Evan Almighty

If you haven't seen this movie yet then you haven't seen it.

My wife and I went to this as part of a date that we went on Friday night. Overall I would say that it is a decent movie that would be safe to take the family to.

I had heard good reviews about it, but I am surprised that from the Conservative Christian side I didn't hear more negative about it.

Here's the plot in a nutshell-

A guy gets elected to become a Congressman. So he and his family move to a new gated community to get settled as he heads to his new job in Washington. As the story unfolds he begins to get this feeling that God is sending him a message telling him that he needs to build an ark. This is later confirmed when God visits him.

So as time goes by God begins to work on his reluctance and skepticism and causes him to grow a beard and long hair. Tons of lumber is then dropped off at his house and pairs of each animal gradually start showing up at his house. He eventually gives into his calling, quits going to work, and builds the ark. Meanwhile, everyone starts laughing at him and mocking him in disbelief that a flood is going to be coming.

The flood does come at the last minute, but it ends up being because of investors cutting corners in their building strategies that leads to the breaking of a dam. The ark then proves not to be necessary to only save all of the animals but whoever will jump on it to be saved from the flood that wiped their houses out.

Overall, I thought that it was just an odd story. In my opinion it was too much of a mish-mash of biblical legend and modern environmental activism.

What I don't understand from the story was why a pair of every known animal came to Noah's house, especially those animals that clearly didn't even live in that region when this flood was clearly local; probably even more local than the flood recorded in the Bible.

The 2nd thing is the question of why the main character had to have long hair and a long beard. Was it entirely necessary? His kids didn't get long hair when they were helping him build.

I've got many other questions about why the writers made this movie like the way they did but I can't even think of them all right now. I just found myself at several points wondering how the true connection could be made or what the exact message of the movie was supposed to be. Well, I know what the message was supposed to be, but I wondered what many parts of the movie had to do with the message.

What the movie did have going for it. The effects were alright. The acting was alright. Lauren Graham. John Goodman. Steve Carell.

The story touched on overcoming adversity, doing good to your neighbor, standing up for your convictions...

I give the movie a thumbsideways. I probably wouldn't care to see the movie again, but at least when I watched it the first time it was with my wife and she liked it.

The Rapture & Organ Donation

I was listening to a Christian talk radio show the other day on the way into work. The topic was how Christians could help the world [or at least those near them] medically by donating their organs after they die, or some organs that you can live without.

Now, they weren't really talking about the Rapture or anything like that, but the topic of organ donation struck me as kind of funny, given that I know what their theological beliefs are about this alleged event.

I am all for organ donation. I've got it marked "Y" right there on my drivers license. If I were to die some time and my parts were still good, then I would want them to be put to good use by someone who needs them.

On the other hand, I know a man who believes in the current modern view of the coming Rapture of the church and he will not donate his organs because he is afraid that when his body gets raptured it might end up killing whoever has his parts. Because according to that view, at a moment in time God physically calls up those who have followed him. If they are dead and rotted away, then their bodies will magically come back together as a whole. So he envisions those who have had eye/arm/heart/kidney/etc. transplants from parts that came from Christians as one day to be taken from them if their believing Christian gets raptured.

I think that it's a silly notion, but the radio conversation just reminded me of his view.

Ave Maria

I was listening to Catholic radio the other night on my drive home from work and I am just astonished by the amount of evolution that the Catholic church has undergone in its theological framework or the last 1500 years.

There were a few callers who were asking about taking pilgrimages to various locations where alleged apparitions of Mary were taking place. I kid you not. There have been and are still many sites around the world where members of the Catholic church have allegedly received visitations by the Virgin Mary. In many of these places people have visions, dreams, stigmatas, and receive healing.

According to Wikipedia:

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the era of public revelation ended with the death of the last living Apostle. A Marian apparition, if deemed genuine by Church authority, is treated as private revelation that may emphasize some facet of the received public revelation for a specific purpose, but it can never add anything new to the deposit of faith. At most, the Church will confirm an apparition as worthy of belief, but belief is never required by divine faith.^[1] The Holy See has officially confirmed the apparitions at Guadalupe, La Salette, Laus (France), during more than 50 years, Paris (Rue du Bac, Miraculous Medal), Lourdes, Fatima, Pontmain, Beauraing, Banneux, and Knock (Ireland). ^[2]

Not all claims of visitations are dealt with favourably by the Roman Catholic Church. For example, claimed apparitions of Our Lady, Jesus Christ and various saints at Bayside, New York have not been condoned or sanctioned in any way, nor those at the Necedah Shrine in Necedah, Wisconsin. The behavior of Ms Veronica Lueken and Mary Ann Van Hoof, who claimed these heavenly favors, was deemed not to compare favorably with the "quiet pragmatism" of St. Bernadette Soubirous — Church authorities are said to use Bernadette as a model by which to judge all who purport to have visitations. Indeed, both women seriously criticized the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, allegedly even harshly, and Mrs. Van Hoof is said to have subsequently left Roman Catholicism for an independent local Old Catholic Church.

Possibly the best-known apparition sites are Lourdes and Fatima.^{[citation needed]} Over sixty spontaneous healings, out of thousands reported at the Lourdes Spring, have been classified as "inexplicable" by the physicians of the Lourdes Bureau, a medical centre set up by the Church in association with local medical institutes to assess possible miracles. The so-called Three Secrets of Fatima received a great deal of attention in the Catholic and secular press.

It is all very interesting. I would be very curious to see psychological case studies of all who have had these experiences to see what the differences/commonalities are between them. Perhaps it is wishful thinking? Perhaps it is delusion? Maybe there's something in the holy water?

The Missing Link In the Resurrection Chain

Today while I was sitting in church with my family I decided to read the post resurrection accounts in the Gospels. I have been thinking a lot about the notion of a resurrection and what that could mean for Christianity.

I started thinking about it initially in light of Calvinism's claim that Jesus only redeems the elect. By this theory, then it would make sense that he might only show himself to a select few people after he was resurrected. But then I started thinking about the greater implications at large; the authorship and timing of the writing of the Gospels, the other early Christian writings, the possibilities of myth and the evolution of community thought, I decided that this was worth looking into a little further.

For the sake of modern acceptance reasons I will only look at what we find in the 5 Gospels- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.

Matthew 28- Mary and Mary went to the sepulcher. When they arrived there was an earthquake and the angel rolled back the stone blocking the entrance to it. He sat on the stone and told them not to be afraid and the angel invited them in to have a look to see that Jesus was not there. He then tells them to go and tell the other disciples what they have seen, and that Jesus is going before them to Galilee.

They now head to Galilee where they are met by Jesus himself who again tells them directly to go to Galilee and tell his brethren. He would catch up with them there.

The text also then asserts that the elders devised a conspiracy to say that Jesus' disciples paid the guards to let them take his body. This might be one explanation of his disappearance.

Meanwhile, back in Galilee, the 11 disciples all gathered at the mountain that Jesus told them to. It says that when they saw him that some doubted and some believed. He the gave them the commission to go into the world and spread his teaching that hey gave to them. Then the book ends.

Mark 16- Mary, Mary, and Salome went to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body. On the way they were wondering how they were going to get the stone rolled away in order to get in. However, when they arrived they found that the stone had already been moved. So they went inside and they saw a [young] man sitting inside who told them that Jesus was gone. He then tells them to go tell the other disciples and that Jesus would meet them in Galilee. It then says that they didn't say a word to anyone because of fear.

Then on the first day of the week, Jesus went and only appeared to Mary Magdalene. She tried to tell the others but they mourned and did not believe her. So then Jesus goes and visits two other disciples but this time it says that he does so by taking on another form. They did not believe that he was risen.

After that, he then appeared unto the 11 again and reprimanded them for their unbelief. He then gave them a final charge, and then he ascended up into Heaven and sat at the right hand of God.

Luke 24- On the first day of the week someone went to the tomb of Jesus and found the stone to be rolled away. Then they went into the tomb and did not find Jesus. They were perplexed until 2 men appeared to them and told them what had happened. They then told them also to go to Galilee, so they did and they told the others who did not believe. So Peter decides to go have a look for himself. He sees the linen and then wonders what is going to happen next.

That same day, 2 of them [it does not mention who] were walking to Emmaus talking about these events. While they were talking, Jesus "draws near" to them and went with them; but he did something to blind their eyes so that they wouldn't know it was him. He then asks them why they are so upset and they give him their story. After he hears this he then explains everything to them from Moses and the Prophets. They are pretty intrigued so they ask him if he will hang out with them for the night and he agrees.

Later that night, while they were eating, he then decides to open their eyes and let them see that it is him. However, as soon as they see that it is him, he then vanishes from their sight. They were then amazed and returned to Jerusalem with the other 11 and told them what happened. While they were telling the story Jesus appears out of thin air and starts talking to them. They get freaked out thinking that this is a ghost so he lets them touch him and he asks for some food.

He then teaches and convinces them more about everything that had happened to him and to them and tells them to wait for him in Jerusalem. Then he takes time out to Bethany where he blesses them and is carried away into Heaven.

John 20-21- Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb and finds the stone rolled away so she runs to Peter and John and tells them. They then ran back to check it out. They couldn't figure out why the tomb was empty so they went home. Meanwhile, Mary stays where she sees 2 angels inside the tomb where Jesus' body would have been; one at the head and one at the feet. They asked her why she was weeping and she told them, but when she looked back it was just Jesus; but she didn't know it was him so she just told her story to who she thought was the gardener. It wasn't until he said her name that she knew it was him somehow.

She then goes to grab him and he tells her not to touch her because he has not yet ascended to the Father. She then leaves the tomb and tells the rest of the disciples what he had said.

Later that day, all of the disciples were hidden in a room waiting for something when Jesus appears out of nowhere in their midst and gives them a few words. Thomas was not present at this time so when he heard all this from the others he did not believe. So 8 days later Jesus again shows up out of nowhere into the room where they wer at and lets Thomas touch his hands and side.

A few days later Jesus shows up at the Tiberian Sea with his disciples so that they can see him again. This time it was after they had already set out to go fishing. So they saw someone over by the shore but they didn't know it was Jesus. He asks them if they've caught anything and then tells them where to cast the net. They then get this huge catch and he eats with them.

While they are eating he talks to Peter about some things and then talks about John a bit. There is no mention of his ascension in this book.

Acts 1- The disciples are with Jesus as he gives them some final words and when he is done talking to them he is received up into a cloud out of their site.

1 Corinthians 15- Paul says that the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were as follows: Peter, 500+ witnesses, James, and then all of the other Apostles.

What do I take away from this?

Each of these stories has its share of conflicts with the others.

The order of events are out of sequence. The numbers of participants is mismatching. The accounts of the words of Christ differ; and not just the wording, but the whole content.

What about Paul's conversion? Acts 9 has Paul on horseback when Jesus shows up and speaks to him. It says that there was a bright light and those who were with Paul heard a voice, but did not see anyone. But then Acts 22 has Paul attesting that at his conversion that those who were with him saw a bright light but did not hear the voice? So which one was it?

I believe at best Paul had a vision that could not be verifiable by anyone else.

Here's what I really want to know-

Who were these 500+ witnesses that Paul talks about as having seen Jesus after his resurrection? I do not find any accounts in the Bible or other sources that can confirm that this actually happened, but I am assuming that based on the language used in the passage that these were fellow believers.

Jesus' life ministry was public. Both sacred and secular works attest to his life, miracles, teachings, etc. There was nothing secret about any of that; so why is it that when it comes to everything post resurrection that it is restricted only to his followers? Why wouldn't there be anything else to affirm this resurrection? All of his visitations were in secret. His teaching was done in secret. He seemingly teleported everywhere he went. He was a shape-shifter in appearance. His ascension in to Heaven was secret. There is nothing public about Jesus after his resurrection.....so what can verify any of this besides these Gospels that were written a generation or two after the alleged occurrences?

What do you do when the puzzle pieces don't fit, some are missing, or the accounts are wrong/conflicting in such a way as this?