A lot of New Age hippies take 2012 seriously. They’ve all got basements full of Y2K survival kits, and they need the end of the world to come sometime soon, so they don’t look like gullible idiots.
A lot of people seem to like John Cusack. They’ve all been trying to convince their friends that he’s actually an underrated actor. They need ‘2012’ to be a good movie so they don’t look like gullible idiots.
Christians just like to be offended.
Is it a gift of the Spirit to have a thin skin? I had heard that the movie was ‘offensive’ to Christians, while giving special treatment to Muslims, and we should all boycott it, blah, blah, blah. I wondered what could be so inflammatory.
Turns out in the movie, in the midst of the world collapsing in on itself, a bunch of churches get smashed to bits.
My initial reaction:
DEAR GOD NO! NOT THE CHURCHES!
Surely when Jesus comes back and God demolishes everything in a firey rage because He can’t stand the sight of Earth anymore, He’ll save our precious church buildings as monuments to what a great job we did. This distortion of the truth alone is enough for me to picket the opening of this movie.
I understand the symbolism. The Bible was wrong, the Mayans were right. But even if a gullible audience member believes that, what are they going to do? Convert to Mayanism? Good luck with that. It’s not even a competing religion, as they will find out in 2012.
In the last 2,000 years, Christians have had plenty of chances to tell everyone they know when the world is ending, and everyone else is wrong, and then look like idiots when it doesn’t happen. Let the Mayans have their turn being wrong. They’ve been dead so long, let’s throw them a bone.
My second reaction:
Apparently, while a bunch of churches are smashed, precautions are taken to not smash any mosques. I was annoyed by this at first. Why is the studio comfortable with offending Christians, a large and relatively peaceful religious group in America, but take care not to annoy a minority and largely foreign religion that spawns violent, revenge-soaked terrorists in parts of the world?
Because people today don’t generally chop off heads or blow up buildings in the name of Christ. We had our head chopping phase and got over it a few years ago. If Christians don’t want movies to ‘offend’ them anymore, they need to organize another Crusade. No one was making fun of Christians when they were waging holy wars against everyone.
I nominate Chuck Norris to be the commander of our new crusade. No one wants to offend that guy. I guarantee the movie doesn’t show Chuck Norris getting killed. Hollywood knows better than to insinuate that Chuck Norris is mortal.
My third reaction:
John Cusack makes terrible movies.
This is not a hill to die on. The hype will be over before Christmas.
Name one memorably good John Cusack movie. I defy you to do so.
In fact, if John Cusack actually turns out to be amazing in this movie, I just might believe it’s an actual harbinger of the apocalypse.
My final reaction:
To borrow a phrase from people who can’t think of a good way to win a political argument with a liberal, “If you don’t like it, get out of the country.”
We can’t be both a ‘Christian nation’ and a ‘melting pot.’ When people are given freedom of expression, they will use it to pick on someone. If you don’t like our freedom to offend others, make terrible movies, or buy Thomas Kincade paintings, there are plenty of places free of all those things.
I did not go see “The DaVinci Code.” It seemed hurtful to me, and I’m not even Catholic. Did I need my friends to see me throwing a hissy fit about my delicate ego being hurt? No. Was I willing to have a legit conversation about it with them? Yes.
A lot of Christians feel we have a variety of image problems in the eyes of the world. We don’t need to add ‘crybaby’ to the list.
What’s your reaction when Christians are implicated in movies? Do you enjoy them anyway? Avoid them? Picket them? See them, so you can use them as evangelism fodder for your non-Christian friends?