I’m sorry but you have still yet to have seen the film, watch it then write a review

Yes, that is correct. You can talk about a film without seeing it as you have done here, but you cannot talk about it credibly, knowledgeably, thoughtfully, or legitimately without seeing it, as you have shown here. Just as you cannot conclude that Ricky Gervais has not read the Bible because he is an atheist. He does not need to ridicule you; your efforts to defend your right to draw conclusions without seeing the film does the job for him.

Again using cancer in an argument to back up your opinons of a movie you havn’t even seen – why mention it, twice now, are we meant to feel sorry for you or that your opinion is more solid beacause of the awful suffering but strength you have. Simply no.
And you reference to him not reading the Bible, I would check Mr Gervais credentials – a degree in philosphy – which I believe involves studying numerous teachings drenched in biblical beliefs.
You really should check your facts before getting hot headed and spewing opinions based on your own beliefs and faith, it really is quite offensive.

Let’s see. Atheists say there is no God. How could they possibly know that without having traveled throughout the entire universe and looked in every possible space. And they can declare there is no God without looking everywhere? And Michele cannot express her dislike for a movie without having seen it, but based on another reviewer? That’s a little like saying you you won’t read Glen Beck’s book because you don’t like Glenn Beck’s views. So silly of you lefties.

Actually, I am an atheist and have been one since I was 6 years old. (63 years ago) Like most atheists I have read the bible a few times and like most atheists probably know the bible better than most christians.
Atheists read the whole bible cover to cover and do not just cherry-pick the “good” parts. Reading the bible, sometimes daily, is what keeps me a non-believer. At best, the bible is comical and ranks right up there with Harry Potter.
Go see the movie.

Wow, I can’t believe Gervais is so amazingly thin skinned.
I think Gervais’s work is usually hilarious, but this makes me not want to support his work.
He’s somehow put off that Christians are a “annoyed” with his film so he makes an offensive joke about the Creation narrative. Brilliant.
Also, to those whining that Michelle shouldn’t write a post about a film she hasn’t watched … seriously?!.
She didn’t pass it off as though it was a review based on seeing the film. She was upfront that she was relaying information from another review and explained why she found the review trustworthy. And that’s a perfectly valid thing to do.
To make some sort of claim Michelle can only blog about things she knows first-hand or come to conclusions based only on things she knows first hand is ridiculous. Humans rely on 3rd-party testimonial evidence all the time – from trusting TV weather reports to the very structure of the US court system.

expressing dislike of a movie without having seen it is like a child expressing their dislike for peas without ever having tasted them. yes, it can be done, but it’s still childish behavior.
but, michele didn’t do that. she only expressed her dislike over some belief she has that everyone involved with the movie had a secret, hidden agenda to ridicule christians.

: Actually, I am an atheist and have been one since I was 6 years old. (63 years ago) Like most atheists I have read the bible a few times and like most atheists probably know the bible better than most christians.
Atheists read the whole bible cover to cover and do not just cherry-pick the “good” parts. Reading the bible, sometimes daily, is what keeps me a non-believer. At best, the bible is comical and ranks right up there with Harry Potter.
Go see the movie.:
I wonder if this is correct or you are not lying. Richard Dawkins known to have criticize bitterly the Christian beliefs, but by doing so, he need touch theology much deeper. He was so embarrassingly ignorant of the basic concept of the Christian God, that his vulgar caricatures of religious faith would make a first-year theology student wince! We knew them first hand because we are students of the bible! Bible students has been taught a sound mind approach of interpretation and studied hermeneutics.
We read the Scripture in its entirety and if you summarize the whole book, it was this: John 3:16. If you see the message as comical and ranks up right with Harry Potter, then you are in the most dangerous situation of being a liar and contrary to your claim a cherry-picker of what to read.
Let us remember that the Bible was written within the time-span of 1,500 years by at most 40 authors without even knowing most of each other. And that includes differing cultures by each of them. There are so many consideration. You are so dearly mis-informed and ignorant.

Ed: You don’t have to look everywhere in all space for a God that’s supposed to be omnipresent. Looking anywhere at all and not finding It would be enough.
Besides, atheists aren’t actually as dogmatic in practice as the stereotypes that are perpetuated. Take Dawkins, for example. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

As to misleading advertising… let’s consider, say, “I Am Legend”. The story is changed rather drastically from the book, and at the end it becomes clear to the hero that it’s all been part of God’s plan. Same thing with
“Signs”. The profoundly religious themes are nowhere in the advertising for the movies… but I didn’t see a whole lot of complaints in blogs about it.

Hi, Michele,
I still think you should see the film, and strongly suggest reading “Movie Mom,” Nell Minow’s review. Although I disagree with many of your posts, I can’t believe the number of commenters here who feel free to be personally insulting. I wish people would try a bit harder to disagree without being disagreeable.
Speculating on a world where God is a made-up entity doesn’t strike me as anti-religious, because it is a “what if” question. Obviously, no one yet has been able to prove or disprove the existence of God.
For myself, I fall into the Christian agnostic category. After two years of studying the Bible intensely, I personally feel it is the record of the search for God of two different religious communities.
I agree that there are plenty of films that slip in religious or anti-religious themes without making a big deal about it. Why not see the film and decide?

Allan. There is little point in arguing with you since you seem to prefer ad hominem attacks rather than constructive discussion. I stand by my original statements about the bible. I was removed from bible class at 6 years old for asking too many embarrassing questions.
I understand that you must follow the “party line” but you owe it to yourself to look outside the box once in a while. Undoubtedly you rely on the KJV bible for your primary source of information, so may I suggest that you also review the following Bible translations.
Amplified Bible: ISBN:0310951682
KJV/Amplified Parallel Bible: ISBN 0310925614
These are faithful translations from original text, but where certain words have different meanings it also includes, in brackets, the alternate translations. You can probably pick them up in a used book store for under ten dollars. Enjoy.

I was sidetracked for a moment. Regarding the movie from a Deist point of view (That is equivalent to being an atheist to christians) the movie is definitely anti-religious but not necessarily anti-christian. The first 2/3 of the movie does not even touch on religion.
If you forget that it is only a fantasy story then will be offended by the movie, however if you view it as only a fantasy…you will still be offended. It is a very funny movie that asks a lot of “what-if” questions and definitely makes you think provided you do not take religion too seriously. As Lot would say, “I take everything my wife says with a grain of salt”

I find your opening point interesting. Is there a quote that you can cite, or some other source, that confirms your assertion that Gervais has not read the bible? I hope that you weren’t just making that assumption because he’s an atheist.
Not having seen the film doesn’t exclude you from having an opinion but it does take credibility from your arguments. You’re in fine company in that respect; in recent months I read a review of the much maligned film ‘Antichrist’ in a UK national newspaper, in which the reviewer admitted to not having seen the film.
For my part, as neither a christian or an atheist, I’ve read the bible and watched the film and found it hard to take offence at either.

“You really should check your facts before getting hot headed and spewing opinions based on your own beliefs and faith, it really is quite offensive.”
But, but … Steven, Michele and Rod Dreher get paid to do jsut that.
Meanwhile, cancer-girl. go and see the movie if you want to be believed when you werite about it.
Also, have you any proof that Gervais hasn’t read the Bible? Or are you just guessing like usual? Such ‘jounalism’ – NOT!

“I wish people would try a bit harder to disagree without being disagreeable.”
We will when she will.
Waiting …

Here I go, quoting Merton again because he had some of you in mind:
“I know that many people are, or call themselves, ‘atheists’ simply because they are repelled and offended by statements about God made in imaginary and metaphorical terms which they are not able to interpret and comprehend. They refuse these concepts of God, not because they despise God, but perhaps because they demand a notion of Him more perfect than they generally find: and because ordinary, figurative concepts of God could not satisfy them, they turn away and think that there are no other: or, worse still, they refuse to listen to philosophy, on the ground that it is nothing but a web of meaningless words spun together for the justification of the same old hopeless falsehoods.
“What a relief it was for me, now, to discover not only that no idea of ours, let alone any image, could adequately represent God, but also that we should not allow ourselves to be satisfied with any such knowledge of Him.”

Just to let you know – Ricky Gervais was brought up Catholic and went to Sunday school until he was a teenager. So he has read the bible. But nice assumption.

It is interesting to me that your focus, Michele, is on whether Christianity is insulted in the film rather than on engaging with the truly interesting issues the film raises about the emptiness of lives that cannot be enriched by the kind of abstract thought required for faith, imagination, metaphor, and lies. To me, this kind of hyper-sensitivity to perceived insult rather than engagement on the substance of the points being made is a sign of insecurity about the beliefs. Anyone who is confident in his or her faith cannot be troubled by a movie; any faith that can be so easily insulted is not one I would find appealing. It is especially interesting because you seem to have so little hesitation in insulting others, as for example, when you rely on third party reports like a review of a movie or a blog post about a piece of legislation instead of reading the original materials. As a person of faith and as a journalist — and as someone quick to feel insulted by others — you have an extra obligation to refrain from making damaging assertions without doing your homework.

I watched this one … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc and the story of him and his brother is an awful like a scene from Marilynn Robinson’s Gilead (pages 24-26).
And this one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wvB76Ed6Sg , where he pretends (not well) to be a Catholic. Well, I don’t know anyone – especially any of the clergy – who’d have the patience for such a charade. The clip only succeeds in demonstrating how easy it is to put one’s foot in one’s mouth around religious people. Yeah, that we know – we could all use tougher skin.

Good quote by Thomas Merton, Moonshadow.
Hi, Your Name at 3:29 p.m. I said above that I often disagree with Michele’s posts, which is true.
To be perfectly honest, if I think the issue Michele is posting about is one about which she is not open-minded, I tend to ignore those posts, because I think I will just get aggravated by reading them. Not every post interests me, so I concentrate on the ones that do. I see no point in coming on to Michele’s blog just to criticize her.
I come on here on occasion because I am interested in hearing political perspectives that are different than mine. It doesn’t mean that I don’t occasionally want to tear my hair out when I read something which I think is outrageous. But I don’t see ad hominem attacks moving any discussion forward.

If only there was a review of this article that i could have read, so that i could then judge it before i’d even read the article itself. Imagine a world where we could all get away with passing judgement on things we know nothing about and still expect to be taken seriously!?

The fact that you try to rebut Gervais is terribly ironic and does even more to expose your lack of credibility. If you had any knowledge of Gervais, you would know that even though he is an atheist, he does have a fairly well developed knowledge of scripture. And this isn’t even something that he tries to hide or doesn’t talk about. In fact, just last month there was an article in The Atlantic Monthly that discussed it.
Once again, you are doing your best to reinforce the stereotype of Christian’s as idiotic half-wits. Maybe you should realize that your calling lies elsewhere and stop embarrassing the rest of us?

Thanks for posting the links to Ricky Gervais on You Tube, Moonshadow. I found his serious statement about why he is an atheist very moving. He comes across as a very decent and serious person, in addition to being a comic genius.
Lando, and others here, I think we all judge movies and other things without seeing them. Based on our impressions of movies from previews, reviews, etc., we rule many of them out in advance. When a movie is controversial, that makes us more or less likely to see it, depending upon our personality type and interests.
For instance, I have been urging Michele to see “The Invention of Lying,” but I refused to see “The Passion of the Christ.” The main reason I refused was that in discussions of the film that I saw on TV, several critics I respected said they thought the violence in the film was downright “pornographic.” Since I think the life and teachings of Christ are equally as important as his suffering and death, and I thought this film was out of balance, I declined to see it.
I think, if most of us are honest, we do the same thing Michele is doing. But we don’t necessarily blog about it.

The fact that the film was titled ‘The Invention of Lying’ probably should have tipped you off. In a world without lies, nobody would claim god exists. It’s that simple. Your position is like going to see ‘The Invention of Water’ and then claiming you didn’t realise the ocean wasn’t going to be there.

“Gervais ridicules me for not seeing the movie and then commenting on it. I guess no one can talk about any film unless they’ve seen it? I’m sorry I’ve committed that faux pas.”
Actually, that’s pretty accurate. You can’t have a solid opinion (not a valid opinion, anyway) on a movie you haven’t seen. You can have a PREJUDICE against it, but not an opinion.
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and the fact that yours may not match mine, or Ricky Gervais’, or anyone else’s does not make you stupid. But opinions based on egregious facts, or in this case, nothing at all, are invalid.
Also, Ricky Gervais HAS read the bible. If you listen to him talk about religion at length, it’s quite clear that he knows a lot about it and has formed his opinion on a broad range of experience and philisophies.
Congratulations on fighting and beating cancer, by the way.

For instance, I have been urging Michele to see “The Invention of Lying,” but I refused to see “The Passion of the Christ.”
I wonder if michele has seen that yet. She talked me out of it, way back when, and I can’t say I’m sorry. I suppose one could fast-forward through the worst parts. For all we know, michele’ll surprise us and go see Gervais’s movie.
I enjoyed very much a Youtube clip of Gervais reading from Genesis. It’s almost like Paul wrote, “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”
Everybody’s happy.

I’m going to see “The Invention of Lying” this coming weekend.
The more I know about Gervais the better I like him. (I have the British version of “The Office” on DVD.)

I’m not ready to agree with you on that, Alicia, but I hope you like the film.
I did find this clip very funny too … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHzKQdX-_KA and nothing religious about it. Really.
What’s also strange is … Gervais talks like my neighbor … or she talks like him. Which is it? But she’s from Brooklyn.

“And of course it goes without saying that Gervais wouldn’t make a comment like this:
That would be like me believing that the Earth was made in six days just because it was written in one book with no evidence to back it up.
Without having read the Bible himself. Atheists don’t question the veracity of Scriptures without reading it, right? So, if I’m the only one who reads the witness of others and then makes a judgment call, I’m sorry.”
Your logic is not logical. Even if an ‘atheist’ reads the scriptures it still does NOT make what they read true. People who blindly follow organized religion and believe in the actual writings DOES NOT use the brain that God (if there is one) gave them.

Grow up women ffs.

The premise of this story almost works (as did most Twilight-Zone material) if one takes every person in it to be soullness, especially the protagonist. In that light I think taking the piss out of the Torah might have been redeemable, had the main character encountered something in his emptiness to raise doubts about the finality of nihilism. As it is, the nihilism is unable even to give his suicidal neighbor any substantial reason to live, and it’s a finality exceeding even his sweetheart’s eugenic conceits (she at least has nicely ambiguous moments of misgiving). An ‘ensoulment’ moment might have happened on visiting his mother’s grave to commune with her moldering dust beneath his feet, but he remains no more human than the doctor attending to her chart (and perhaps also doubly deluded to bother communing with atoms). So when Gervais can’t resist the temptation to tear a page out of Life of Brian, I could guess there was no redemption and walked out just as his character comes bedragled to the door in a beard and a bedsheet. It’s really too bad that a man with Ricky’s education could within an hour be comfortable with being set for life as an atheist on paltry evidence from an innocence-dashing brother who like Cain envied Abel’s childlike fideism. Here, East of Eden, Gervais thinks God’s greatest mistake was the snake in the garden (who incidentally out of envy invented lying); but can’t see the lousy philosophy of letting the innocence of unsullied belief, and truth, be trammeled by a meaner spirit. In the world of Gervais’ character, there is no truth, beauty or goodness; so where’s the philo, or the sophia ?