eventually, they pulled out. It would have been quite a stretch for them to be fighting a three-front world war in China, Europe and North America.

I'll give the movie a B for action though.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Christian paranoia movie with a weak plot
5 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
(Spoiler alert) Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. And their commitment to non-violence are being discussed in a high school AP history class. A student Brooke asks if this is similar to the teachings of Jesus. The teacher Grace Wesley responds that it is and make some references to the Bible.

The movie's plot collapses right at the beginning. The Bible references are enough to get her dragged to the principal's office where she is forced to either recant her statements or face the end of her teaching career - a highly, unlikely scenario to begin with. Grace was only answering a student's question. She wasn't leading her students in prayer and she wasn't preaching from the Bible as though she were teaching Sunday school. The mere references to the Bible, however, are too much for Brooke's freethinking parents and the "evil ACLU." Brooke's parents file a lawsuit against Grace.

As the courtroom drama starts to unfold, we learn that ACLU lawyer Peter Kane's goal is to "prove, once and for all, that God is dead." In the jury selection process, "Duck Dynasty fans" are considered reliable to the defense, while "Pretty Little Liars" fans are considered helpful for the ACLU. Brooke's parents are never shown mourning the recent death of their son in a traffic accident, and are hoping that the winnings from the lawsuit will finance Brooke's going to college at Stanford. The movie overlooks the probability that a high school teacher is most likely not a person with deep pockets. As if making a mountain out of Grace's molehill response to Brooke's question wasn't bad enough, the movie goes off on tangents about the separation of religion from government and the historical existence of Jesus.

I'm assuming the makers of the movie didn't hire a legal consultant to provide them with advice on the fine points of trial procedure. In the real world, an attorney cannot compel his own client to take the stand, and would definitely not treat her as a hostile witness, as happened in the movie. The ACLU attorney should have been raising objections to the defense bringing in Christian apologists to prove the existence of Jesus, or at least he should have brought in his own expert witnesses on the matter. The whole court room scene is laughable.

There are a few subplots going on in the movie. The atheist-turned-Christian blogger Amy Ryan who found in "God's Not Dead 1" (GND 1) that she had advanced cancer learns that the cancer is in complete remission and believes that it was cured by prayer. The Chinese student Martin Yip, who became a Christian in GND 1, is disowned by his father who has arrived to take him home. Brooke discovers that her late brother was a Christian. Eventually, she becomes a Christian (what a shock). Like GND 1, the movie ends at the Newsboys' Christian rock concert.

And just to add a little fuel to the conspiracy fire, a group of ministers are told by their senior pastor (Fred Dalton Thompson is his final film role) that their sermons for the past three months are being subpoenaed -- never mind the fact the such a subpoena, which screams First Amendment violations, is never likely to be issued in the first place. He never says who issued the subpoena. At the end of the movie after the credits, Pastor David Hill (another character from GND 1) is arrested for refusing to comply with the subpoena. In the real world, the ACLU would have helped the ministers defeat the subpoena.

As in GND 1, non-Christians are held in low regard. They are portrayed as either shallow (Brooke's parents), rigid (Yip's father), or devious (ACLU lawyer Peter Kane).

The cases listed, by the way, in the closing credits which claim that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs have almost nothing to do with religion in public schools. Their focus is instead on requirements for birth control coverage under health insurance laws, and laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The message of the movie is that Christians are victims and are under attack from all sides by evil "secular rationalist forces" that control the government - even in Arkansas (the state's never mentioned by name but its flag and the state capitol building are shown on a few occasions). The movie is made by Christians for Christians who aren't going to ask hard questions about how it's so out of touch with reality.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Religious freedom or MacArthur's ego
31 July 2023
Before you see this movie that paints one church as being under siege during the pandemic, think about the thousands of other churches that didn't feel threatened by the health mandates. Think about the churches that still managed to deal with the situation via virtual services and even community outreach programs. Think about the movie's bias in favor of John MacArthur and his church.

Jim Hinch, senior editor of the Christian Guideposts magazine, wrote an excellent article "How the Pandemic Radicalized Evangelicals" (Los Angeles Review of Books, August 15, 2021). He points out that John MacArthur had a long history well before the pandemic of wanting to maintain absolute control over Grace Community Church and its seminary. A former seminary administrator said that MacArthur ""does not like anyone telling him what he can or cannot do." A former deacon described the church as a toxic environment. MacArthur's responses to the pandemic were just another episode of his wanting to hold on to power.

Hinch also described how other churches, including Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, dealt with the pandemic without defying the health restrictions.

The movie is a propaganda piece that contains no information that would refute MacArthur's claims.
32 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not As Bad as the First Two But...
11 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
While this movie doesn't quite have the secularist-bashing attitude of the first two GND movies (check out my reviews on those movies), the plot has its roots in some unlikely scenarios. (Spoiler alert) (1) The movie opens where GND 2 left off, with Pastor David Hill being arrested for refusing to comply with a subpoena for his sermon transcripts, something that screams First Amendment violations and is never likely to be issued in the first place. The reason for the subpoena and who requested it are never mentioned in the movie. (2) Hill is the minister at a church on the grounds of a public university. Maybe I'm missing something, but there are hardly any public colleges that have religious places of worship on college property. (Some exceptions are some public military colleges, including the services academies, which, like military bases, have chapels and chaplains.) It turns out the college was originally a Christian college, and the church simply didn't close when the state took over the college. The sermon subpoena controversy has led the university to want to remove the church from campus -- poor Christians now under siege. (3) There's a large student protest against the church being on campus. Most likely, the removal of the church (again, a church on a public college is an unlikely situation) would be met with little support by students. It reminds me of the big ACLU-cheering crowds in GND 2. Usually, supporters of the separation of religion from government face angry, hard-line religious crowds.

The plot takes a tragic turn when a student throws a brick through one of the church's basement windows, which accidentally starts a fire that kills Hill's friend Jude and almost destroys the church. The university and Hill still continue their battle over the church being on campus. In the end, Hill decides a lawsuit is not the answer and allows the university to take over the property. The university plans to build a student union center and promises to have an office in it for a Christian campus ministry organization. Hill plans to build a new church nearby. After the credits, Michael Tait of the Christian rock group Newsboys, says that all the problems of disunity in the world will be solved if people come together as believers in Jesus (not a surprise in a Christian movie).

Keaton Young, a college student, makes out a valid point to Hill about the decline in church attendance over the past few decades: "You want to know why our generation's leaving the church. It's because the whole world knows what the church is against, but it's getting harder and harder to know what it's for." She adds that they're tired of being judged and rejected by people who should be loving and accepting. (Another reason is that more people are questioning the foundations of religion itself and are finding them to be based on superstition and mythology, but that's another story.)

The first two GND movies both ended with a list of court cases in the closing credits which claimed that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs. The cases actually had nothing to do with religion in public schools, but actually concerned requirements for birth control coverage under health insurance laws and laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. GND 3 didn't have that lie. Maybe the producers got the message.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fahrenheit 9/11 is Just Another Propaganda Film
21 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Long before there was Qanon, there was Michael Moore with his conspiracy theories. They were loved by the left in the early 2000s. In this movie, he zig-zags from one wild claim to another but doesn't look at differing opinions or any evidence that might refute his allegations.

He opens by claiming that the 2000 vote count in Florida was rigged, thanks to Governor Jeb Bush, that African-Americans in Florida were denied the right to vote, and that Al Gore should have won that state and thus the Presidency. It's interesting, though, that Al Gore never claimed that the vote count was rigged. Unlike Donald Trump, who claimed there was massive voter fraud in many states, Al Gore eventually conceded.

Moore claims that on 9/11, President Bush froze up at the elementary school reading upon hearing of the attacks. In actuality, Bush didn't show his reaction because he didn't want to cause any panic.

Moore's attention then turns to the Bin Ladens. He claimed that Osama Bin Laden's extended family were flown out of the U. S. after the attacks. He also claimed that the Bid Laden family supported Bush's business ventures while this father was in office in the early 90s, and that there were close ties between the Bush family and other Saudis.

As far as Moore is concerned, the war in Afghanistan was really about getting a pipeline built from the Caspian Sea to Pakistan. He claimed that this was attempted in the 90s, and that the invasion in 2001 took place because the Taliban refused to cooperate.

Moving on to the invasion of Iraq, Moore portrayed U. S. soldiers as if they enjoyed killing Iraqis. He was critical of the media for its initial support of the invasion, for not covering injured soldiers, and for not covering coffins of dead soldiers. In his interviews, he only spoke with soldiers who couldn't understand opposition by Iraqis to Americans and with soldiers who regretted going to Iraq. Moore claimed that Halliburton profited from rebuilding Iraq, and that business was rigged in favor of U. S. companies.

Even though military service in voluntary, Moore claimed that military recruiters took advantage of bad economic conditions in trying to get people to join, and that only poor people serve in the armed services. He alleged that no members of Congress have children in military service, and tried to ambush them on the Hill about it.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is just another one of Moore's propaganda movies. A documentary would have presented both sides of these crazy claims.
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Atheist Delusion (2016 Video)
1/10
A Creationist's Delusion
30 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Ray Comfort tries to use the debunked "intelligent design" myth to explain the origin of the universe, life -- and books -- in a "jaywalker" style discussion with atheists. He rejects evidence that the universe and life have evolved to their current state over the course of billions of years and that there are an infinite number of variables affecting the course of this evolution. He then assumes that this proves the existence of his god and that everything in the Christian Bible is true. At the end, he convinces most of his interviewees to accept Christianity.

I can't help but wonder how much of the discussion with the atheists was staged, and whether those people were really atheists.

There's no evidence that proves that any gods (small "g", plural) exist. Most people today are atheists as far as Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Isis, and Thor are concerned. (Thor, FYI, was the god of thunder in Norse mythology long before he became a comic book character.) I just added the Judeo-Christian god and Allah to the list.

This laughable movie was made by Christians for Christians to "save" atheists. It's not going to convince any atheist to "accept Jesus".

I'm one more atheist not afraid of "burning in Hell," since there is no Hell.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the Worst Christmas Specials Ever
9 May 2022
I remember this show. The theme is that the "commercialization" of Christmas had reached the point by 2010 that the religious celebrations were outlawed. You would be arrested by the police. Maybe the fact that it was so bad is the reason it's never been rebroadcast.

It was an early warning from the "keep Christ in Christmas" Christians.

Well, as of 2022, the religious celebrations of Christmas are still legal, though some "war on Christmas" Christians decry the fact that they can't use the public square to flaunt their religion during the holidays. They can still celebrate in their churchs and their homes. Maybe they don't like the fact than non-Christians can enjoy the holidays without celebrating the birth of Jesus. Maybe they don't like the fact that people are discovering that the holidays were a time of celebration, focused on the Winter Solstice, long before the rise of Christianity. (Kirk Cameron's "Saving Christmas" was a terrible attempt to explain away the pagan origins of many of the holiday traditions.)

This show is among the worst Christmas specials ever. It's down there with the "Star Wars Holiday Special" (also never rebroadcast), Kirk Cameron's "Saving Christmas", and "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians."
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't Look Up (2021)
6/10
Important message lost in a farce
10 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A farce is a broadly humorous work based on the exploitation of improbable situations. This movie definitely falls into that category.

A comet is found to be ending towards Earth that could wipe out humanity. The scientists warn the President, but she's doesn't take them seriously at first. Still, she warns them to tell no one for national security reasons. Still, they go to the media, but even the media personalities are more interested in the latest on an entertainment celebrity. Eventually, after the news can no longer be contained, a plan is made to alter the course of the comet using nuclear weapons. But right after the mission is launched, it's aborted because a top-donor industrialist believes it will be possible to stop the comet and mine it for minerals. The world becomes divided between those who demand the comet's destruction, those who want to exploit it, and those who deny it exists. Once the comet comes into view, the President urges people not to look up. Last minute attempts to stop or exploit the comet fail, and the comet hits Earth, triggering an extinction level event.

Now, what's the likelihood that a President's or the media's reaction to an extinction level event will be as cavalier as in this movie? What's the likelihood that anyone would try to mine a comet or asteroid heading towards Earth when letting it get close enough to do so threatens all life on Earth? In reality, both seem pretty slim.

The message of the movie is that disasters can happen when shortsighted politicians ignore science. It's a reminder of how slow or indifferent some of them have been on dealing with the COVID pandemic. Many have been more concerned about bizarre conspiracies surrounding attempts to deal with it than the virus itself. Yet, this message is a bit lost in this movie's bizarre, farcical plot.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Kudos on this Expose' about a Juck Science Amusement Park
5 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Well, the creationists have been laughed out of halls of science. They have to turn to politicians to get their ideas taught in the public schools, but then they run into the risk of litigation from the "evil" secularists. When all else fails, build an amusement park that makes it fun to learn about mythology -- I mean creationism science (yes, that's a contradiction in terms). While you're it at, get subsidies from the taxpayer and paint bright pictures of booming economic development that don't pan out.

This documentary focuses well on the Ark Encounter and the local community, as opposed to getting opinions of faraway groups. It includes interviews with local atheist groups, employees and former employees of Ark Encounter, local scientists, the local townspeople, and nearby church leaders who don't feel that evolution conflicts with their religion. David MacMillan's journey from being a Kentucky creationist and writer for Answers in Genesis to being a science advocate is quite interesting.

Needless to say, Ken Ham wasn't happy with this film. In his critique of the film, which he calls a "hatchet job", he said the reason that Williamstown, KY, didn't enjoy a boost to its economy was that the town center on the opposite site of the interstate from the Ark and is a half-mile from the interstate. But Ham knew about the town's location when he lobbied it to help finance his park. So were the town's folk fools to believe him?

Of course, it's sad that children are being taught at the Ark and Creationism Museum that the stories in Genesis about divine creation and the flood are real, and that the entire history of the Earth can be crunched into 6000 years. Ken Ham instructs them to say "where you there?" when anyone tries to prove the Earth is any older. On the Answers in Genesis site, Ken Ham's response for the non-believers who say no one was there is that God was there and the Bible is his infallible word. Case closed.

To liven up the documentary, I would have asked Ham some tricky questions about Genesis. These came from actually reading Genesis. For instance, where did he get information on the "wickedness" that existed before the flood, since the bible provides no details on it? There are two stories in Genesis on the types of animals brought on to the ark. One is of well-known story about two of every animal being brought on to the ark, while a less-known version has seven of every "clean" animal and two of every unclean animal being brought on to the ark. How does Ham know which is correct? After Cain kills Abel, he flees to the east and eventually has a wife. But if Adam and Eve were the first humans and had no daughters, where did Mrs. Cain come from? Ken Ham: Were you there?

I highly recommend Bill Nye's debate with Ken Ham, where Nye makes mincemeat out of Ham's nonsense.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boy Erased (2018)
9/10
Great Message But a Slow Movie
19 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This movie delivers a great message about the absurdity and dangers of "conversion therapy." The therapy shown in the movie is based on the pseudoscience notion that a man's homosexuality was caused by the alleged loss of his masculinity at some point in his upbringing. But even worse is that the focus of the "therapy" is to shame people for being gay. "Pray away the gay" is really shame away the gay. The religious focus of the therapy turns it into a "repent - the end is near" inquisition.

LGBT-phobes claim that one need for the therapy is that the rate of suicide among LGBT individuals, which is higher than the rate for non-LGBT individuals. What these hypocrites ignore is the fact that these suicides are a result of people being ridiculed for their sexual orientation or gender identity, and constantly being told that there's something gravely wrong with them. The therapy only makes it worse. The treatment received by Cameron and his eventual suicide are stark examples of this.

While the movie focuses well on Jared Emmons, it moves at a slow pace. Also, one might have expected bigger roles for stars like Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Bible Believer's Poor Patterns of Evidence
18 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Unless you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of a god and must be 100 percent accurate, it's going to read like a collection of myths. The story of the Exodus is no exception. That's what worries Tim Mahoney. Under close scrutiny, the Exodus and other stories don't hold up when subjected to the rigors of scientific and historical analysis. Mahoney is trying to throw out a life line to prevent the Exodus from being treated as fiction.

The trouble for Mahoney is that, under the basic rule of scientific inquiry, if the evidence doesn't support a theory, the theory has to be modified or discarded. Throughout the film, Tim Mahoney sticks to his assertion that the Exodus took place and provides just enough evidence to support his position. However, while he provides clips of archeologists who disagree with him, he doesn't elaborate on the evidence they would use to support their positions and go against his theory.

For instance, he notes that the ruins at Avaris show that it was occupied by Semitic peoples. What he doesn't mention is that Avaris was the capital of Egypt when it was ruled by the Hyskos, a people from western Asia, from about 1650 to 1550 BCE. The so-called "Statue of Joseph", originally highly decorated, found at Avaris could be a statue of any high-ranking Hyskos. The house discovered at Avaris could have belonged to anyone. Saying it was the house of Jacob is like saying that any log cabin found in Illinois might have been the home of Abraham Lincoln. Mahoney doesn't elaborate on that information, and barely mentions the Hyskos at all in the film.

Mahoney also points to a long canal built by built during the time of the Pharaoh Amenemhat III (ruled 1860-1814 BCE) and claims that it has always been called the "Waterway of Joseph." In fact, the canal's name in ancient times was Mer-Wer, meaning "Grand Canal." The name "Waterway of Joseph" is from the Arabic name Bahr Yussef, which wasn't applied to the canal until after the Arab conquest of Egypt in the 7th century CE.

Traditionally, the Exodus is believed to have occurred during the time of Rameses II (ruled 1279-1213 BCE). Mahoney concedes that the ruins at Avaris and the Waterway are too old to place the Exodus during that time period. So, he concludes that the rise of the Hebrews in Egypt and the Exodus occurred sometime during the Middle Kingdom period (2050 to 1710 BCE). He also moves up the destruction of Jericho by Joshua to not long after this time period, since the archeological evidence shows that Jericho was still a standing city towards the end of Egypt's Middle Kingdom period.

Mahoney also refers to the Merneptah Stele, which has been interpreted to read "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not," and is the oldest record to mention the term "Israel." The stele describes Pharaoh Merneptah's (ruled 1213-1203 BCE) victories over Libyan and Canaanite peoples. However, there is much uncertainty as to who this Israel is or where they were located.

Mahoney focuses heavily in the film on the theory of David Rohl, who has asserted that the Bible should be treated as a reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. That's like saying the Iliad should be treated as a reliable historical source on the history of Troy until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. Using the Bible's timeline of events, Rohl proceeds to move up the entire chronology of Egyptian and other Middle East history by 350 years. (Rohl insists he's an agnostic. His reliance on the Bible as an accurate source of history reminds me of Kirk Cameron saying he was an atheist before becoming a Christian fundamentalist.)

Mahoney doesn't discuss the number of Hebrews who left Egypt during the Exodus. The book of Numbers puts it at anywhere from 600,000 to 2 million. If that were true, they probably could have easily overwhelmed their Egyptian masters. He also doesn't discuss the story for their 40 years wandering in the desert, for which no supporting archeological evidence has been found. Was he concerned that discussing these alleged events might weaken his arguments on the Exodus?

In summary, Mahoney picks and chooses evidence that supports his position that the Exodus took place, and ignores any that doesn't support it. He wants to believe it happened, and this bias is evident throughout the film.

I highly recommend the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman for anyone looking for a history of Israel from a scientific perspective. It treats the Bible with the same skepticism as an accurate source of history that anyone today would treat the Iliad as an accurate source. Too often, archeology about ancient Israel is conducted with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Persecuted (I) (2014)
1/10
Murder drama with a weak plot
4 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
(Spoiler alert) Televangelist -- I mean religious broadcaster -- John Luther opposes legislation called the "Faith and Fairness Act". Because of this, he's drugged, videotaped in bed with a woman, and framed for her murder. A U.S. Senator, members of his ministry's board, and even the Secret Service -- and possibly the President -- are behind this frame-up. Eventually, Luther is cleared because some witnesses videotaped the murder on a smartphone.

The problem with the movie is that the details of the "Faith and Fairness Act" are barely revealed. Bits and pieces of the movie suggest that it's enactment would mean big wealth and power for Luther's ministry and maybe the government, but they're very vague. More details on the Act would have provided a much better understanding of the reason for Luther's frame-up and the plotters' drive to get rid of him.

The description of the movie reads: "Persecuted depicts evangelist John Luther as the last obstacle in the way of sweeping religious reform. When a Senator frames Luther for the murder of an innocent teenage girl, an unprecedented era of persecution is unleashed. An evangelist turned fugitive, Luther's mission brings him face-to-face with the coming storm of persecution that will threaten the entire Christian community in America." The description is misleading. Without more details on the "sweeping religious reform" that would come about from enactment of the "Faith and Fairness Act", this movie is only a murder drama. No "era" or "storm" of persecution is revealed in the movie.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Bible Believer Cherry-Picking History -- Again
3 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
In this sequel to his story on the Exodus, Tim Mahoney tries to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch -- Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. He's trying to counter the argument advanced by most historians that no alphabet existed at the time Moses allegedly wrote the books and that they were instead written after the Babylonian exile.

The trouble for Mahoney is that, under the basic rule of scientific inquiry, if the evidence doesn't support a theory, the theory has to be modified or discarded. Throughout the film, Tim Mahoney sticks to his assertion that Moses had an alphabet to work with and provides just enough evidence to support his position. However, just like in Exodus, he provides clips of archeologists who disagree with him, but doesn't elaborate on the evidence they would use to support their positions and go against his theory.

Mahoney's focus is on the proto-Sinaitic script found is Egypt. It was a departure from the Hieroglyphic form of writing, which had hundreds of symbols. Only fragments of have been discovered in the Sinai, the Nile valley and Israel. They date from anywhere between 1850 and 1550 BCE, during Egypt's Middle Kingdom period. Archeologists have concluded that the script was an ancestor of the proto-Canaanite alphabet, the predecessor of the Phoenician and Aramaic alphabets.

Mahoney's argument was that the proto-Sinaitic script led immediately to the Hebrew alphabet, and that it was used by Moses to write the Pentateuch in the middle 2nd millennium BCE, when Mahoney claims the Exodus occurred. The problem with this assertion is that no traces of Hebrew writing have been found that date from before 900 BCE. In fact, the earliest surviving fragments of Hebrew Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of which date from the 1st century BCE, and the Silver Scrolls, which date from the 4th century BCE. Even the proto-Canaanite alphabet didn't see widespread use until after 1200 BCE, around the time of Bronze Age collapse of many of the old Middle East cultures.

Mahoney dismisses the critics of his theory as biased towards a particular "paradigm." However, the supporters he interviews at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville and at the MIKRA Research Laboratory are evangelicals who believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. He relies heavily on the theories about the origins of the Hebrew language advanced by Douglas Petrovich, a professor at the Bible Seminary in Katy, Texas. Petrovich is a self-described creationist, according to his own YouTube videos.

In the end, in his quest to be a 100-percent believer in the Bible, Mahoney abandons even the smallest fringes of credibility by crediting Joseph with the development of the Hebrew alphabet and asserting it was of divine origin.

An excellent book on the origins of the Pentateuch is "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Friedman. It discusses how the Pentateuch was written by at least four different authors, and that the books were written shortly before and after the Babylonian exile.

Another major problem with the notion that the Pentateuch was written by one person is its disorganization, something Mahoney doesn't touch on at all. If one person wrote it, he was a terrible writer. The books are loaded with flaws and holes that no competent writer would overlook. How did I find this out? I did something that some Bible believers never do: I read the books.

In Genesis, for instance, many stories are rather short and compact, including the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Most of them are only a chapter long. Why didn't the writer provide greater detail on these stories? Probably the longest story in Genesis is the story of Jacob's son Joseph. The filler between the stories is mostly family chronologies and how some characters lived to be over 900 years old.

There are also a few story holes and contradictions in Genesis. After Cain kills Abel, he flees to the east and eventually has a wife. But if Adam and Eve were the first humans and had no daughters, where did Mrs. Cain come from? The Flood story has two descriptions of the types of animals brought on to the ark. One is of well-known story about two of every animal being brought on to the ark, while a less-known version has seven of every "clean" animal and two of every unclean animal being brought on to the ark. How could the writer miss these contradictions? The book also provides no details of the "wickedness" that existed before the Flood.

In the other books, several stories are told more than once with many of the same details. These include the stories of Moses talking with his god at the burning bush, Aaron (Moses' brother) helping Moses, the plagues of Egypt, the Passover, the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests, food restrictions, details on several festivals, instructions on the building of the tabernacle, the exile in the wilderness, requirements for offerings, the appointment of judges to assist Moses, rules against mixing with other peoples, and rules against making treaties with current inhabitants of Canaan. Some of them are repeated in one book (e.g. the repetitions of the stories in Egypt are in Exodus) while some stories are told in more than one book.

Some stories are out of place. The 40 years in the wilderness is mentioned in Exodus but the explanation on why the Hebrews are forced to wonder in the wilderness is not provided until Numbers.

A good writer would have organized the stories and books with better flow, more details, certainly less repetition, and probably less filler.
14 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Family drama for believers
10 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is mostly a drama about relationship problems between a skeptical husband Lee Strobel and a born-again Christian wife. The wife was raised as a church-going Christian but quit going to church after her childhood. She returns to church after her daughter is saved from choking on a gum ball at a restaurant by a Christian nurse who said something told her she had to be at the restaurant that night. There isn't much in-depth research be Lee in the movie. He never questions the reliability of the Gospels and the Bible as a source of information on Jesus.

My advice to Lee would be to do some more in-depth research, especially on when the books of the New Testament were written. Paul wrote the first of his letters around 50 CE (Common Era). He wrote about persecuting followers of Jesus in the mid 30s before becoming a Christian. Paul's letters are the only indicator that a prophet named Jesus existed. The Gospels weren't written until the late first and early second centuries CE (Common Era), long after Jesus' time, and are thus not contemporary sources of information about Jesus. They only provide proof of the beliefs that had evolved by the time of their writing on Jesus the miracle-worker, the resurrected, and the divine. While there are many early First Century writings about people and events around Judea and Galilee are available, there's no physical evidence or contemporary documents from the early First Century CE on Jesus' alleged miracles or resurrection. If they had occurred, certainly they would have been worth writing about at the time. They're the stuff of later mythology.

There are two excellent books on the birth and growth of Christianity, both by Bart Ehrman, a fundamentalist-turned-agnostic scholar and professor on early Christianity. The books are "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" and "The Triumph of Christianity."

So, where did the stories of Jesus come from? They grew out of the mystery religions of Dionysus, Mithraism and Isis, which were around centuries before Christianity. There are many similarities between Christianity and these religions, including the virgin birth, death and resurrection in 3 days, and even the meal of bread and wine. The Gospels reflected the beliefs as they had evolved by the times they were written. Early Christian leaders, such as Justin Martyr, were aware of these similarities. They called them "diabolical mimicry," and claimed the other religions were started by Satan centuries earlier to distract people from the "true faith." An excellent book on this is "The Jesus Mysteries" by Tim Freke.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Creationism is indeed a matter of religion
1 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Some creationists insists that their position is a matter of science and not religion. This movie shows that's clearly not the case.

(Spoiler alert) "A Matter of Faith" is a Hallmark Channel-esque movie dipped in religion. A young girl Rachel Whitaker goes off to college. She enjoys her classes and makes new friends. For what appears to be the first time, however, she gets exposed to science viewpoints that conflict with the beliefs she's been taught that the Biblical God created the universe and all life. Her biology Professor Kaman teaches that, based on evidence - imagine that, life evolved over the course of billions of years from simple forms to complex forms. Rachel's creationist father isn't happy with this at all and goes to the college to confront the professor. The professor invites him to argue his side in a campus debate.

Along the way to the debate, a creationist journalism student argues that if your parents and grandparents weren't apes, you couldn't have evolved from apes - a laughable argument that swirled around during the Scopes Monkey trial of 1926. He also points out to Rachel and her father that another professor, Portland, was fired several years earlier for teaching Biblical creationism as science.

During the debate, Kaman explains that, according to Sigmund Freud, religion grew out of fear and ignorance of the unknown and fear of death. When things go wrong or disasters strike, people consider it to be divine punishment. When Kaman presses him to support his position, Mr. Whitaker concedes that he has no scientific proof of the afterlife and that the Bible was written my man. Kaman says, "So, your betting your afterlife on a book you can't explain about a god you can't prove." The scene is almost as good as Henry Drummond's confrontation with Matthew Brady in "Inherit the Wind" on the holes in the Genesis story of creation (hence the 2 stars instead of just one).

The former professor Portland then steps in with some worn-out creationist responses to evolution. He claims that laboratory experiments aren't enough to explain the development of complex organisms, that a designer was needed, that fossil records don't show the continuous development of life from one form to another, and that the Earth is not millions (much less billions) of years old (tipping his hat to the Young Earthers). Portland says what amounts to a concession that creationism is all about religion and not science, "The one who holds to Creation has his beliefs firmly rooted in the truths contained in the Bible and a personal God who created everything." He adds, "You can chance your eternity on the views of Freud and Darwin if you want. I'm putting my trust in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for my sins, was buried and rose again on the third day." The debate ends with Kaman offering no responses to Portland, which is not surprising for a slanted movie like this one.

"A Matter of Faith" is obviously a movie for creationists. The lesson is that if your creationist viewpoint doesn't stand up to the mountains of scientific evidence supporting evolution and the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, just respond by saying the Bible supports your position. Anyone who doesn't believe in the story of Genesis will either laugh or cringe at this movie. The movie was released in only 52 theaters, according to Box Office Mojo. It was so low on the radar that it doesn't have a Rotten Tomatoes profile. Were the producers worried that showing the movie to a wider audience might expose the weak arguments used to support creationism to widespread ridicule?
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Red Dawn (2012)
3/10
Decent action but a terrible plot
19 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'll give this movie a B for the action, but the plot was terrible. A EMF weapon manages to wreck the US economy and defense network (even the submarines are sunk) to the point that two third-rate military powers -- Russia and North Korea -- can invade the country. That's too much of a stretch.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Even atheists can enjoy the holiday season
8 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I watch this DVD every December. It's a great reminder of how late December was a time of celebration long before the rise of Christianity, with the focus being the Winter Solstice. The show provides an excellent history of the evolution of the holiday symbols, including the Christmas tree and Santa Claus. It also shows how the levels of celebration have changed over the centuries. At one time, Christmas was more like Mardi Gras. The English Puritans didn't like that, so they banned Christmas (party poopers). Today, Christmas is more of a time to be with family and friends.

The show pointed out that early Christians co-opted the Winter Solstice celebrations to try and convert the pagans to their religion. The bible provides no indication on the time of year Jesus was born. But if "shepherds were in the field keeping watch over their flocks by night," it probably wasn't in dead of winter.

One detail I would add to the show is that the Winter Solstice, a natural event, was celebrated in many parts of the world, including the Americas, India and China as well as in Europe and the Mediterranean world.

Christians are free to keep their savior in their holiday celebrations. But atheists like myself can watch this show and be reminded that there's more to enjoy around the holiday season that the birth of a myth.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Reeks with Christian Arrogance
5 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
(Spoiler alert) In this movie, a Christian college student is required to prove the existence of his god in a philosophy class, or risk failing the course, because the professor has declared that his god is dead. The student basically accepts the theories of evolution and the Big Bang, but insists that there must be a god since science doesn't explain everything. He also claims that religion is necessary for morality (no secular counterargument is offered). In the end, his goal is to get the professor to allow students to decide the existence of their god for themselves.

While I support the idea of being free to decide whether to believe in a god or not, the rest of the plot line of this movie is loaded with Christian arrogance. A Moslem woman gets kicked out of her home by her father for being a secret Christian without any discussion, a unlikely scenario. The father is simply portrayed a rigid and intolerant. The Christian minister she's been listening to is Franklin Graham. The fact that Graham is a rabid Islamophobe is never mentioned.

Meanwhile, an atheist blog reporter learns she has advanced stage cancer. Her boyfriend heartlessly abandons her when she tells him about her condition. She is portrayed as all alone with no friends until she tells some Christian rock singers she came to interview about her diagnosis. They convince her to "accept Jesus."

Finally, when pressed by the student, the philosophy professor admits he became an atheist because of the death of his Christian mother from cancer, as if people lose their religion only due to traumatic events. As he is having second thoughts about his atheism and is on his way to the Christian rock concert, where all the new Christians appear to be heading, including a Chinese student who became a Christian against his father's wishes, the professor is struck by a hit-and-run driver. A Christian minister on the scene convinces the professor to become a Christian on his deathbed.

The message of the movie seems to be that once people "learn about Jesus" or in times of crisis, they'll become Christian and never again question the existence of the Christian god. (But only it they're Moslems or atheists. If the movie had shown a Jew converting to Christianity, it would've been branded as anti-Semitic and set off a firestorm.)

The fact is more and more people are becoming nonbelievers. This is due to the availability of information on the internet that questions Christianity as well as other religions. The huge growth is not due to traumatic events. Some Christians (not all) feel that they're under siege because their beliefs are being questioned, and they're losing the dominance they once had. They don't like the idea that intolerance to non-Christians as well as LGBT individuals is now frowned upon.

"God's Not Dead" is obviously a movie made by Christians for Christians.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Cameron's Christmas Revisionism
8 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It would have been better to have shown this movie on television on a religious network. But even then, the ratings would have been terrible. Only the most die-hard fundamentalist trying to squeeze a Christian meaning out of every Christmas symbol would have liked this movie. The only Xmas show I've seen that's worse than this is the Star Wars Holiday Special (on YouTube), which has never been re-broadcast since 1978 or released on home video.

Christian, Kirk's brother-in-law, is complaining about how so many of the symbols of Christmas, most notably Christmas trees, are not biblical in origin. Kirk, in his revisionism, goes way out on a limb to deny the pagan origins of the symbols and traditions of Christmas. He tells Christian that Christmas trees were God's idea, since he made the trees. He also says that each tree represents a Christian cross. Christian then starts complaining about Santa Claus. He sees Santa as replacing Jesus and notices that "Santa" and "Satan" have the same letters -- what a stretch. But Kirk tells him that the original Santa Claus was actually Saint Nicholas -- who in actuality was one of several sources for the character. Kirk ends his lecture be saying that the presents under the tree represent the buildings of New Jerusalem. The last 15-20 minutes are partying, eating, and bloopers.

A conspiracy theorist, meanwhile, is complaining about the removal of public manger scenes, and says they're be removed to Area 52, which he says is similar to Area 51.

Kirk's brother-in-law's real name, by the way, is John Ridenour. His name Christian in the movie is probably meant to represent Christians disappointed about the non-religious symbols of Christmas. Christian at one point says, "It's like a car-jacking of our religion!" This is probably a hint that Kirk, along with some Christians, doesn't like the loss of Christian dominance over the holiday season.

Kirk's response to the failure of his movie was to blame it on a massive atheist conspiracy. Some people just don't like criticism. When they can't debate their opponents, they demonize them.

If you want a good show about Christmas, I highly recommend History Channel's "Christmas Unwrapped: The History of Christmas." It provides an excellent history of the symbols and traditions of the holiday, and shows the different views of it. "Saving Christmas" is at the opposite end of the spectrum.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Escape (I) (2015)
6/10
Good action but a weak plot
25 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It's a good action movie but the plot is weak. (Spoiler alert). Jack Dwyer and his family are being chased by rebels who have just killed the country's prime minister and thrown the capital city into chaos. They manage to jump from their hotel to a neighboring building. The rebels see them escape and go into the neighboring building but the Dwyers hide until the rebels leave and then slip out of the building. Here's where the plot gets weak: The rebels manage to stay on the Dwyers' trail but the movie doesn't provide any indication of how the rebels are doing so. Then to make the movie a bit corny, just as they are about to be executed midway through the movie, a friend they met at the airport (Hammond -- Pierce Bronson) shows up and saves them, and reveals that he's with British intelligence.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Live by Night (2016)
9/10
A good, original gangster movie
15 February 2017
This is not your typical gangster movie, which is usually set in New York or Chicago. This one starts in Boston then moves to Tampa, Florida. After being left for dead by his old gang boss in Boston, Joe Coughlin (Ben Affleck) heads for Tampa bent on revenge but ends up building an empire. Set in the 1920s South, it has its dose of Southern bigotry (anti-Catholicism as well as racism), Christian fundamentalism, and even some fights with the KKK. The acting and the movie set are great.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A good sci-fi movie but with some flaws
13 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This was a decent sci-fi movie, and I've seen quite a few time travel shows. (Small spoiler here) You have time tourists who are warned that the slightest interruption in the past can cause a cascade of disastrous repercussions in the future. Here, the changes in the evolution of nature don't come immediately but instead through a series of time waves. The acting and special effects were good too.

This is certainly better than the effect in Ray Bradbury's original story "A Sound of Thunder", where stepping on a butterfly 65 million years ago only caused a change in the outcome of a Presidential election. Now that's too much of a stretch.

My main problem with the movie, as a scientist, is that the movie completely overlooks the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. Any interference with the evolutionary time line the travelers made during the age of the dinosaurs would have been greatly impacted by their mass extinction around 65 million years ago. However, no mention is made in the movie of the effect the mass extinction could have had on ripple effect caused by the killing of the butterfly.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Finally, a scientific examination of Ancient Israel
7 February 2017
This is an excellent show. It examines the history of ancient Israel based on archaeological evidence and non-biblical writings, just like the manner in which other ancient civilizations are studied. It treats the Judeo-Christian Bible with the same skepticism as an accurate source of history that anyone today would treat the Iliad as an accurate source. It calls into question the biblical stories of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and the grandiose splendor of David and Solomon.

The show is a summary of the authors' book, which of course provides more details.

Bible believers will not like this show.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Hodge-Podge of Nothing
24 August 2016
This movie has no substance. Moore takes a tragic event and makes a bunch of indictments about the armed forces, capitalism, post-World War II U.S. foreign policy and welfare reform -- everything the Left loves to hate about America. His style is as bad as the media sensationalism he's attacking.

The one interesting point in the movie is where he mentions that it's almost as easy to get a gun in Canada as it is in the US, yet the homicide rate in Canada is nothing compared to that in the US. He could have made that the main focus of his movie. (Independent verification of the Canadian gun laws and homicide rate would have been necessary though.) But I guess that would have meant no other swings at the rest of American society, and probably fewer ambush journalism moments. It would have been more like a PBS documentary, and less of a movie about Moore's own ideology.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nothing but conspiracy theories
21 August 2015
I saw this on the History Channel. What a joke. The title suggests that this would be a show where we might learn a little about the private lives of the Founding Fathers and some of their imperfections. But this is nothing but a show for Masonic conspiracy theorists to present their lunatic beliefs. Little time is given for any "naysayers." The narrator sounds like a firm believer in these crazy ideas rather than a neutral observer.

Ralph Epperson, one of the regular conspiracy theorists on this show, has his own web site. He's been ranting this nonsense for decades. He makes it sound like the U.S. Constitution is part of a "Satanic, Masonic" plot of world domination.

Three tenets of any conspiracy theory are: (1) nothing is what it appears to be; (2) nothing happens by accident; and (3) everything's connected. Also, if you question the theory, theorists will probably say you're part of it.

The History Channel used to have a pretty good record of presenting both sides of an issue. But in shows like the ones on UFOs, Nostradamus and predictions of "armageddon," and this one, there is no balance. Nonbelievers are given hardly any time.

2017 update: 35 people have managed to increase this shows star rating to 6.9, but no one except me has written a review.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed