God Is Not Dead

I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is God and He saved me from my sins by dying in my place on the cross. Still this movie, and many like it, fall short in my opinion.

Yes it's easy to enjoy a movie like this if you are a Christian. They are all sweet and give a solid message. But as a message for those who do not yet believe I think these movies fall short by a lot. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if some who watch would examine Christianity and come to believe in Jesus.

I find these movies dull, mostly unconvincing, and lacking in depth. I wish I could put my finger on why they all seem to come out of the same mold. I'm not suggesting for a moment that I could do it better.

I'm glad that people make these movies. I'm sure if they ask their Christian friends they would receive positive feedback. My hope is that they would ask a broad spectrum of non-believers to find out what might work better and product some movies that have a deeper impact.

A lot of reviewers believe this is just propaganda and says the movie generalizes all (small spoiler alert) Muslims, atheists, and others; however that is not the case. It is simply telling a story,as all movies do, it can not possibly get every story/ scenario that ever existed nor can it include every friend that you know who is a nice atheist or Muslim or whatever. I am sorry to say this, but no movie actually can in 110 minutes. It is simply telling about (small spoiler alert) a few people who are connected in various ways and their journey to the Christian Faith.

And to address the "propaganda" comments, guess what you are right- in some degree. In order for something to be labeled as propaganda it must first be false or exaggerated. There was nothing in this move that is false/ exaggerated because people have been/are killed for the Christian Faith about everyday (yes it's true Google it!) so since that extreme is currently happening anything less can not be an exaggeration nor false.

The second qualification one would need to call something propaganda is to "further a cause". Which, duh, the movie is called God's Not Dead. It is telling you in the title what it's motivations are. It is being more obvious than a commercial you see on TV or an ad in a magazine. If you still think that is horrible have you ever heard of the words "product placement" or "plug". The most talented and skilled actors, producers, directors, of movies and film all do it. Think about your favorite TV show and watch how the main actor just happens to be drinking a Sprite- does this make you angry? Well, if it doesn't then you are getting mad about obvious acts of persuasion (this movie) but not about subliminal. Hmmm.

It has some great stories and it tells them well. Go see the movie!

As a Christian myself, I found this movie a complete embarrassment. The portrayal of atheists as all having some sort of psychological problem makes everything else irrelevant. There aren't any arguments here, just a decent boy who believes in God being hounded by an idiot professor. Josh (the boy), is never able to make a cogent argument on the points, but you feel so sorry for him, he wins on likability.

There are several lives followed, but the main lives concern a freshman named Josh Wheaton and an arrogant philosophy professor named Prof. Radisson.

Radisson forces everyone in the class to sign a piece of paper stating that "God is Dead" so that the class can "move-on" to the important aspects of philosophy. Of course everyone signs but Josh. He can't sign the sheet in good conscience and thus is asked to prove that God is not dead over the next three lectures. He is belittled by Radisson publicly and often throughout the entire movie.

Josh's life is intertwined with an attractive blonde girlfriend named Kara. She also believes in God, but wants Josh to either drop the philosophy class or to just sign the paper so he can focus on her and the rest of his difficult college schedule. Kara, who at first appears to be a supportive and lovely girlfriend, proves to be self-centered. She demands that Josh drop the class, or drop her. She childishly demands his full attention, arguing that either the relationship comes first or Prof. Radisson—it is Josh's choice. Josh argues that God comes first. Of course she promptly dumps Josh.

So it is clear now that Josh is up against the world. Even his mother coaches him to take things easy by dropping the class to focus on his other studies this first semester. But Josh is a stand up person. He does not shy away from a challenge. He visits a church where a reverend 'Dave' provides some Bible verses to make Josh feel guilty about not taking on the challenge.

Radisson has a girlfriend too. She is a beautiful young former student named Mina. She believes in God, but is so psychologically weak she latches onto Radisson for security, and thus suppresses her belief in God. Radisson regularly bully's and belittles her in private and public. It is clear that Radisson is merely tolerated by his colleagues—no one likes him.

Josh's first lecture focuses on the creation of the universe. Specifically how the universe was, for thousands of years, believed by scientists to be always in existence. But then evidence of a "big bang" was found. Physicist Stephen Weinberg (atheist) and Belgian astronomer George LeMaitre (theist) seem to agree on the beginnings of the universe. LeMaitre says the big bang is consistent with how the Bible portrays creation of the universe when God says ""let there be light." It is unclear how any of this proves, or disproves, God is dead or not dead.

After Josh is done, Radisson belittles Josh again, saying that Stephen Hawking says something else. Radisson makes sure that the class knows that Stephen Hawking is the greatest physicist to ever live, and that unschooled Josh is arguing with the greatest physicist who ever lived.

Hawking is mischaracterized and then used as a defense against divine creation. But the argument does not really matter. What matters is that Hawking makes the argument, thus it must be right. Radisson is clearly a numb-skull philosophy professor using an appeal to authority. Actually, that is all anyone does in this movie.

After the lecture Radisson roughly corners Josh attempting to intimidate him. Radisson's exchange with Josh is very arrogant and mean—as if by a ruffian on the streets of New York.

Josh's second lecture takes on Hawking's mischaracterized statement. Josh finds mathematician and philosopher John Lennox to refute Stephen Hawking. Again, this argument is a mischaracterization, but it does not matter. Josh takes this as a refutation. What matters most is that Lennox and Hawking disagree, and Lennox is no dummy. Professor Dummy, I mean Radisson, then asks Josh arrogantly, if he is arguing with professor Hawking. Of course Josh now responds with a no. He isn't, but Professor Lennox of Mathematics and Philosophy IS! Also, Josh finds Hawking making the following statement "Philosophy is dead." This is gem for Josh. Now he can force Radisson to choose either to dump Hawking all together, or to accept that philosophy is dead.

And so it goes on...

There are other characters in the film too. A Muslim raised girl named Ayisha who gets beat up by her demanding Muslim father. An atheist young woman reporter Amy Ryan facing cancer. Marc Shelly, an arrogant businessman who is dating Amy Ryan, but conveniently dumps her in her time of need. Reverend Jude, who seems to be the only non-wavering Christian. Martin Yip, an atheistic Chinese American who is impressed with Josh and thus wants to believe in God. And Willie Robertson, a caricature of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson.

The premise of the movie is a great one: a David vs. Goliath type of debate over God. While the acting was very good and could have easily achieved that goal, it got screwed by a bad script and a bad (or partisan!) director: the movie is blatantly partisan for Christianity by depicting the atheist professor ("Goliath") as an arrogant asshole while the student ("David") is playing the likable, modest, and fairly smart Christian opponent.

No professor would ever act like the one in the movie (I happen to be one of them) and hardly any one of them would be as arrogant, especially in philosophy.

On the other hand, the technically outstanding presentations of the student (using fancy animations etc.) used lame arguments, e.g. "evolution makes no jumps" citing Darwin himself. Hey, that's a 150-year old argument, long obsolete, since Darwin even didn't know about DNA or mutations (surely evolution does make jumps!).

The whole psychological argument was more or less ignored although it is the most important argument in favor of religion: it simply makes people feel good, no matter whether there is a god or not. (It did come across rather in passing though).

The characters have zero zero zero nuance they're all written oh so conveniently for the author to pass a message and a mindless stupid one that is. The teacher especially, who hired him? Surely such discriminatory behavior should be sanctionned by educative authorities but no, he just gets to roam free, agressively pick on a student due to his beliefs and gets no reprimands. Surely i dont have to spell how unrealistic that kind of attitude is for an educative environement but i guess realism goes out the window when you have to make a story about christian opression. This is the movie you'd get if you asked a bunch of juvenile christians who were taught to harbor a victim complex to create a story.