OMG: A sequel to “God’s Not Dead”

November 5, 2015 • 1:30 pm

I don’t believe I ever highlighted the execrable movie “God’s Not Dead,” starring Kevin Sorbo as an atheistic philosophy professor who proselytizes loudly for godlessness in his classroom, challenges a student to a debate about the existence of God (and loses) and then, at the film’s end, is struck by a car and, just before he dies, is converted to Christianity by a passing pastor. I hasten to add that I never paid good money to see the movie, but I’ve read about it, seen the trailer, and of course was appalled. Professors just don’t do that in their classrooms—at least none of them that I know.

Although the movie was a complete critical flop, it was a hit at the box office, and of course has to have a sequel. “God’s Not Dead 2” is now scheduled to open on April 1 (?) of next year.  Since Sorbo was killed off in the first movie (and presumably now sits with Jesus), they have to have a new premise. This time they’re recycling Sabrina the Teenage Witch as the religious protagonist. Deadline Hollywood reports:

A new trailer just dropped for the sequel to God’s Not Dead, the faith-based film which came out of nowhere last year to make more than $60 million on a budget of $2 million. The film, which looks like it was made for a higher budget, stars Melissa Joan Hart as a school teacher who ends up in a Scopes-type lawsuit for answering a student’s question about the similarities between Jesus’ teachings to those of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

Watch and weep:

The student’s question, and Sabrina’s answer, are 34 seconds in, and it’s just ludicrous to suppose that this scenario bears any resemblance to reality. Seriously, an atheistic student texting a softball answer like that to his parents, which then causes a huge legal maelstrom? Ridiculous!

I won’t fail to miss this one, either.

143 thoughts on “OMG: A sequel to “God’s Not Dead””

      1. If it follows the format of the “Alien” franchise, #3 would be “Gods Are Not Dead”. In which, presumably, it turns out that Apollo, Thor, Shiva et al are also alive, and they team up with Yahweh to wallop anyone who doesn’t believe in ALL of them.

        1. In a similar vein, I think the book American Gods would make a pretty interesting movie.

        2. Heh, that brings to mind Xena, who killed off quite a lot of those gods. Thereby comfortably outdoing Hercules, who only killed his daddy Zeus. Thing is, Hercules (the TV series) was played by – wait for it – none other than Kevin God’s-Not-Dead Sorbo, who subsequently got his knickers in a serious twist, reputedly not untwisted yet, that ‘his’ show was overshadowed by its spinoff Xena.
          (That’s Xena with an ‘a’, not Xenu of the scientologists).

          All this happened not ten miles from where I’m sitting, by the way.

          cr

    2. Does anyone get the old SNL reference? (Paging my generation.)

      By the way, I now have to fill in my name and email on every comment, or I get a stern warning. This is new. WordPress used to remember me. Fallout from the “anonymous” glitch?

        1. Generalissimo Francisco Franco to be precise.

          I once saw him in the flesh, at a bullfight in Madrid. I was in the cheap seats.

          1. Nice. I saw a few bull fights in Madrid and in Zaragosa but Franco was not in attendance. Probably 69 or 70. I think Franco may still be dead.

          2. Franco’s definitely dead. I’ve stood next to his grave several times at Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caidos. Unless it isn’t really him of course….

          3. During the last couple of years it occasionally has come to my mind to wonder what was going on with fascist Franco and Spain during WW II. He surely was a Hitler sympathizer, wasn’t he?

            Did the Allies threaten to annihilate him if he lifted a finger in support of the Axis Powers?

          4. Franco’s fight in the Spanish Civil War was certainly supported by Hitler and the Nazi state. Stukas bombing Guernica, etc.
            I don’t know enough about WW2 to comment on what the actually did. I know that Portugal was neutral, but I’m not sure exactly what Spain’s status was. I don’t think they were combatants, but they may not have been formally neutral.

          5. Franco was a fascist. He came to power in the Spanish Civil War, supported by Nazi Germany and Italy’s Mussolini, defeating the leftist Republican government. The Spanish Civil War has been called a dress rehearsal for WWII. Spain was neutral in WWII, but afterwards Franco was supported as an ally by the US because he was an anti-Communist. He was a very bad guy.

          6. Hitler very much wanted Franco to join the Axis team in fighting the Allies, and visited Franco personally trying to persuade him to become an active belligerent in the war, but apparently Franco insisted on a lot of conditions he knew Hitler would not agree to and afterwards Hitler described the experience as like having teeth pulled. In regards to picking his fight carefully, Franco was far smarter than Mussolini or even Hitler, which is why he got to live about 30 years longer than they did and remain in power until the moment he died.

          7. I was going to make a similar comment. I think Franco played it very canny (and the Spanish probably owe him some grudging approbation for the way he played it). It spared them yet another war.

            Spain had nothing to gain by joining in the Axis side of the war. On the other hand, by being nominally neutral but friendly towards Germany, it meant that Hitler had no good reason for going to the effort and expense of invading Spain.

            cr

          8. Sometime in late 1942 or early 1943, the head of the Abwehr, Admiral Canaris, was sent to Spain to convince Franco to allow German forces to march through Spain and attack Gibraltar, which, if had taken place and succeeded would have allowed Germany to prevent Allied shipping from entering into the Mediterranean. However, Canaris, who was actually secretly opposed to the Nazi regime and who played a subtle game throughout the war to undermine the German war effort, instead advised Franco to demur. Canaris told Franco that Germany was going to lose the war and that, if the latter allowed German troops to march through Spain to attack Gibraltar, he would be removed from power after the war by the victorious allies and tried as a war criminal.

          9. I’ve always admired Canaris. A very brave man, I think. And a true patriot in his own way, who despised what Hitler was doing to Germany (and was therefore a traitor of the very worst kind from their viewpoint).

            ‘La trahison, c’est un question de date’ (-Talleyrand)

            cr

  3. This coming out in the middle of a Presidential campaign season??? I feel certain this movie will become a topic of discussion amongst the bobble-head of the GOP. Oh goody…..

  5. Aw come on you folks got to grow a sense of humor! This stuff is great. Looking forward to it. The one about the little kid who goes to heaven was pretty good too though it did not achieve the heights of sublime Christian cheese that GsND and this one undoubtedly will.

    True, GOD’S STILL NOT DEAD would have been a better title.

    Jack Chick lives in cinema!

    1. Jack Chick lives in cinema!

      You beat me to it. That’s EXACTLY what these movies are! And whoever thought to make Chick tracts into film is a genius because there is easy money there (not that I doubt their sincerity, but money never hurts).

      For that matter, I think the Chick tracts themselves are a kind of twisted genius. Crude, phantasmagorical, not-even-wrong… but appealing precisely, lock-in-key, to a kind of neuroses that a fundamentalist living in the modern world inevitably suffers from. It’s like an unvarnished look into the fundamentalist Id.

    2. The teacher doesn’t seem to have been preaching hellfire and brimstone — she was using a quote from the Bible to support a point on the history of nonviolence in answer toi a specific question. That’s supposed to be what sets off the atheist fury across the court system.

      Which is nastier than a Chick tract.

      1. Yes it seems like nonsense to me. Literature is literature even if it’s religiously inspired. All writing is man made even though religious writing is more likely to be very poor. As an atheist I don’t worry about getting cooties if the Bible is quoted as long as it’s not treated like some holy writ and forced on me.

        Even though we think that this is all made up nonsense and atheists don’t act this way, sometimes they do.

        An example is Freedom From Religion Foundation who I do have an enormous problem with here in Portland. They have threatened to file a lawsuit against the Portland school district for allowing the choirs throughout the city to perform at the Grotto.

        Choirs from around the world come to the Grotto to perform because the acoustics are world class. The local choirs have been lucky enough to have access to this venue just for the cost of parking. Not anymore. Some FFRF dingbats, straight out of “God is Not Dead” atheist casting, have gotten worked up because the parking fees are supposedly enriching the Catholic Church.

        I will not be a part of FFRF ever again. They make a mockery of all atheists and I am embarrassed to have ever been a part of that group.

        I will not play the role of the evil atheist in the FFRF version of God is Dead.

          1. “The Grotto charges patrons for parking, money which goes to fund religious activities.”
            Here it is right in the link you provided.
            Parking fees fund religious activities?
            Maybe the fees fund upkeep of the parking lot.
            That sounds much more likely to me.

        2. Two points are missing from your post for it to be informative :
          (1) what the fsck is “the Grotto” – in terms that don’t assume more local knowledge than “Portland is (slightly) south of (most of) Canada” ;
          (2) if the choirs in question are organisations of a federal school, then their attendance on school business at a religious festival would constitute endorsement of that religion, by an organ of the State. Which is, if I understand US law correctly, illegal. Flat out, undeniable plain simple illegal.
          I’m having a slight worry : is there a Portland in Alaska, and so north of (much of) Canada?

          1. The Grotto is a Catholic shrine run by monks. I live in Portland and my elderly Mom is Catholic so I’ve been there many times. My daughter is in the choir that won’t get to preform and she’s sad not to have the opportunity. She’s not a Christian and said the church wouldn’t bug her, although she’s never been in one! I think this could’ve been addressed in a way to allow the kids to perform. But Portland is famously passive aggressive so instead of being direct someone contacted FFRF. I’m glad I don’t have to go to the concert though cause Catholic Churches creep me out.

          2. I can imagine that you are right in this case. A lot would depend on exactly what this Festival of Lights event is like, but even after reading the FFRF brief on this it doesn’t strike me as hugely compelling.

            My wife teaches choir in California and has to deal with these same issues. It’s not as easy to avoid as people might think. Most of the best performance venues in our area are churches of one sort or another, including some famous Catholic missions. A lot of the music literature, the things musicians are expected to know as part of their training, is religious. With choir, unlike orchestra, when you perform Bach’s Magnificat, you have the words too. Do you cut out Bach because his music is Christian? Do you have your concert in the horrible cafeteria because the beautiful, acoustically wonderful, Catholic mission down the road is, well, Catholic?

            Of course, it’s one thing to rent out the hall and perform, it’s another to show up and provide the musical back drop for a mass. The devil is in the details.

            My wife manages to thread all of these needles, but she is always worried that something that she does, some thing she pursues for a purely secular musical purpose, will cause a stink of just this sort.

            Somewhere there is a line between being forced to participate in a religious ceremony, or being proselytized to against your will, and simply being exposed to literature, ideas, art, and culture that make up much of our shared human history. It’s easy for people to get confused about this.

          3. My daughter’s been in choir since middle school (she’s a high school junior right now), and we’ve had a similar experience. Her first year of choir recitals were in the school gym, and the acoustics were terrible. The following year, a local church let the choir meet there, and it sounded so much better, even better than the high school auditorium she sings in now. And throughout all her years in choir, they’ve sang a few Christian themed songs at each recital. I suppose I could get upset about the improper mixing of church and state, but these particular instances don’t seem bad enough to throw a fuss over.

            Speaking of music and churches, the local First United Methodist Church has a pretty good organ, and they try to bring in renowned organists every year for a concert. That’s how I got to see Cameron Carpenter perform here in Wichita Falls.

          4. I see the concerns. If I were involved, I’d probably just refuse to go. I try to avoid even passively promoting rreligion by using churches. I suffer whenever I’m asked to attend a match or a dispatch in a church, and hatches (baptisms) I simply refuse to attend unless the baptisee asks me to attend themselves (and then I’d thank them for the invite and refuse to attend). Which is a bit academic, because I don’t actually know anyone who has had a child (that I know of) in years.

          5. First of all you can google Grotto and Portland and come up with the back story.
            Second, although you want to be spoon fed, you assume “religious festival” when I did not use that term in my comment.
            Groups from all over covet the chance to perform here. When my daughter sang it was at Christmas time. That’s the time of year a lot of musical performances occur – at the school, in the community square, etc. Many of the songs they sing have religious themes. That’s because it is Christmas time. I celebrate Christmas and take what I want out of it and leave the rest.
            Do you think that not participating in a cultural celebration which is largely secular now days is a line in the sand you will not cross?
            Would it be better to sing those songs in the gym?
            I choose not to associate with, and/or contribute to, atheists who can’t use common sense and would choose to be combative for petty reasons.

          6. My comment above “I can imagine that you are right…” was meant for you… I didn’t notice that Kate was a different poster… though it applies to what Kate said as well.

            I agree with your sentiment in general. It is important not to be petty, to not turn into, or even really look too much like, the Christian caricature of an atheist. I don’t have the same fervor about it that you seem to have. I’m willing to overlook the occasional excess, but it does strike me as occasionally excessive.

          7. Thanks for the reminder that Christmas is looming. Another bloody miserable time of the year, filled with avarice, conflict and false bonhomie. I’ll try to get back offshore where it’s just a normal working day.

          8. Just another work day? Won’t somebody stick a conifer on top of some derrick? How do they keep from whistling “White Christmas”?

          9. Does that conifer have an appropriately rated primary and secondary retention system?
            White Christmas isn’t so funny in storm force 10 and rising. Or under African sun. I can’t remember what the Koreans did – I just stocked up the fruit bowl and skipped the main meal.

          11. Oh, there is a certain … interest to wild weather. You could make a claim that you haven’t lived until you’ve stood on the prow of a boat in a force 11, trying to scream Lear’s speech into the wind. the weather in the doldrums is boring, but it was a bit more entertaining in the Kara Deniz.

          12. I’d film that from a camera on a rigger in front of the prow. A couple of hot lights to help definition, the crew in water wings when it gets really bad.

          13. Ah, the joy of thinking about a project without having to deal with getting permission (let alone sockets) for running lights.
            Actually, having spent a fair amount of time on that deck (on my current boat), puffing a ciggie and thinking of how to solve [problem du jour], I can’t think of a single external power point on that deck. there is no shortage of power – capstans with 72tonne ratings – but for small tools, no go.
            Plus (I did think about this), any sockets would need to be salt-water wash-proof. IP 45, at least.
            You know, I think that having got a decent domestic camera with a 40m w/t housing … I should look for an equivalent light. I do give a [good goddamn] about the rules ; they’re there for good reasons. I’d be (well, I am)very cautious about circumventing such systems.

          14. I see we would have some serious limitations filming at sea. Perhaps we’d better retreat to the studio – or better yet, have it all done in CGI. 😉

          15. Oh, I’m sure you can get the permissions and permits. But it’s going to be days of paperwork on the permits and JSA and other palaver.

  6. What does it say about a film that it creates a completely fantastic world bearing no resemblance to reality in order to fabricate a theme persecution where none exists. It has straw men lurking behind every desk and door. I might just watch it for the yuks.

    1. it’s their emotional wish fulfillment combined with their paranoid self importance

      it is how they actually distort the world and cling to that being an out christian is a brave thing, rather than the craven indifference that it is.

      christians have been feeding the lions for more centuries than they were lion chow

      1. “it is how they actually distort the world and cling to that being an out christian is a brave thing, rather than the craven indifference that it is.”

        It boggles my mind how much of what they say and do and believe is exactly opposite of the reality of things. As you say, they think they’re brave, when they are instead craven. They think they lead meaningful lives when in the end they’ve wasted much of it. They think they are moral when typically they are much too immoral on too many topics. They think they are giving their children a better education with creationist pap, when instead they’re setting their children up to fail in the world at large. It goes on from there. My cousin thinks that whoever came up with the Big Bang theory had to be a loon . . . . as opposed to believing an all powerful being who’s always existed decided one day to create water. Yes, that is MUCH more rational.

        1. I had an 80 year old man try to convince me that because his eye glasses doctor said the big bang was silly that I should accept that. I replied so because you are dumb enough to confuse a technician with a scientist and the two of you are too ignorant to understand science that I – who does understand it – should pretend not to? the look on his wife’s face was really hard to not laugh at – she’d never seen a woman argue her husband into silence.

          1. Yep, how dare yew git so uppity and not know yore place and put on airs and not genuflect before this patriarch!

        2. “My cousin thinks that whoever came up with the Big Bang theory had to be a loon”

          That would be Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest … 🙂

          1. Thanks, James. While I’m sure I had read that before on here I certainly didn’t recall it when in discussion with my cousin. The irony is splendid.

          2. What is incredible to me (though not by much, these days) is that there are fundies on *both* sides. I.e., some say that “no big bang because xyz” and some say, “big bang, and god set it off! therefore god”. Both are wrong, but the first “more wrong”, IMO. The bigger mistake is thinking that it is some sort of absolute beginning, which it isn’t.

    3. I might just watch it for the yuks.

      I keep thinking I will watch movies like this for the laughs… but then the PTSD kicks in and I just can’t do it. My entire youth was dominated by this kind of unreal worldview, and much of my family is still in thrall to it. It’s just too painfully real.

      1. Likewise. It’s funny, and I want to laugh at it – but I grew up with this stuff sincerely and relentlessly pushed at me during my youth, and my family are lost to me because of it.

        2. I have a friend who was raised in a very strictly fundamentalist family and was groomed for becoming a minister by his parents and their accomplices. He is now engaged in activism aimed at warning people about the dangers of people like he was raised to be.

          1. “He is now engaged in activism aimed at warning people about the dangers of people like he was raised to be”

            Halleluya!

      2. I hadn’t even considered that point of view. I am very sorry you had to endure that crap. While you spent years in the spin cycle, I simply wondered what all the fuss was about.

    4. You’d think that the narrative of persecution would be at odds with the prosperity theology (as espoused by the execrable and gelatinously glistening Joel Osteen, for example) to which so many US Christians adhere. I mean, surely if they were being driven into the catacombs by atheist oppressors, they couldn’t have those megachurches that rival the King Ranch in acreage. Right??

      Head explode!!

      1. Yes! My wife’s family goes to a wealthy church in Dallas. Not one where the preacher is wealthy, but where much of the congregation is. It’s completely bizarro upside down world there. The parking lot is filled with super nice cars, BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus, an odd Tesla. The church is filled with lawyers, bankers, doctors, successful business people. It’s not prosperity gospel they preach there, but basic fundamentalism. They *say* the exact opposite of prosperity gospel. They read verses that say things will be hard for believers, and they all nod in approval. They will read verses quoting Jesus telling the rich man to “Sell everything and give it to the poor”, and these people in exceedingly fine clothes are also nodding their head in approval of this message too. Afterwards, however, you’ll hear stories of their fishing trip to the gulf, their major home renovations, or in some cases even the maid. Without any apparent perception of irony at all you will hear the same people complain a few moments later about how Christians are a downtrodden and persecuted minority in the U.S., about how hard it has become to be a Christian. And then they will get into their nice cars and drive to the French Room for after church lunch.

        The delusional lack of self awareness is beyond mind blowing.

        1. “their major home renovations, or in some cases even the maid.”

          You reminded me of the joke (which works better spoken than written, as it hinges on a homophonal ambiguity) about the architect who had his house made backwards so he could watch tv.

          /@

        2. Part of the reason I’d suggest for such lack of self awareness is that after people live at a certain social and economic status for a while they come to think of themselves as average. After all, all there friends are of the same class, and there are others much richer on the other side of town. They probably expect their betters to pick up the tab to keep the poor from starving.

  9. I already had to vent a bit after seeing the trailer yesterday: https://treeoftalking.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/the-art-of-artless-propaganda-or-the-enemies-you-think-you-are-fighting-are-not-the-enemies-you-actually-have/

    A little sample: “[Scientific] knowledge is the real enemy lurking behind the facade of some disbelieving ACLU lawyer in movies like God’s Not Dead 2, because the real threat to belief in this country is not some irrational hatred of God—it’s the irrelevance of religion to solving the problems for which we need solutions. What these passionate Christians most fear is not people persecuting them for their faith—it is people ignoring them…. The audience of something like God Is Not Dead 2—they don’t fear active opposition. They fear polite disinterest. And we live in an era of growing disinterest. Thus the need to summon the specter of persecution. Because, now, only persecution could justify their beliefs. God may not be alive, but any persecution threatens to put its victims in the position of the right…. They need the persecution, or at least an exaggerated sense of its possibility, to prop up a theology that is showing its age in our Age of Change.”

    2. Well put. It does seem as though ‘they’ have been quick and loud about claiming persecution, almost eagerly so. I guess it has been instilled in them from their bible school teachings perhaps? Mighty christians of antiquity were persecuted by those awful Romans, so now we, too, can be mighty.

      1. It is absolutely what they seek; they don’t fear it at all. A number of passages in the New Testament tell Christians that they will be persecuted. So, serious Christians will grasp at whatever straws they have to to perceive themselves as being persecuted, so as to confirm the prophecies of the Bible. It makes them feel like they are living authentically Christian lives.

        So, whenever possible, “killing them with kindness” is absolutely the way to go.

        1. My favorite are the rich Christians I know who feel persecuted. Ha! I guess driving to church in their BMW is just a cross they have to bear. It’s a riot how the same mind can at once feel like a humble, salt of the earth, put-upon and persecuted martyr, and yet stride about like little Trump’s in every other way. WTF?

  10. Without suffering the preview, I’m not even sure what the problem of discussing the influence of religion on religious leaders even is. But then again, this is persecution complex world.

  12. Wow… Fred Dalton Thompson’s last role, I presume. I wonder if his character dies in the movie.

    Also rather grossed out that it stars a Lynch favorite (Ray Wise) as the heavy. Man, what supreme cheese. I hope those checking it out for the Velveeta value make sure not to pay for it. The profit margin on the first movie was the real crime.

    2. Do you think Fred’s death was god’s punishment for appearing in this movie? Kinda makes you thing, doesn’t it?

      1. Oops, “think,” not “thing” in the second sentence. (Maybe my typo was god’s punishment for . . . oh never mind.)

      3. Among other roles…

        I often wondered if Thompson was anything like the character of D.A. Arthur Branch that he played on Law & Order. Turns out his TV persona was really toned down.

    4. I waited for the first one to come out on Netflix to watch it without having to pay for it. I suppose I’ll do the same for this one.

      Anyone remember Ben Stein’s Expelled ‘documentary’? (self promotion – I reviewed it) That was another horrible one. I found it for cheap used at Hastings, so I was able to buy a copy without lining the pockets of the filmmakers.

  13. Wow… Fred Dalton Thompson’s last role, I presume. I wonder if his character dies in the movie.

    Also rather grossed out that it stars a Lynch favorite (Ray Wise) as the heavy. Man, what supreme cheese. I hope those checking it out for the Velveeta value make sure not to pay for it. The profit margin on the first movie was the real crime.

  14. They have Ray Wise playing Pete Kane (who appears to be the evil atheist/ACLU attorney). Ray is probably best known for playing Satan in the TV series “Reaper”…what casting!

      1. What? No mention of his roll as Leon Nash, one of the bad guys in the original Robocop movie? I always wonder whether these actors are christian nutjobs or if they’re just desperate to take any roll after their career tanks…which I’m sure was the case for Sorbo.

        1. Wow. I never would’ve put that one together. I did recognize the “That’s 70s” dad Kurtwood Smith as baddy-in-chief. But Ray Wise didn’t register.
          Sorbo really seems to be a persecuted Chrisper, as evidenced by his (referenced) wiki entry and quote on ‘Noah’. “I sort of understand why they don’t want to deal with the New Testament in Hollywood because, you know, it’s, it’s pretty much run by the world of the Jewish population, and, at the same time, at least get someone who has, at least believes, that the potential is there, that it could be a real story.” Being credulous for chiropractic adjustment appears to have cost him dearly, too.

          Also, Ray Wise seems to have been popping around between a couple Chrispy denominations… highly religious Romanian Baptist upbringing, now Methodist.

          Dean Stockwell, on the other hand… (who was in one of Fred Thompson’s extremely shitty movies) – can’t explain that one, except for desperation. It doesn’t fit, with the list of credits that guy has. He should easily be sipping daiquiris on a beach somewhere. Could possibly just be wingnut networks. Even acidheads who used to be in Neil Young’s / Dennis Hopper’s / Russ Tamblyn’s inner circle can end up as wingnuts in old age. Really bizarre how that sometimes happens.

    2. And let’s also not forget his appearance in a 1989 “Star Trek: The Next Generation” episode that took a real swipe at religion.

  15. Bad acting, bad plot, ridiculous dialogue – sure to be a best picture. If they could get some computer graphics and car crashes, maybe a swarm of locus.

    I see they now have an old speech by Ben Carson stating the Pyramids were built by Joseph to store grain. That has to be SDA? All this time we have been trying to figure out how they built them but not the brain surgeon – he’s already filled them with grain.

  16. The Scathing Atheist podcast gives a hilarious review of the original Gods Not Dead here. Warning; there’s lot of swear words and offensive content, but its done intelligently–that’s why I don’t hesitate to recommend it.

    The Scathing Atheist branched off a weekly podcast reviewing Christian movies called God Awful Movies. Always hilarious. I’m sure they will be in the theater on opening day of GND2.

  18. Followed by the third in the series, entitled, “God’s not dead, an’ He’s a-commin’ ta gitcha!”

  19. God’s not dead, he’s just hiding out from the crap they make these day. God would rather watch the old “Christian” gladiator movies they used to make.

  20. Now if in that last scene, after the judge accused the fellow of contempt of court, the other fellow had echoed Mae West’s line from “My Little Chickadee”
    “I was trying to hide it”
    then I might be more inclined to see this movie.

    The classic Mae West line is here (set in this link to start at 1:56 near the end)
    https://youtu.be/FJS670okmZc?t=1m56s

    PS. Are any Christians worried about Sabrina the Teen-Age Witch being in this movie?

  22. From the trailer it looks like the big excitement at the end of the movie will involve putting the existence of God up as a legal question to be resolved by a trial.

    They really, really would not want to see that happen in real life.

      1. Ewwww. That just makes my skin crawl. Someone sent me the “New Evidence…etc” edition of that piece of dreck a few years ago. The movies in question here are the perfect cinematic incarnation of that style of heavy-handed, mind-bendingly misdirected, …adjectives fail me…need Scotch.

    2. I can’t find the reference but I believe that this question has already been legally answered by proxy.

      There was a court case many years (probably decades) ago hinging on whether a voodoo curse or imprecatory prayer counted as assault, because the ‘attacker’ obviously means harm and believes their method of attack will work. The court ruled that it was not assault, using the ‘reasonable person’ standard. I.e., they said no reasonable person would believe such activities would actually work.

      So, while the US court system may be silent on the question of whether God exists or God’s ultimate nature, they have taken the position that no predictably intervening God exists.

        1. I think “Acts of God” is easily termed a figure of speech here. (God = nature) It is interesting to note that it is used precisely in those situations where no person can or should be held responsible. Which kind-of negates the whole premise of a “personal God”.

          Now I’d like to see “The Man Who Sued God”, where Billy Connolly’s character advances his lawsuit against his insurance company, that is weaseling out of an insurance claim — religious authorities brought in as culpable parties to the act of God have to admit God doesn’t exist to uphold the legal principle, or the insurance company has to pay up.

          1. Yes similar to Pizza Hut’s suit against Papa Johns for false advertising. Papa Johns sought to win by claiming their ‘best ingredients/best pizza’ ads were just “puffery.” Sort of like a prequel to ‘not intended as a factual statement.’ They lost anyway but that’s almost irrelevant; their defense strategy tells the consumer all they need to know.

            One can imagine very parallel arguments being made in the case of religious culpability for disasters/accidents. “You prayed, and this guy fell off his ladder. You’re at fault.” “Of course not, your honor! Prayer doesn’t work…that way.”

    3. Testimony from Karen Armstrong: “My personal experience with God has revealed to me that He is guilty of existence.”

    4. I was skeptical, but the judge’s gavel breaking in his last futile attempt to stop us hearing the Good News pretty much clinched it for me.

    5. They really, really would not want to see that happen in real life

      Something worse for them than that has already happened… science. The science on this is much better than any trial possibly could be. The standards are MUCH higher, for starters. That didn’t phase them. Why would a trial?

      Of course, people have almost mystical ideas about trials. Remember the book Darwin on Trial? I feel like I saw a TV show based on this book also, but I can find no evidence of this so maybe I’m imagining it. In any case, I can remember someone, whether it was Phillip E. Johnson or someone else, making the point in some anti-evolution video that he was a lawyer and that, as such, he could get to the truth about evolution in the fashion of a trial. He really sold this point, as though if anyone could find out the truth about something, it’d be a trial lawyer. Whaaaa? Even in my still religion addled state I could see what a pitiful gambit that was. The actual process of science is vastly better than any trial on multiple dimensions. Trials are necessary evils, something we do because we don’t know what else to do, not the ideal way to find even a particular truth, much less universal truths.

  23. I have a Baptist friend who sent me the “God’s Not Dead” DVD and actually thought it had a message that would appeal to me. This kind of Christian Apologist fantasy is catnip for the faithful. It reminds me of alternate universe sci-fi/fantasy tales like the X-Files and Fringe except we know that such stories are meant to entertain and not to be taken as the “truth.” So I’m not the least bit surprised that “God’s Not Dead II: The Wrath of the Con” was made because there is a huge appetite in the conservative Christian community for books, tv shows, movies, etc., that feed into their persecution complex. They are convinced that there is a coordinated conspiracy by godless secular forces to destroy their religion. This movie is just another example of this distorted worldview.

    1. (“Wrath of Con” – I like it)

      The cluelessness of the religious knows no bounds. My Dad (who, remarkably, is a chemist), indoctrinated me in religion of the Baptist variety throughout my childhood; it backfired. Even after I grew up, he would send me Chick Tracts in the mail! I remember a particularly upmarket one, that laid out an approximation of what I now know to be CS Lewis’s “Trilemma”:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

      Apparently he thought this was such an unassailable triumph of reason that it could not fail to bring me back to Jesus. (I have no idea why CS Lewis so revered. It’s even dumber than the Ontological Argument.)

      Another highlight was my first return to my childhood church after a 10 year hiatus – to my mother’s funeral. The preacher attempted to re-convert me by specifically addressing me during the mini-sermon that he gave as part of the service! Apparently, she would not rest in peace unless ALL her family were in the fold… followed by a pause during the service, giving an opportunity for “any who chose” to express their repentance in public. Classy. (I told him to f*** off afterwards in private; I probably should done so in the public forum that he preferred.)

  24. Given the nature of this website, shouldn’t that headline read, “OMC: A sequel to ‘God’s Not Dead'”?

      1. God is not Dead. He is just “deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” – 1 Kings 8:27.

        1. “Perhaps he’s dead at last, or trapped in a lift somewhere, or succumbed to amnesia, wandering the land with his turn-ups stuffed with ticket-stubs.”

          Of, course, we have now found Higgs. (Just not Stoppard’s.)

          /@

    2. I hear he’s just recovering from the indigestion he got from eating those 10^googol sausages…

    2. well, it’s evidence that there is no god that cares about its followers bearing false witness against others. Seems a great bit of evidence for the Prince of Lies….

    1. Yes, that would be a blessing wouldn’t it. There are lots of exposes of Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, and the rest. I don’t know if many of there followers are influenced by the truth though. They are focused on the shiny suits, limousines, and Gulfstream jets. The gospel according to the humble Jesus business model.

  30. I watched the first one on Netflix. It was completely ludicrous and painful to watch. I wound up skipping huge chunks of it just to see what possible philosophical argument they could come up with, and it was the lamest and most unbelievable thing ever put on film. Do people *really* believe that is how atheists, professors, or intellectuals think/act?

    1. You were not the intended audience. As far as I can tell, the fundie film industry is primarily about producing sop for believers, not outreach to unbelievers.

    2. If someone watches nothing but Fox News and Mainstream Hollywood schlock it’s probably a perfect representation of the view of the world they have. And if they don’t know any atheists, either because the ones they do know are too polite to bring it up or most atheists have gone to live in the big cities, then they can go on believing that we’re trying to destroy them.

      This sequel is seriously shonky stuff though. It really is offensively dumb. They can portray me any way they want, but when they start leaving out all the fucking apostrophes…that’s a declaration of war.

Comments are closed.