Call me schizo, but the article below is sort of opposite of my viewpoint, yet I gladly defer to the wisdom of Christian Leaders, Ray Comfort and John Piper, both of whom I am well aware and do revere, in fact I still attend the church that Piper recently retired from, but, call me an intellectual simpleton, I did very much enjoy the book and found it very moving and do hope to see the movie. I too, like Piper, am very skeptical of books like “Heaven Is For Real” in fact I think I know which book Piper refers to in this review (see below) and felt very much the same about it. But, my mother-in-law, who is a strong Christian and also skeptical of these kinds of books actually recommended “Heaven Is For Real” to me a long time ago and I read it on my own and also read it out loud to my family, and we were all moved.
That being said, I share this article below. Even though I cannot argue with Piper or Comfort, I still found the book very moving and very much worth the while of me and my family.
‘Heaven Is For Real’ Movie Reviews by Ray Comfort, John Piper
Christian leaders Ray Comfort and John Piper each recently discussed their views on “Heaven is for Real,” the book turned into a movie starring Greg Kinnear and Connor Corum.
“Heaven is for Real” is about a four-year-old boy who claims that he went to Heaven during a near-death experience. The small boy tells others about the things that he saw in Heaven, including details about deceased family members whom he had never met before. The movie is meant to be told from a Christian perspective and to intrigue those who question whether there is an afterlife. Christian evangelist and author Ray Comfort saw the movie upon its release, saying that it was enjoyable and somewhat comparable to “Little House on the Prairie.” It was, however, lacking the essential message of the Christian faith – the Gospel. “It’s a tear-jerker with a very shallow message,” says Comfort – “God is love, Jesus is friendly, and it seems all is well between Heaven and earth. God’s wrath doesn’t abide on the sinner, and it doesn’t quite fit that Jesus is going to be revealed from Heaven with His mighty angels ‘in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,’” he says, quoting 1 Thessalonians 1:8-10.
Comfort laments that many will leave the movie theater wondering whether the little boy was telling the truth about the existence of Heaven – “We know that it does [exist], because we have God’s Word on it. That’s enough,” he says.
Comfort explains that God’s word is true, and can be tested through experience – “It says, ‘You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.’ I believe the Bible, not because I welled up some sort of faith in its words, but because the Gospel came to me ‘in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance.’ It authenticated itself because it took me out of darkness and brought me into light.” Born again Christians throughout the ages have attested to the same authenticity of God’s word, that the Bible has been tested and found true. “Therefore every other promise in it about the joys of Heaven, the pains of Hell, and everlasting life is utterly true altogether,” Comfort concludes.
Recently retired Christian pastor and author John Piper also gave his thoughts on the book recently in an “Ask Pastor John” episode. “If books go beyond Scripture, I doubt what they say about Heaven,” he says. Piper doesn’t bother to read extra-Biblical books about Heaven because he knows that the only infallible source on Heaven is God’s word – “I have my Bible, which already tells me what I can know for sure about Heaven. Everything in those books, I do not know for sure … it’s all guesswork,” he says.
Piper once began to read a book similar to “Heaven is for Real,” but put it down after finding something which contradicted the Bible in its early chapters. “I don’t believe these books, I’m very skeptical about these books – mainly [because] I have a Bible that tells me what I need to know,” says the seasoned saint.
As with many of my posts on this blog, once again I am sharing other posts or articles and sometimes adding my reflections or my ‘two-cents.’ Here is no exception. Below read this excellent article and view all four videos too in this article. Decide for yourself if you side with Pastor John Hagee or if you side with Hank Hanegraaff or Chris White.
I cannot help thinking, though, “Are we getting it?” When Jesus came the first time, why did people not ‘get it?’ I mean they had the Old Testament writings that all spoke about the coming Messiah and how he would come, and yet I often think why is it that but for a few exceptions, namely the wise men from the east, the mysterious royal court advisers (or Jewish chief priests or scribes?) to King Herod, Simeon and Anna and John the Baptist, why is it that most of all the other people at that time were caught unawares when Jesus came as a baby and then started teaching as an adult. And now I think, are we repeating the same mistakes? Are we going to be caught unaware too? Maybe most are destined (or predestined) to be unaware. Then again why are we given these signs in the Bible.
You might be compelled to just ignore John Hagee’s teachings and writings but whatever you choose we must all be prepared for the coming age of tribulation and of triumph, whether or not this comes about during our lifetime or not for many lifetimes. If you think I am totally off my rocker than you need to read the footnote on this page CLICK HERE: http://willemdax.wordpress.com/surf-sink-or-swim/ and look for the three *** asterisks about two-thirds of the way down that page. Now read article below and view all four videos:
Are ‘Blood Moons’ a Biblical Sign From God That Something Earth-Shattering Is About to Happen?
Spread the word! Uninstall Firefox. Go with Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Opera or anything but Mozilla Firefox. Boycott Firefox.
Do this, but not solely for the reasons that you might think that I am saying this. Delete Firefox to preserve liberty and to preserve tolerance. I am talking about the true sense of the true meaning of the word “tolerance.” The loony left have hijacked and changed the meaning of that word, just as Orwellian leftists have done to other words in the past. It’s what they do. It’s why I call them Orwellian. Actually, before I go on, I think Dennis Prager said everything else I wanted to say best, and with superior clarity on this subject in this article that he wrote last Tuesday.
In 31 years of broadcasting, and 40 years of writing, I have never advocated a boycott of a product.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, when the left attempted to destroy Chick-Fil-A for its owner’s views on same-sex marriage, I suggested on my radio show that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, stand in front of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant while enjoying some Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. In that way, I argued, he could show one of the great moral differences between the right and the left. Though Ben and Jerry are leftists, we conservatives do not believe that company owners’ views should matter to consumers. We believe that products should speak for themselves. If the ice cream is good, despite whatever repugnance we might feel regarding the views of the makers of that ice cream, we will still purchase it.
The left does not see things that way. The left is out to crush individuals and companies with whom it differs. This is especially so today on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this took place last week. The governing board of the widely used browser, Firefox, forced the company’s CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign. The Firefox board had learned that in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In classic Communist fashion, gay rights organizations demanded that Eich publicly recant. When Eich did not, gay rights and other leftist organizations called for a boycott of Firefox. Firefox immediately forced Eich out.
All these years, the left, after coining the term “McCarthyism” in order to disparage the right, had fooled most people into believing that it is the right that suppresses liberty. The truth, of course, has been the opposite. Worldwide, with the exception of Nazi Germany (which was a uniquely race-based totalitarianism, neither left nor right — while it rejected Marxist class-based struggle, it supported socialism (“Nazism” was short for National Socialism), every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts — because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.
During the McCarthy era, the left (and not only the left) screamed when people were falsely charged with supporting Stalin and Communism, one of the greatest evils in human history. But the left also screamed when people who really did aid and abet Stalin were dismissed from their jobs. In other words, for those on the left who celebrate Eich’s ouster, it was evil to deprive a man who supported Stalin of a job, but it is right to fire a man who supports the man-woman definition of marriage. Such is the left’s moral compass.
It is important to further note that gay employees at Firefox acknowledge that Eich never discriminated against gays, whether in employment, benefits or any other way. But that doesn’t matter to the left because a totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA.
As Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George warned on my radio show, today the left fires employees for opposition to same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it will fire employees who are pro-life (“anti-woman”). And next it will be employees who support Israel (an “apartheid state”).
The reason to boycott Firefox is not that it is run by leftists. Nor is the reason to support the man-woman definition of marriage. It is solely in order to preserve liberty in the land of liberty. If Firefox doesn’t recant and rehire Eich as CEO, McCarthyism will have returned far more pervasively and perniciously than in its first incarnation. The message the gay left (such as the Orwellian-named Human Rights Campaign) and the left in general wish to send is that Americans who are in positions of power at any company should be forced to resign if they hold a position that the left strongly opposes…
Good article… very interesting and brought to my attention by Kevin Sorbo
Originally posted on thimblerigsark:
The review had plenty of good to say about the film, but also plenty to say about the problems currently found in Christian filmmaking – specifically the writing. This issue brings up strong feelings and thoughts in me, as I am a Christian, and I have been a student of screenwriting since 2007. I’ve written screenplays (both produced and un-produced), and have recently published my first novel, Thimblerig’s Ark. I felt led to respond to the article in the comment section at Gospelspam, and then decided to reproduce the bulk of my comments here.
Let me say from the start that my intention with this article is not to attack my fellow Christian artists. I…
View original 1,304 more words
My letter to my Representative and two Senators.
March 18, 2014
Dear Representative McCollum:
Dear Senator Klobuchar:
Dear Senator Franken:
The Obama Regime has blood on their hands. They have the blood of the four men, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, on their hands since they sat back and did nothing while the tortuous massacre at Benghazi occurred. They have the blood of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the hundreds of Mexican citizens killed by individuals wielding guns from the botched gun running Operation Fast and Furious on their hands. They have the blood of all those who were killed during the shooting initiated by the Muslim serviceman Nidal Malik Hasan who is still not prosecuted under Eric Holder’s Department of (In) Justice. The fact that the Obama Regime refuses to answer questions surrounding these avoidable, tragic situations is an insult to the American people and those victims who died in these incidents.
Couple all of these outrageous incidents with Obama’s blatant overreach, with his royal decrees that undermine the Constitution, and with his release of thousands of illegal immigrants recently under the guise of budget cuts due to the sequester, and his actions are not simply infuriating, they are impeachable. Add in his thuggish threatening of journalists Bob Woodward, Lanny Davis, and a reporter with the National Journal and we have a presidency ripe for the investigation of a special prosecutor!
As your constituent, I demand that you call for a special prosecutor (and one not appointed by the president) to investigate the ever growing overreaching, disturbing, and dangerous acts by President Obama. I am tired of Obama and the Democrats and their Orwellian world.
Mr. Willem Dykstra
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Al Gore declares there is a “scientific consensus” regarding Global warmi…I mean Climate Cha…sorry, make that Polar Vortex!
[I feel the need to add these parenthetical paragraphs because I am not sure if everyone understands the reference to "drinking the purple Kool-Aid." From UrbanDictionary.com: "A reference to the 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the group, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Kool-Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called "the Jonestown Massacre", 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the Kool-Aid and died.
Bob: Yeah, he really drank the Kool-Aid on that one. Chris: I'm thinking about attending a PETA rally
Donna: Whatever you do, don't drink the Kool-Aid!]…
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Obama said his plan would guarantee that fewer people will be without health insurance and that health insurance costs for everyone will be lower when in reality the direct opposite on both points has occurred. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-insurance-costs-to-soar-under-obamacare/
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Obama said on July 18, 2009, “…Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.”
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is accepted more and more as scientific fact, rather than theory when Darwin himself declared: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree…” see: http://willemdax.tumblr.com/post/59518695106/evolution-vs-god-by-thewayofthemaster-prepare
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when it comes to accepting that abortion is not really the murdering or killing of a human being. see: http://willemdax.tumblr.com/post/29573770079/180-movie-by-thewayofthemaster-what-changed
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when it comes to the acceptance of same sex relationships and even same sex marriage. Have we really thought this through…? This is the slipperiest slope of all time “…with the public endorsement of same-sex relationships, the endorsement (or at least acceptance) of consensual, adult, incestuous relationships is the next step. Consider the following…” http://willemdax.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/the-slipperiest-slope-of-all-time/
And finally, Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when it comes to general acceptance that society is just becoming more and more complicated and that therefore we need to have ever-growing governments and more and more government laws and programs and higher and higher taxes so that government can take care of this so complex of a modern society that we live in…freedom be damned…
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” ― Thomas Jefferson
P.S. Why is it that most people enjoy story-telling from the likes of George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm) in the past and now today, Suzanne Collins (The Hunger Games) yet no ones seems to be learning the lessons from these great stories.
This is a really good point that Brian Thomas is making here. I find the No True Scotsman debate fallacy similar to the Straw Man debate fallacy only the No True Scotsman fallacy is much more subtle.
The Straw Man tactic is to incorrectly characterize or provide a misconception of your opponents position, setting up the straw man, and then proceed to knock down that straw man or attack that false conception. For more precise definition click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man . I am not saying that Bill Nye used this tactic but I think he, more subtly, used the No True Scotsman fallacy as Brian Thomas points out. Both tactic fallacies shows in a real honest debate that the arguer, the one feeling the need to use such tactics actually feels deeply threatened by his opponents point of view.
Nye vs. Ham Debate: No True Scotsman by Brian Thomas, M.S.
A surprisingly large number of people—some three million—watched live online February 4 as debaters discussed the topic “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ken Ham took the affirmative position while “Science Guy” Bill Nye took the negative. During the debate, Nye’s use of a certain fallacy was soon evident, and viewers should beware of this tactic because of the subtle way it can skew perception.
Each time Nye contrasted “Ken Ham’s creation model” of a young world with “us in the scientific community,” he committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle wrote in Discerning Truth that this fallacy is committed “when an arguer defines a term in a biased way to protect his argument from rebuttals.”1
The informal fallacy’s name comes from an imaginary conversation in which a Scotsman claims that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. A bystander replies that he, too, is from Scotland but does put sugar on his porridge. The first Scotsman rejoins, “Well, notrue Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
What did he do? He essentially redefined the word Scotsman to insulate his argument against virtually any example that refutes it.
The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.
The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.
Nye was wrong to assume that no real scientist could ever hold the creation model, since scores of real scientists have and do. This is amply demonstrated in books like In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation and The Genesis Files, containing 22 interviews with Ph.D. scientists who ascribe to Ham’s creation model and tell their stories.2,3 And of course, early creation scientists forged the paths of each of today’s major scientific branches of inquiry, like Isaac Newton’s physics,4 Matthew Maury’s oceanography, Louis Pasteur’s immunology,5 Michael Faraday’s electromagnetism,6 and George Carver’s agriculture.7,8 Are we to believe that Newton and Pasteur were not real scientists?
Apparently, facts like these do not matter to someone who is so fully committed to the false idea that real scientists only believe in evolution that he is more than willing to adjust the very definition of scientist to preserve his argument.
The fictional Scotsman who actually does put sugar on his porridge was willing to present and perhaps even demonstrate his case. In the same way, a minority of true scientists are willing and prepared to make their cases for biblical and scientific creation. Why would anyone even feel the need to protect their anti-creation definition of scientist with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy unless the evidence for recent creation that believing scientists are prepared to present constitutes a real threat?