MovieChat Forums > God's Not Dead 2 (2016) Discussion > The following review is a perfect exampl...

The following review is a perfect example.....

posted 7 years ago by kurt-2000
20 replies | jump to latest

....of a person of faith speaking FOR Christians. And no, deviates and cosmo, I've never spoken on behalf of Christians. But I have quoted Christians, or stated what the predominant views are among Christians that I've spoken with. Quoting Christians is distinctly different from speaking on their behalf. You two would know the difference if you were honest.

User Reviews

a great disservice to Christians everywhere
16 October 2016 | by t c (Romania) – See all my reviews

first i want to mention i'm an orthodox and that i could not bear to see the movie more than 30 minutes.

the good guys in this move have a very puritanical presence. they seem so very calm and also seem a bit retarded. dialogues are very limited, predictable. they want to sound deep but end up laughable.

i believe this movie does a great disservice to Christians. the dialogues sound like members of a sect are talking. it makes faith look very shallow and almost weird. it makes the believers look very dumb and narrow minded.

lee me distill it a bit further. if i would not be a Christian i would think that Christians are a dubious sect, a little slow in the head and would look at it with doubt.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

i could not bear to see the movie more than 30 minutes.
i believe this movie does a great disservice to Christians.

Is this the movie which exercises kurt so much?

Christians are a dubious sect, a little slow in the head

Well if a Xian can see how this might be the impression given out, and kurt thinks it well worth repeating then who is anyone to disagree.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Is this the movie which exercises kurt so much?

meaning?

Well if a Xian can see how this might be the impression given out, and kurt thinks it well worth repeating then who is anyone to disagree.

For all I know the author is a filthy atheist. My point in posting the review Muppet, is that this person pretends to speak for Christians.

i do not.

Thanks for playing 'Film wasn't really paying any attention anyway.'

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this the movie which exercises kurt so much?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

meaning?

Don't you grumpily haunt this board and that of its predecessor?

For all I know the author is a filthy atheist. My point in posting the review Muppet, is that this person pretends to speak for Christians

Only in your eyes, kurt, not everyone has that arrogance. Believing something is detrimental to a group, as the reviewer does, or suggesting how the film leaves the religion portrayed, does not mean one necessarily speaks on behalf of others. It is just a personal opinion, giving context. I doubt if one would think that you speak on behalf of all fundamentalists, for instance. And to be honest the reviewer you quoted seems more genuinely Christian than someone who admits to not being a Christian (and who certainly never acts like one, either).

Thanks for playing 'Film wasn't really paying any attention anyway.'

Oh, but I always pay attention to that which is educational and entertaining, kurt. You ought to know that by now.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] Jan_El_Senor 7 years ago

Interesting review. I agree.

Perpetual outrage is the most popular religion today.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Apparently the author was asserting to speak for you.

[–] Jan_El_Senor 7 years ago

The author was just asserting his opinion. I just happen to agree with it on this particular film.

It's the same way I felt about the first film. Probably because both films have the same problems, except this one makes even less sense.

Perpetual outrage is the most popular religion today.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Both films apparently made enough sense to a large enough audience to pave the way for GND3

[–] Jan_El_Senor 7 years ago

Making sense is not a criteria for a sequel. Making money is....

Perpetual outrage is the most popular religion today.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Then if it made money, it has a fan base. Hating GND and going to see GND2 makes no sense.

[–] Jan_El_Senor 7 years ago

Then if it made money, it has a fan base.

That's true. That has nothing to do with the film making any sense.

Hating GND and going to see GND2 makes no sense.

Well, I don't hate either film. But, my stepdaughter picked it for family movie night. I was kind of committed at that point.

But, the core of your statement is correct. Normally, based on my experience on with the first film, I wouldn't have seen the second film, and I would never have come to this board to comment on it....

Perpetual outrage is the most popular religion today.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

That has nothing to do with the film making any sense.

Sure it does. Those of us that liked these two GND films thought they made perfect sense.

Haters gotta hate.

Normally, based on my experience on with the first film, I wouldn't have seen the second film, and I would never have come to this board to comment on it....

I understand. You're way ahead of the curve than cosmo, who confessed that he didn't even see this film, and here he is on the board ranting.

[–] Jan_El_Senor 7 years ago

Sure it does.

Explain this to me. When the school board asked the teacher if she preached in class, why did she not simply explain that the was talking about MLK's Christian beliefs influencing his actions? Why didn't she just simply clarify what happened? Why immediately jump to the defensive and start bringing up all these other issues that just confused and blew up the issue?

Seriously, any educated person (which a teacher obviously is) would immediately clarify what happened. The fact that she didn't makes no sense to me, basically making the rest of the movie a fantasy, in my opinion. This story would have ended with a simple conversation and clarification.

I gotta say, the guy who played the evil prosecutor was great. He hammed it up more than Ian McDiarmid did as the Emperor in Revenge of the Sith....

Perpetual outrage is the most popular religion today.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Hating GND and going to see GND2 makes no sense.

I genuinely hated the first Avengers film, I feel it has no redeeming features, but I still gave the second one a fair bash. And I preferred it. Once upon a time I hated Alien, I now love it. As I've explained to you before. I've never much enjoyed The Terminator, but the second one is superb. Point is, not enjoying a film, which isn't the same as hating it, does not preclude one from watching any subsequent sequels, or even trying to enjoy said film after initially not really liking it. Of course you know all of this though because it's all been explained to you before.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You're a weirdo cosmo.

Of course you know all of this though because it's all been explained to you before.

Then if I've heard it all before, you have permission to leave the board. You just confessed that you've made all your points.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

As always Kurt, you have no authority on any of these boards. Please stop thinking that you're a god of the GND boards, you aren't.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

i believe this movie does a great disservice to Christians.

Looks to me like they're exercising their rights to free speech and offering an opinion rather than actively speaking on behalf of anyone.

Quoting Christians is distinctly different from speaking on their behalf.

I dunno, as Film has pointed out to you previously, repeating what all these mystery Christians have messaged you about on here, somewhat surreptitiously so without them asking you to, falls under the banner of speaking on someone's behalf to me. But apparently respecting what someone has said to you in private, rather than broadcasting it to the world on the internet, is uncivilised. Who knew!?!

[–] Jan_El_Senor 7 years ago

Looks to me like they're exercising their rights to free speech and offering an opinion rather than actively speaking on behalf of anyone.

Yeah. I think Kurt's looking more for reviews that say something to the effect of "Any self-respecting Christian would hate this movie."

Kurt's right insofar as I have seen those types of reviews and they do exist.

Perpetual outrage is the most popular religion today.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Kurt's right insofar as I have seen those types of reviews and they do exist.

Of course they do, same that most films likely have similar styled reviews from people. It happens. Certainly not worth creating a whole thread over something like this, and definitely not worth once again claiming that a Christian is actually an atheist because they don't think the same as kurt. And I can pretty much guarantee that had one of us claimed the reviewer wasn't actually a Christian that a certain poster on here would be frothing at the mouth and accusing us of making insults befitting a militant atheist.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

rather than actively speaking on behalf of anyone.

What a stupid and dishonest comment for cosmo to make, but I'm use to it. The purpose for the posting was a clear example of someone speaking on behalf of Christians and clearly stating just that.

But apparently respecting what someone has said to you in private, rather than broadcasting it to the world on the internet, is uncivilised. Who knew!?!

It was posted on this film site in everyone's clear view. There was no "private" conversation.

Unless you're referring to what Christians have told me, and that includes comments they made in churches, social events, schools, etc. And I never claimed to represent them. I simply stated exactly what they told me. That's simply reporting what they told me. Not me dictating what Christians should believe. Again cosmo, you're too dishonest to acknowledge this.

And if someone "hated" the first GND film, then what the hell are you doing here admitting that to have attended the second film, and complaining about it.

Please don't invoke the word 'logic'.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

The purpose for the posting was a clear example of someone speaking on behalf of Christians and clearly stating just that.

So clear in fact that their exact wording was: " i believe this movie does a great disservice to Christians.". Substitute "I believe" with 'in my opinion', and it's the same thing. Stating your opinion on something is not the same as speaking on behalf of others. By the way, I don't recall you ever prefacing anything with any variation of 'in my opinion' when you've been stating what Christians would be insulted over, so however you look at it you've spoken on behalf of Christians far more than this reviewer is.

Unless you're referring to what Christians have told me

I am, and that actually was clear.

And I never claimed to represent them. I simply stated exactly what they told me. That's simply reporting what they told me. Not me dictating what Christians should believe.

I understand all of this kurt, what you don't understand however is that by doing this you are in fact speaking on behalf of these Christians who have supposedly messaged you, and done so without asking you to relay said message to others. A dubious enough claim given your seemingly lifelong opposition to honesty, but there you go. Speaking on someone's behalf is not the same as 'dictating what Christians should believe', though seeing as how you've told several of us what things Christians should be insulted about I'd suggest you've actually done this exact thing, but that also wasn't what I was on about.