originally didn't want to watch the second part, although the first part gave me a lot of research material. But it took time to read it. The problem is basically the same. Because the screenwriter's ability is not enough, even though he has tried his best to use the methods of wanting to promote, suppressing and catching, from the beginning, religious believers were bullied to win the sympathy of the audience. But thinking carefully still cannot fully reflect the wisdom of religion.
why would you say so? Let's take a closer look.
one
The film tells the story of Grace Wesley, a devout middle school history teacher, who was taken to court for quoting words from the "Bible" when answering student questions in class. The reason why she became a devout believer is well described in the film. At the beginning, the defense lawyer asked her: When did you decide to become a Christian? She said this: (that day), I walked home after class. It was dark and I was struggling with many things. I turned the corner and there was a church in front of me. There was an old sign outside the door, which happened to block my pace. The sign said: Who do you think I am? When I read it, I heard God talking to me. Do you know, this question has lingered in my mind for several days. This is the beginning of the journey of (faith), and it does not end until I find the answer. At the critical moment of the film, the defense lawyer once again guided her to narrate the process, and successfully implemented the "opposite and mutually complementary" strategy, deliberately asking Grace to state an experience that she believed but thought it was impossible for everyone to believe, and then forced the jury to go. Judge whether they believe in Grace’s experience (Defense Attorney: You want to be punished for perjury. Then at night, on campus, what did God ask you personally? Answer the question, answer the question immediately! Grace: He asked: "Who do you say I am?" Defense lawyer: How did you answer? Grace: You are the Christ, the son of the living God). This is actually called the key to victory, which is actually quite absurd. First of all, as the prosecution lawyer said: He played our role to question Wesley, and he made the jury hate everyone except her. In other words, the key is that the defense lawyer uses the human psychology to dislike the above and interfere with the judgment of the emotions that the above loves. Secondly, we all understand that belief is everyone’s business, and an experience that an individual believes cannot be understood and denied by outsiders. In other words, a person tells us something that we don't believe, but as long as the person believes it, it's our business. Therefore, defense lawyers only used strategies to allow the jury to make a judgment, not really based on objective and fair judgments.
two
The film actually showed better evidence, evidence about history, and it was so novel that I admired it. The first evidence that appeared was testimony provided by Lee Strobel, a professor of Christian thought at Houston Baptist University: Our calendar is divided into BC, and after AD is based on the birth of Jesus. This is not a trivial matter, if He does not exist. pass. In addition, the historian Gary Habermas listed 39 ancient documents about Jesus. He listed more than 100 facts about his life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. In fact, Jesus was executed ( The evidence for killing) is too sufficient. One of the most famous New Testament scholars in the world, Gerd Ledeman of Germany, said that the conclusion that Jesus was crucified is indisputable. However, the prosecution lawyer Kern has no problem. In fact, this evidence is problematic. We all know what Professor Li said, and it is indeed a historical fact, just as Shakyamuni is also a historical figure. But this is completely different from proving that Jesus was "succumbed" and "resurrected", and proving that Jesus exists and what Christianity tells the truth are also completely different. Of course, from the starting point, the defense lawyer invited Professor Li. The problem is just to prove that what Grace said in the class is just quoting historical facts and does not contain his own opinions. The evidence that appeared for the second time was very exciting. It was the testimony of James Warner Wallace, a retired Los Angeles police detective. James wrote a book titled "Christian Suspense: A Murder Detective's Statement on the Investigation of the Four Gospels." The four gospels include Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It was the preaching of Jesus by several disciples of Jesus Separate records of the suffering experience. This professional pointed out an unexpected problem: none of the outstanding cases were solved through DNA evidence. Most of these cases are solved by witnesses. Witnesses’ testimonies are many years ago. Usually our witnesses have now passed away, so the police can use a series of techniques to test the reliability of witnesses, including some forensic report analysis, which is when we consider witness statements. Of a subject. Look at what they say less, what they choose to emphasize, what they completely ignore, how they extend or shorten the time, when we review these kinds of witness reports, we can usually tell who is lying and who is talking Truth, even who is the guilty party. Out of curiosity, James actually used this technology to study the four gospels, applied his special skills to the case of Jesus' death in the hands of the Romans, and regarded the gospels as other forms of forensic reports. James confirmed that the four gospels recorded the life, preaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus from different perspectives. . Moreover, James believes that these four narratives cannot be part of the conspiracy. The reason is: a successful conspiracy usually only involves as few people as possible. Compared with 20 people, 2 people are more likely to guard lies. For the apostles of the first century, such a conspiracy theory is definitely a problem, and so many of them, for a long period of time, tried to maintain that conspiracy. What’s worse is that they are suffering from experiences that no one else has experienced. It’s an unimaginable pressure. Said something. So, it's really nonsense that this is a first-century conspiracy. James said: I saw in the Gospels what I called accidental witness support statements. Examples are also cited. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew, there is a passage about Jesus' hearing before Caiaphas (the high priest). The scripture records: They spit on his face and beat him with their fists. There are also those who beat him with the palm of his hand, saying, Christ, you are a prophet, tell us who beat you. This seems to be a very simple request,
Those who beat him are actually standing in front of him. This is unreasonable. Why do you even predict who beat you (Jesus)? But when you read Luke’s Gospel, you will know the answer. Luke records: The guardian of Jesus teased him, beat him, and blindfolded him and asked him, "You are a prophet, tell us, and beat you." Who is it. So, now we know why this is a challenge (to Jesus), because Luke told us something that Matthew missed. He (Jesus) was blindfolded when it happened. This is very common. This type of accidental eyewitness support fills in some of the omissions of the first eyewitness. For many years, I have carefully checked the templates in the gospels to determine whether the eyewitnesses are reliable. I conclude that the four gospels in the Bible are recorded. The original words of Jesus are reliable. Obviously, in the court, the judge also listened very carefully to this piece of evidence, because it was after all the evidence of a senior police detective. According to James, he himself was an atheist before and studied the Four Gospels for falsification, but he became a Christian. In fact, James was not the first to question the Four Gospels and use similar methods. In the first act of the famous literary work "Waiting for Godot", he cited a contradiction in the Four Gospels, which he accepted at the same time as Jesus. There were two other thieves who were punished by Rome. The narratives about them are very different. The person in the play is Vladimir: Those are two thieves. They said that one of them was saved and the other was punished... Of the four major gospel authors, only one talked about these things? All four of them were there at the time-in short, not too far from there. And only one person talked about a thief being saved...only one of the four. As for the other three, two did not talk about it at all. The third said that both of their thieves scolded him (Jesus)...because he refused to take their lives. But another said that one of them was saved... but all four of them were there. Only one person talked about a thief being saved. Why do you just trust him and not others? Baker wrote this paragraph, obviously in order to question the "Bible" and question the possibility of salvation for the bottom people. Of course, I believe that James is more professional than Beckett, especially in identifying the authenticity of the incident. And according to James' words: when reliable witnesses narrate memories, they will always be slightly different. They will use different geographic perspectives and different experiences (memories), even if they are in the same room. Although the question of thieves is directly directed at the root of "Jesus atonement for all living beings," and only one of the four talked about it, and one talked about someone being saved. This in itself means the key to "avoidance" and "fuzziness". but , We cannot deny that James did provide a very convincing argument, proving that the things recorded in the four gospels are basically facts. However, we must be clear that James only proved that the history of Jesus’ preaching and crucifixion was “approximately” true, but he cannot be said to be able to prove the truth of the “resurrection of Jesus” (I have not read the book, nor is it clear whether there is relevant proof). In other words, James's proof is only more detailed and specific than the historian's proof, and it doesn't go further. His research alone proves that the existence of a "god" that can be resurrected is far from enough. Of course, this fact includes the passage Grace quoted in class. And this is equivalent to proving in the court that Grace is only "quoting history" instead of "promoting religion."
three
Now we are back to the point of the debate, which is the question of what Grace did wrong in class. The reason why Grace served the school sued her because of such a conversation in class. Grace preached in class: Next, in the United States, under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, there are other ways to fight for civil rights, but what makes nonviolent movements so extraordinary is because of them. Unwavering commitment to non-violent means. Not only in the initial stage, even in the face of escalating persecution by opposition forces. And the student Brooke Solley asked this question in class: Is it a bit like what Jesus taught, that we should love our enemies? Then Grace gave an affirmative answer: Yes, the author of Matthew's Gospel recorded that Jesus said at the time, "You have heard that it is said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy; but I tell you, love your enemy. . Pray for those who persecute you so that you can be the sons of your heavenly Father.” This is also a promise of non-violence. Dr. Martin Luther King also confirmed the connection and affirmed that his inspiration also came from the Bible. The scriptures make it clear that Christ provided the spirit and motivation for it. And Gandhi provided a method, but that didn't work. Up to this point, there is no problem at all, Grace just answered the student's question very well. However, at this time, another student raised a question, the basis of which was "atheism." The specific process is like this. Another student asked: Jesus was killed. Everyone knows this. Obviously, this student didn't like Jesus. He grabbed that Jesus was dead to deny the divinity of Jesus and express the teacher's dislike of the teacher's admiration of Jesus. Of course, Grace is an excellent teacher, and her answer is good: Dr. Martin Luther King was also killed. Therefore, I guess it depends on how you define success. The "movement" created by the two continues to this day, even for this, both of them paid the price of their lives. They have fulfilled their promise to their ideals. I have not done what they do. Not many people have such courage, but for me, I am very grateful for these actions. You know, they stand firm for what they believe in. The students who expressed disgust at the time also expressed their acceptance of such views. Because Grace not only clearly pointed out that “you should not consider the success or failure of your life and death, but should consider the benefits that they have won for the world after their sacrifices”, but also emphasized that the key to the success of Jesus and Martin Luther King is that they insist on their own "Belief". Obviously, Grace insisted on her beliefs and was able to make such a good answer. And this kind of belief, for underage students who are building a worldview, is
As Chinese, we don't see any problem with teachers saying such things in class, because in fact we are the country that more truly safeguards religious freedom. On the contrary, in the legal world of American adults, this is not the way to think about it. Their point of view, in the words of the prosecution lawyer, is very clear: (Grace) compares the teaching of Jesus Christ with the teaching of Mahatma Gandhi. We all know that Jesus is part of a particular religious tradition. These two parents are trying to train their daughters to be (non-religious) free thinkers, free from any religious dogma, but they are completely caught in that classroom. Offended by what happened. In other words, they believe that Grace's words in class instilled religious thoughts into the students, because her own admiration made the students sprouted religious beliefs and affected their free development. Although this is not entirely true, because as the defense lawyer said, everyone has their own beliefs, their own worldview, and every teacher spreads his own thoughts and influences students in this way. Peking University’s superior tradition is to include inclusiveness, provide students with more ideological trends, and let students choose their own worldview. But the Americans' concept of education is worthy of our study and in-depth thinking.
Fourth, the
more outstanding point is that the film shows one of the key points of court debate (this is also the key to general debate and ordinary thinking), that is, it becomes easy to precarious. Perhaps it was the cornerstone of supporting opinions before, but it may suddenly become a prying point for overthrowing opinions.
In court, in the end, Grace's student Brooke Solley came forward to testify for the teacher out of his love for the teacher and his budding religious beliefs. And she also accepts the restraint of the court and insists on telling the truth. At the beginning, Soli did say something favorable, because she proved that it was "Jesus" that she first put forward. She didn't think she was asking a question based on faith, and she believed that the teacher answered her very well. problem. This would have been good positive evidence. Because the person involved does not think that this issue contains "religious influence." The problem is, the prosecution's lawyers, in the interrogation, led to Soli, because of Grace's influence, and finally believed in the key to religion. Because in addition to the classroom, they have other exchanges. Because of the death of her younger brother, Soli was very sad, and confided to Grace. Grace mentioned Jesus to her for the first time and released her. Although Soli can't say clearly whether it is because Grace mentioned Jesus to herself for the first time that she became interested and believes in religion. But obviously in the court, as the first party, Soli’s testimony directly told everyone that Grace had “intervened” in her beliefs and violated the American educational beliefs and laws.
So with this, I found a problem. The defense of the lawyer, the mastery of the relevant laws, the understanding of the evidence, the manipulation of the emotions of the jury, and even the attention to one's own dress and appearance in the film are very important. But there is one thing, regardless of whether the evidence is beneficial or not, as long as the details are discovered, it can be reversed immediately. This seems to be seen in "The Great Reversal of the Crisis" (a film about the presidential campaign). Everything has a degree. Beyond this degree, it's like entering the quantum world. Matter becomes elusive and beyond imagination.
The five
films actually used "strong evangelism", that is, the female reporter suffering from cancer in the previous one suddenly recovered. There are also religious bands leading many fans to pray for the heroine, which ultimately won her the lawsuit. It’s still the old-fashioned way of "belief and blessing", it is naturally difficult to preach to modern people (because you believe it, but you are not blessed, it can be said that you are not religious enough, and you don’t believe enough. And you are blessed for other reasons. Blessing can also be regarded as a blessing, because religion inherently emphasizes indirect and verifiable "causality").
I think that if you want to make a "God Is Not Dead 3", ask me to be a screenwriter, it will definitely be more convincing. Then I invited a group of atheists to be actors, and with the help of the large amount of strong evidence that the church has, I can definitely create an absolute religious propaganda film. Because I know more about the enemies of religion and their methods. 2016/11/12
View more about God's Not Dead 2 reviews
