Movie: The Invention Of Lying

Patrick: I like what my cousin Tom has written about a recent movie.

Movie Review: The Invention of Lying

Reading reviews of "The Invention of Lying" informed me that it mocks the idea – or, I should say, naive ideas -- of God and Heaven, etc. Reviews praised the movie and also tempted me to “dare” the movie to shake my faith. (See, for example, Roger Ebert's review .) I gave in to that temptation and took my wife to see it.

The religious ideas it mocks are pathetically simplistic ideas about God and world events and the afterlife. On the way home, and afterward, Shelley and I talked about how people need to grow up in their faith instead of give it up.

There are childish ideas of God and Heaven which need to be abandoned instead of defended. For example:
1. That God is a “man in the sky.”
2. That he has promised good people “mansions” after they die.
3. That those who commit enough “big sins” are doomed to live forever in “the other place.”
4. That God is “in control” of everything that happens on earth.

God is not a “man in the sky.” He's spirit (John 4:24) and not confined to one place (Psalm 139: 7-10). He fills the universe with his presence (Jeremiah 23:23-24). Certain biblical writers use anthropomorphisms (describing God and his actions in human sounding ways), but informed readers should know not to take those as literal descriptions. God is spirit.

To speak of “our Father in Heaven,” does not mean God lives in the sky. The word “heaven” or “heavens” can apply to the sky where the birds fly (Genesis 1:20 NASB), or to what we call outer space (Genesis 1:14,17). But, the “place” (or could we say “dimension”) where God manifests his presence fully is called the “third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2), or “Paradise” (12:4). It is not the sky (first heaven), or outer space (second heaven), but is beyond the space-time universe.

In John 14, Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many rooms," not "mansions" (even though the King James Bible uses that unfortunate rendering). In other words, Jesus assured his disciples that there'd be plenty of room for them in “the Father's house” (i.e., in Heaven). I do believe that. I don't believe we’ll live in mansions.

Nor do I believe that we will be disembodied souls or spirits forever. The New Testament speaks of our being resurrected in an immortal body (1 Corinthians 15:20, 42-44) -- modeled after that of the risen Christ (2 Corinthians 4:13-14). And I believe in Jesus' resurrection because of the eyewitness testimony of those who saw him alive from the dead (Acts 1: 8,21; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8); and because he's changed my life (2 Corinthians 5:17).

When the Bible speaks of God's sovereign “control” of things (e.g., Daniel 4:34-35, etc.), it doesn't mean he's micromanaging everything on earth. It means God is superintending the overall flow and outcome of history -- like a cruise ship captain who's "predestined" his ship for Hawaii, but, along the way, a lot of unplanned stuff could happen on board because of the choices of the crew and passengers.

In the same way, God has a goal for world history ("thy kingdom come"), but in the meantime, a lot of awful stuff can happen that's positively against his will.

The Pollyanna Theology that thinks God is making everything happen that happens, and that it's all somehow OK, deserves to be mocked. Lots of things are evil and unjust and grieve or anger God. Just read the Bible! And look at Jesus' response to injustice, evil, selfishness, and suffering. His reaction mirrors the Father's response (cf. John 14:9-11).

The movie’s main character tells people that the “man in the sky” will send them to “the other place” if they do at least three really bad things, such as murder, rape, and hurting people on purpose. That is not, of course, what the Bible says. It speaks good news to those of us who’ve done more than our quota of bad things: it says God will forgive everything when we respond to the good news of God's saving grace in repentance and faith (cf. Acts 3:19; 10:43).

I don't believe those who reject God’s grace will live forever in some other place; I believe the Bible says they'll eventually be destroyed and cease to exist completely (Matthew 10:28;
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). Eternal life is a gift from God, not some kind of natural possession (Romans 2:7; 6:23).

For Christians who are fairly firm in their faith, “The Invention Of Lying” is a movie that could be a good conversation starter with non-Christian friends. (Be forewarned that it has some sexual references that may be offensive to certain viewers.)

Besides being very thought provoking, it has a heart-warming love story and a lot of funny moments. I give it a “thumbs up,” and I give the religious ideas it mocks a “thumbs down.”

Tom P. Warner 11/21/09

Sarah Palin on Jewish Settlements

In an interview with ABC News' Barbara Walters, Sarah Palin weighed in on the settlement issue.

She said, "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama Administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

J Street, the pro-Israel pro-peace advocacy group in Washington organization issued a public response to Palin's remarks on settlements.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director of J Street, said, "J Street rejects Sarah Palin's comments attacking President Obama's sensible policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank… For decades, American presidents have held that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are an impediment to peace. They are joined by the majority of Israelis and pro-Israel Americans who view the growing settlement enterprise as a threat to Israel's very future as a Jewish democracy."

The J Street statement in turn was attacked by Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, who questioned whether J Street should be considered "pro-Israel."

Ben Ami responded to Foxman that unlimited expansion of settlements in the West Bank would mean the two state solution is no longer feasible, and if the two state solution collapses, Israel will face a South African-style struggle for voting rights.

Resources:

"Jeremy Ben-Ami responds to Abe Foxman's Palin comments", J Street, November 20, 2009

"Foxman blasts J Street on Palin, questions its 'pro-Israel' slogan", Eric Fingerhut, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, November 19, 2009

The above article is from the newsletter of Churches for Middle East Peace (www.cmep.org)

Patrick: If you click on the "interview" link in the first sentence you'll hear Sarah Palin speaking authoritatively on foreign policy regarding Israel and the Palestinians. Behind her view one can sense that she buys into the Fundamentalist/Dispensationalist idea that Palestinians should not be allowed to have an independent state on the land that God gave to Abraham. Such a position, if followed by the Jewish state, will surely result in more and more conflicts.

The Fundamentalist/Dispensationalists actually believe that Israel's future (this side of the return of Christ) will include a massacre that will leave 2/3 of the population of Jerusalem dead. (They get this from their futuristic interpretation of Zechariah 13:8-9.) If Sarah Palin's supporters ever succeed at getting her into the White House, with her theology, she'll be more dangerous to foreign policy than the neo-cons who got us into the Iraq War, and wanted us to bomb Iran, under Bush-Cheney.

What's the point of the Afghan War?

I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan ... I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.

- Matthew Hoh, a former Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq, in a letter resigning his State Department Foreign Service post in Afghanistan. Afghans, he wrote, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are an unwelcome occupier backing a corrupt national government. (Source: The Washington Post)

Scott Ritter on Afghanistan
"McChrystal Doesn’t Get It, Does Obama?" -- President Obama may have won the Nobel Peace Prize, but if he allows himself to be bullied into supporting Gen. Stanley McChrystal's foray into Afghanistan, he will reveal himself as the worst kind of warmonger.


...McChrystal operates under the illusion that American military power can provide a shield from behind which Afghanistan can remake itself into a viable modern society. He has deluded himself and others into believing that the people of Afghanistan want to be part of such a grand social experiment, and furthermore that they will tolerate the United States being in charge. The reality of Afghan history, culture and society argue otherwise. The Taliban, once a defeated entity in the months following the initial American military incursion into Afghanistan, are resurgent and growing stronger every day. The principle source of the Taliban’s popularity is the resentment of the Afghan people toward the American occupation and the corrupt proxy government of Hamid Karzai. There is nothing an additional 40,000 American troops will be able to do to change that basic equation. The Soviets tried and failed. They deployed 110,000 troops, operating on less restrictive lines of communication and logistical supply than the United States. They built an Afghan army of some 45,000 troops. They operated without the constraints of American rules of engagement. They slaughtered around a million Afghans. And they lost, for the simple reason that the people of Afghanistan did not want them, or their Afghan proxies...

The Victims of Pornography
By Chris Hedges

AP / Jae C. Hong

Adult film stars pose for photos at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas.

Hell - a more biblical, believable version

After seeing glimpses of God's glory (in the burning bush and on Mt. Sinai when the radiant "fire" of God's presence appeared), Moses asked the LORD, "Please show me your glory," (implying that he knew there was more to see,
and he'd only seen glimpses of that beautiful, but veiled, glory). Exodus 33:18ff.

God told Moses no man could see his face and live. I take that to mean that a mortal human can't see God in his unveiled glory; it would kill him. We're assured, however, that someday the saints will be made immortal and shall see God's face, i.e., his unveiled glory (Matt.5:8; Rev.22:4). So, God proclaimed his virtuous/glorious character as his fiery glory passed by Moses, who was protected in the cleft of a rock. Again, Moses saw only the veiled glory of God, but he came back down the mountain literally glowing -- like he had some kind of spiritual sunburn. Ex.34:29ff. :-)

In Jesus, we see the glory of God revealed more completely than ever before. And it transforms us. 2 Cor.3:7-18; 4:6. For now, the glory of God's presence resides in our mortality, like a beautiful diamond in a plain clay jar. But someday
all of God's redeemed people will be glorified in a resurrected, immortal form -- a form that's suitable for God's glorious presence.

When Jesus returns "in the glory of his Father" (Matt 16:27), the unveiled glory of God will be visible (in "flaming fire," 2 Thess 1:7), and it will consume those who are not raised immortal (Heb 10:26-27;12:29).

God's unveiled glory will be an awesome, beautiful sight for those who are redeemed and immortal; it will be the Beatific Vision. But for those who have rejected God's truth and grace to the bitter end, it will be too much to endure.

Cf. Isaiah 33:14 (Amplified) The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling seizes the godless ones. [They cry] Who among us can dwell with that devouring fire? Who among us can dwell with those everlasting burnings?

Those who are finally condemned will be destroyed body and soul (Matt 10:28), blotted out of existence, literally, forever. The process of their destruction will last as long as the justice of God determines for each one (Luke 12:47-48); but the result will be total, irreversible, eternal destruction.

Cf. Malachi 4: ¹ "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. ² But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. ³And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the LORD of hosts."

So, considering all of the above, it seems reasonable to me that the "fire," that destroys the ungodly may be the unveiled glory of God. The "destruction" that overtakes them will proceed from the presence [literally "the face"] of the LORD.

They "shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might..."
(2 Thess 1:9 ASV).

^"They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction that comes from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might... " (2 Thess.1:9 ESV alternative reading).

Our God is a consuming fire (Heb.12:29). His holiness and love will finally be seen in unveiled glory throughout all of the universe. God will be "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28). His presence won't have to be mediated to us in a veiled fashion. It will be fully revealed. That will be the greatest thrill of the redeemed and the most fearsome destructive force for the ungodly.

Take their ill gotten gains away

Legal Trouble Spreads to Madoff Family Member

Posted on Oct 2, 2009

AP / Jason DeCrow

Fallen financier Bernard Madoff’s brother, sons and niece are now in legal hot water after a court-appointed trustee filed suit against them on Friday for allegedly pocketing “ill-gotten gains” they received from Madoff’s fraudulent business ventures, according to The Wall Street Journal. —KA

The Wall Street Journal:

The trustee, Irving Picard, alleged in his suit that Mr. Madoff’s brother, Peter, his sons, Andrew and Mark, and his niece, Shana, all received preferential payments or fraudulent funds stemming from Mr. Madoff’s multibillion scheme. These funds enriched the family members, allowing them to fund personal business ventures and purchase homes, boats and cars, the lawsuit says.

Mr. Picard is seeking a return of at least $198,743,299, of which some $141 million was received by the family members in the six months leading up to Mr. Madoff’s arrest on Dec. 11, 2008, the lawsuit says.

Read more