Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 1: Introduction

If you haven't yet seen or heard about the web movie Zeitgeist, you probably will. It came out this summer and is causing a bit of a stir among young people. The word Zeitgeist is a German word meaning "spirit of the age," and the film is essentially trying to get at the primary laws and frauds of our society.

The movie is about 2 hours long and can be seen here. It is divided into three parts. After an intro and overview, Part 1 is titled "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and is about Christianity. The movie makes many outrageous claims that I will discuss further, but is essentially claiming that Christianity and the Bible are based on astrology and that Jesus never existed but was a copycat of many pagan deities and false gods. The 2nd part is titled "The Whole World is a Stage" and focuses on what they call the 9/11 conspiracy; you know, how the government is really responsible for 9/11. The third part is "The Men Behind the Curtain" (or something very close) and is about the Federal Reserve and how the men who control it are bent on world domination.

Now, I am no expert about 9/11 conspiracy theories or the Federal Reserve, so I won't comment any longer on these parts. I do however, know a little bit about the attacks on Christianity in part 1. I have decided to do a four part series on the Christian elements in Zeitgeist and address some of these claims that the creator makes. Before we start, though, you really should watch the movie, at least Part 1, so we are all speaking the same language (click on the link above). It is about a half an hour long and, be warned, there is some profanity. But, what I am going to be discussing will refer to the video, so it is better if you have seen it.

At this point, by way of an introduction to the film, I am going to make some general comments about the Movie as a whole. Here we go.

1. May we keep in mind that this is a conspiracy theory, put out by conspiracy theorists. They have an agenda (both anti-God and anti-government) and they are (apparently) trying to convert people to their side (i.e. making a free web movie to disperse freely and widely). These are important to note because they are obviously not objective sources. Now, to be fair, neither am I. I too believe something strongly and that, at times, can cloud my rational thinking. I too have an agenda; to share my knowledge and relationship with God with others. I must, therefore, be good at thinking critically even if the results are not always what I want. Ultimately we should want truth. So, that is the first thing to remember, that these are not impartial movie makers that decided to tackle this subject. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are radical conspiracy theorists who are dedicated to a belief system that is unfolded in the documentary.

2. This is that the documentary is not very academic and certainly not scholarly. They would like to claim differently, but many of their claims would be laughed at in the presence of scholars. The creator chooses to remain anonymous and we have no reason to belief he has any scholarly credentials. But, the goal of a conspiracy theory is to stir up the laymen, the common man. So, scholarship is not that important. They only need to be convincing enough to convince you and me. Some examples of this is that they do not quote scripture correctly. They never quote more that 1 verse in a row. Apparently context is a peripheral issue for them. There is no meaning without context. When they quote scripture, they either give no context at all, or they paraphrase the preceding context, which they get wrong (more on this later). They also misuse some terms, like "immaculate conception." This is a common mistake, but should not show up in well researched, scholarly work.

3. The scholarship they try to employ in this documentary is what would be described as liberal (this has nothing to do with politics). That is to say that when dating the books of the NT, you can date Paul's writings as early as the 50's, which would be the conservative view and, in my opinion, clearly the most accurate. You can also date Paul's writings as late as 140AD or later, and claim that it was not Paul, but someone else who wrote this as folklore to an existing group called Christians. This is the liberal view. This is convenient to conspiracy theorists because it removes any eyewitnesses from being involved in the writings, and thus discredits the documents.

The are some overarching generalities that are true of most conspiracy theorists. Next time I will dive into the meat of the documentary and challenge some of his claims. If you have seen the movie or watch it soon, post and let me know. I am interested to hear what is being said and what your responses are.

Thanks!
-NF

Funny Evangelism Video

From henceforth, this will be my ministry philosophy:

"I knockst the pride outta them!"

A Pair of Pervasive Myths

I am a somewhat regular reader of www.snopes.com, a site dedicated to determining the validity of myths and Urban Legends. The site does a great job of researching and tracking down the origins of these myths to prove their validity or invalidity. Allow me to share 2 with you that I'm sure you have heard in the last year.

1. The Starbucks Myth

It was a few months ago a lady I know was all in a huff because her friend had heard on the radio that some American Troops had asked Starbucks to donate some coffee to the troops. Starbucks response was paraphrased as "We don't support the war and we don't support you so leave us alone!" She began to tell how her friends had already begun to boycott Starbucks for their stance.

There is just one problem with the story...It's Not True! Snopes has traced the original email back to its author and communicated with him. The story is false. We don't know of any request for coffee for troops being made, but if it was, Starbucks would not donate because they have a company policy to only donate to non-profit organizations. They make it clear that they do support the troops over seas and here in America.

2. The Cell Phone/Telemarketer Myth

"Today is the day," she said. "Today is the day that telemarketers are allowed to call your cell phones. But it's okay, I have already registered my number with the 'do not call list'." Had this woman at the conference I was at known that she had been told a false myth, she probably would not have spread a false rumor.

The truth is that there are already FCC laws in place that block the bulk of telemarketing calls anyway. There is no agency you have to register with to keep your number safe, nor is there a deadline you need to try and make. Telemarketers are not coming to our cell phones anytime soon. So, the next time you get one of those email or hear someone talking about it, you can rest easy.

The Pervasiveness of myths in our society is troubling, but so is our willingness to believe them. I am training myself to be a skeptic of almost everything that I hear, because a large chunk of it is bull. It kills me to know that I have circulated myths, even frivolous ones, in the past. I should stand for truth wherever I find it.

Until next time, friends, tell the truth.

-NF

An Interesting Demographic Tool

A number of months ago the Church Relevance blog posted about Yahoo!'s Neighborhood Profiles tool. It turns out it is a very usefull tool. I look at it for a number of reasons, but particularly for ministry purposes and personal curiosity. It covers income, size, weather, cost of living etc. If you are thinking of moving, it is a must.

So, In The Aftermath...

...Of getting a tattoo, I know that as I show more people, eventually someone is going to make an offhanded comment about "Do you know what the Bible says about getting tattoos?" There are several replys that I could try on, perhaps the simplist being "Do YOU know what the Bible says about tattoos?" In the Old Testament there are 2 types of laws/rules: purity laws and moral laws. The purity laws are things like don't eat pork or shellfish. The moral laws are things like the 10 Commandments. I, therefore, have compiled a list of other rules in the same section of Leviticus that must be true if the verse on tattoos is still binding today. Here are some of them:

Do not mate different kinds of animals. Sorry dog lovers who own a mut. Fluffy has to go.

Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. No planting tomatos and peppers in your garden.

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Check your shirt!

Do not eat any meat with blood still in it. Better go well done on all steaks and burgers.

Do not cut the hair on the sides of your head or clip the sides of your beard. Grooming habits back then must have been scary.

Rise in the presence of the aged. A good rule, but we dont stand when they enter the room now, do we?

Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight. I get paid twice a month; does that mean the church is sinning?!!

All of these commands come in the same chapter, Leviticus chapter 19, as the verse talking about tatoos. There are also commands that make sense, like do not steal or practice sorcery. But, the reality is that many of these purity codes were to keep the Israelites from associating with pagan peoples who would lead them into idolatry and away from their God. In fact, we see them compromise these many times (Saul and Soloman for example) and they almost always turn to idols. So, we are left to ask some tough questions: which laws are cultural purity laws that Jesus did away with, and which are still true? I think we are best off looking to the New Testament for most of our practice commands, and make wise judgement calls after that. Our conscience as a community will guide us.

Thanks for reading.

-NF

Inked

So I did it.

Yep. I got the tatoo I was pondering. After 4 days of continual thought, some stress, and some prayer, I went through with it. It turned out very good. If you are wondering why, see the post below. I had reason for getting what I got. As I was on the way to get it I was reminded of Psalm 101, "I will sing of your love and your justice, to you, oh LORD I will sing praise." That is my hearts cry, and I declared it today by getting an everlasting reminder that God has called me to stand against injustice. Join me in this stand, as the Bible talks about redemtion for the poor and downtrodden more than almost anything else.

Peace

-NF

Ink on the Brain

So I am seriously thinking about getting a tattoo. So much so that I went and talked to the guy at the tattoo place about it. I have already decided what I would get and where. the image you see above is the Japanese symbol for "Justice". Why Justice? Because I feel like God is placing a lifelong call on me to help stop injustice wherever it is happening. Why Japanese? Well, I have a lot of respect for the Samurai and the whole honor code that they lived by. In addition, Japanese symbols are just plain cool.

There is still about a 40% chance I will chicken out. I want a buddy of mine to go and get one at the same time for moral support. I have thought a lot about it and have checked the reasons I want to do it over. I'm not doing it for attention. I'd actually rather not explain why I got it too tons of people, but I will because I want to make a statement about what I feel God is calling me to do. I'm not doing it to rebel, because tattoos are not that rebellious any more. It is something I want to do. Lets see if I go through with it.

I will keep you posted.

Back on Home Soil

Well, we have made it back safely (though a little groggy) and we are getting back into life's routine. It was a great trip. We saw much fruit and were safe the entire time. I may write more about the finer points of the trip in the future and some interesting highlights, but for now, here is a picture of Ang and I with Joseph, a young boy at the shelter where we stayed. He is named Joseph for a reason; he was abandoned by his family at a bus stop when he was about three years old and taken in by the folks at Restored Heritage. They think he belonged to some of the warring tribes that inhabit the mountains. Sad as it is to say, his life may be much better now, where he has many people around that love him, stability, food, a relationship with God. The shelter has given him life. Keep kids like Joseph and ministries like Restored Heritage in your prayers. There is no shortage of people who need to be touched.

Off To the Philippines

Well, friends, my deepest apologies for not posting much, okay, at all for the past few weeks. Last week was our annual Summer Youth Camp, which was awesome, so between gearing up for that and preparing to leave for the Philippines for 3 weeks on Monday, these last 2 months have been the busiest in my life up to this point.

Did I mention I'm going to the Philippines for 3 weeks? Yeah. It is going to be great. We are taking 9 students, 2 student leaders, and 3 adults for three weeks to the Philippines. Please keep us in your prayers! We will be ministering on the Islands of Cebu and Bahol, 2 of the poorest islands, doing things like holding youth outreach services and serving the poor. We will not be doing any of the construction type activities that are often done on missions trips.

Needless to say, I won't be blogging while I'm gone, but I hope to pick up normal pace when I return towards the end of July. If you need something top read, check out my blog links on the right. There is always good stuff there.

-Nick

Rick Warren and Sam Harris

This is an article containing a debate between atheist Sam Harris and pastor Rick Warren. It is a very different animal from the Dawkins/McGrath debate posted previously. Warren takes a much more practical approach than the social/intellectual approach taken by McGrath, which makes sense, since Warren is a Pastor and McGrath an intellectual. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

Richard Dawkins, Part 3: Dawkins and Allister McGrath

For the 3rd installment of the series on Richard Dawkins, I will be commenting on Dawkins' debate with former Atheist and current Christian Allister McGrath. It is a two part audio file that you can download here.

There are better thoughts than these in the discussion that follows on the link above, but I will make a few of my own comments.

1. I feel like the participants were arguing apples and oranges

It seemed like they were going to be arguing about the existence of God, which is what Dawkins is primarily concerned about. Dawkins even says at one point that he is concerned with what is true. McGrath seesm to be making complete social arguments. Dawkins, in response, at one point states, "All of that may be true, but it doesn't say anything about the existence of God." Thus, I feel like there was some wheels spinning in the debate.

2. I liked McGrath's question: Does science move us toward atheism or toward theism?

I think this is a million dollar question. Complexity. Order. Design. Irreducibly complex systems. These all seem to me to point towards a creator God. Dawkins certainly disagrees. However, I would agree with Erwin McManus who says that if all truth really is God's truth, and we are crazy if we think it is not, than any true quest for knowledge in any discipline will eventually lead back to God. McGrath holds God as the "best explanation" of the world. I think he makes a great point. From my perspective, God makes much more sense that chance plus time plus nothing.

3. Dawkins makes the very interesting claim the religion is "intellectually impoverishing."

This is a fair statement, and not a low blow, in my opinion. It is up to us as followers of Christ to prove to everyone that we are as interested in investigation as anyone else if not more. Dawkins says that religion "cuts off investigation by providing easy, facile answers to deep and troubling questions like the questions that science tackles." May we not fall guilty of this by casting off exploration with a trite, religious statement. Christians do this far too often. May we thirst for truth in all sectors of life.

I could continue, but I will leave it alone at this. I hope this series on Richard Dawkins was helpful and it inspired thought. Let's keep the conversation going.

A Cultural Critique by Ray Bradbury

I just finished reading Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. I had read it in high school, and for whatever reason, it had been on my mind. I bought it and read it last week. It is a great piece of literature and I highly recommend it. Allow me to give you the blurb.

It is the future. Advances in technology have produced a culture where speed and entertainment are everything. Houses are fireproof. Books are illegal. Fireman no longer put out fires, but they start fires, burning books that are owned illegally by citizens. Guy Montag is a fireman. One day while burning books, a book falls in his hand and opens. His eyes fall upon one sentence...it captures him. He becomes obsessed with finding out what he is missing in books. The book is about the rest of the story.

At the end of the book there is an interview with Ray Bradbury 50 years after the original printing of Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury makes some very interesting comments about the book and about our culture today, including this critique:

Interviewer: There seems to have been a decline in standards of journalistic objectivity, to put it mildly.

Bradbury: It's not just substance; it's style. the whole problem of TV and movies today is summed up for me by the film Moulin Rouge. It came out a few years ago and won a lot of awards. It has 4,560 half second clips in it. the camera never stops and holds still. So it clicks off your thinking; you can't think when you have things bombarding you like that. The average TV commercial of sixty seconds has one hundred and twenty half second clips in it, or one third of a second. We bombard people with sensation. That substitutes for our thinking.

I was struck by this. I think he is on to something. Thoughts?

Richard Dawkins part 2: Dawkins and Paula Zahn

In my second edition of looking into the foremost atheist in the world, Richard Dawkins, I take a look at an interview Dawkins did with Paula Zahn. This has a different taste to it, because Zahn is simply interviewing rather than debating (in contrast to the O'Reily interview). You will notice again that Dawkins is a gentleman the entire time. I do have some problems with some things he says, though. My commentary is below.



1. "Not a shred of evidence"

Dawkins claims that he does not believe in the Judeo Christian God because "there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the Judeo Christian God or indeed any other god." I would love to have a chance to sit down and talk with Dawkins, because it would be interesting to hear what he classifies as evidence. I think of Billy Graham's metaphor of the wind, how we cannot see it but we see the effects of it, and wonder of that could be evidence. I wonder if the Bible and the testimony of the first century Christians could be evidence. I suppose it is from a purely scientific standpoint that he rejects these as evidence. It seems weird, though, that he has pretty much written them off without a second thought (though maybe he hasn't). Is that really all there is to it?

Also, he categorizes the Judeo Christian God with Zeus and Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It seems that any thinking human being would see an enormous difference between the Judeo Christian God and this group with which he lumps it in. The difference between the Gospels and other works about characters who do miracles are huge. We have apocryphal writings about Jesus and they are night and day different than the Gospels.

2. "remarkably intolerant of atheists"

Here comes that intolerant word again. This goes back to how do you interpret the word intolerant? The currently used definition is "all views are equally valid." A more accurate definition is "All people are valid, but views are not." I think we would agree that the first definition does not work. Some views are stupid. Some are foolish. Some are dangerous (Nazism). We must be able to disagree on our views without being labeled intolerant. So, if Dawkins is suggesting that Christians are intolerant of atheists because they disregard their views and think them incorrect, than all atheists are intolerant as well. If he is using the second definition, he is suggesting that atheists are treated poorly because they are atheists, that is a serious charge, and sadly, true in some circles. We need to be careful as Christians to treat all people with love, as Christ did.

3. "historic misunderstanding of what atheism is"

I think this is true. The word "atheist" has a negative connotation in Christian circles. I think it sounds angry and hostile. Rather, most atheists are like Dawkins, peaceful people who simply disagree. By the way, the way to win atheists like this for the Lord is not to brow beat and be prejudiced towards them. If they were to experience the transforming love of Christ acted out by a humble believer, it would go a long way (in my opinion).

4. "What's there to be frightened of?"

Joining the last point, I think he makes a true statement here as well. gain, most atheists are nice people who choose not to believe in God. Why should we be scared of dialogue about the things he mentions, the origin of the universe, the cosmos, etc.? We as Christians should welcome conversation like these, and we should be educated enough to entertain these discussions.

On the other hand, though, I do think these ideas, this worldview, can be dangerous. Living as if there is no God, no ultimate code of right and wrong, no ultimate benefit to right living or morality is dangerous. A generation living this way is scary. It is not the atheists that scare me, or even their ideas, it is the results of their ideas played out practically on a generation who takes them to their logical end. There are no consequences for my actions? Okay, I will do whatever I want. There is no right or wrong, only relative codes of conduct? Okay, then why does it matter what I do or don't do? these are the ideas that are scary, not the people or the discussions.

5. "you don't live this life to the full"

Wow. I believe the exact opposite of what he is saying. What is more negative, a funeral where the dead person and his whole family believe that the person in the casket is no more, they are worm food, never to live again, or that they lived a great long life but are now in heaven where there is no more pain or suffering? It is an eye opener to hear that one of the same reasons we claim religion is better than atheism is the same reason they claim atheism is better. Very interesting.

In conclusion, if there is one thing Dawkins does, it is make us think about some tough questions and concepts. I believe that he is seeking truth, and it is always interesting to get another perspective.

Richard Dawkins part 1: Dawkins and O'Reilly

I have been having some fun reading over at the
Naked Pastor Blog, which is where I saw this video (below). I am very intrigued by Richard Dawkins and how he thinks. Dawkins is the leading atheist thinker in the world today and wrote the bestselling book The God Delusion. I disagree with much of what he says, including and primarily his world view, which is evolutionary and naturalistic, but he is challenging Christians to think much more deeply than most have and to abandon their pad answers for legitimate, well researched and logical answers.

That being said, I m starting a series of posts inspired by videos of Richard Dawkins to which I will be responding. This first one shows Dawkins being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor.



Hoping that you have just seen the video, I am now going to make some comments (time will tell if a theme runs through this series of posts). First, I will discuss O'Reilly. I thought he did a very poor job of representing Christianity in the interview. Here is why.

1. First of all, O'Reilly seemed pampas and condescending. This is seen in a lot of ways, I think, like tone of voice, and how he interrupts Dawkins several times. He uses phrases like "you guys" several times. I think as Christians we need to have respect for everyone and give those with whom we are debating the right to be heard. We certainly expect the same. There is a certain quality that the majority of Christians (perhaps all people) lack, and that is the ability to disagree and debate respectfully. Why does disagreement make us so uncomfortable? Anyway, back to the original point, O'Reilly does not come off well in his demeanor, and it is a stark contrast to Dawkins' demeanor, which is very respectful and humble, willing to answer questions and listen.

2. Secondly, after seeming to argue for truth early on (although quite poorly), O'Reilly seems to take a relativistic standpoint towards the end of the interview. He even uses the phrase "it's true for me." Dawkins rightly comes back and states that truth is truth and what is true for one person is true for everyone. does it strike anyone else as odd that the Christian is the relativist and the atheist is the truth guy?

3. Thirdly, and I'll end on a good note about O'Reilly, I think he had a firm grasp of the founding fathers and their beliefs. He mentions how they wanted faith in Christ and all that comes with it to be the "moderating influence" that will make the country great. I think this is a pretty good argument against Dawkins' theory that Religion is a bane to civilization, though it certainly doesn't settle the issue.

Now, let's examine Dawkins.

1. I completely disagree with what he said about atheists not needing faith. I think that is one of the great mistakes that atheists and secularists make is thinking that they do not have faith. Everyone has faith in something, whether it is evolution or God or Zeus or a Totem Pole etc. It is absurd that he asserts that he doesn't have faith.

2. Dawkins also makes a statement about proof of evolution and the explanations of the mysteries of the universe, saying "We're working on it," presuming that the answers are in the (near?) future. First off, isn't that having faith in science, which negates his statement above? Secondly, after over a century of digging and scientific exploration, we still have not found any transitional fossils, which Darwin himself said we should find millions of if evolution were true, nor have we come any closer to answering the questions of abiogenesis and entropy. Scientists are quick to reference Copernicus and Galileo as examples of this, but I seem to think that these two comparisons are apples and oranges. I think time works more as the enemy of science in this aspect rather than the friend, because the longer we dig and find nothing, the more glaring the evidence against evolution seems to be.

3. Lastly, as alluded to above, it seems as though Dawkins ignores the very reason the founding father started this country, which was religious freedom. I am simply pulling from one line he stated about this, so I may be reaching, in addition to the fact that he is not American, but he seems to have a cloudy view of early American history.

That's all I got. Again, I am thankful for thinkers like Richard Dawkins who force us as Christians to think and figure these issues out for ourselves, rather than sticking to the Sunday School pad answers or retreating to relativism. May we (continue to) be thinkers. May we love Jesus enough to turn over every stone, research well, and do all we can to represent Christ well in the public academic arena. May we not shy away from disagreements, because it is there that we learn and grow.

Top Religious Films of All Time

This is an interesting list I saw over at the Think Christian Blog, which ranks the top 50 reloigious films of all time. For the record, I have only seen 16 of the top 50 (a pitiful 32%), but 5 of the top 10, so I am doing better. Here are some notables with my comments.

6. Babette's Feast A great movie we had to watch in college, but a great story that was very well made and has a pretty big twist at the end. It also has some great old fashioned humor.

10. The Crucible One of the great plays of all time, in my opinion. The story features the great tension between dying with dignity or living with shame.

19. The Name of the Rose A fantastic murder mystery set in a monestary. There is about a 5 minute porn scene in the middle, so fast forward through that.

22. Signs If a religious movie has aliens in it, it has to be great, right?

23. Field of Dreams How is this one religious? Great movie, though.

27. The Greatest Story Ever Told I haven't seen this, but from clips the Jesus in this movie really creaps me out.

34. Jesus Christ Superstar Make fun of me all you want, but I love this movie. A classic that portrays an interesting angle of the classic story.

36. Ikiru Another one I was forced to watch in college but loved, Ikuru is a Japanese film where a man finds out he is dying and then learns to truly live.