Genesis Movie Trailer. An Exciting-Looking Film Forthcoming From Our Friends At AIG!

Sorry it was not my intent to get into a political debate, and I shouldn’t make sweeping generalizations about all liberals and didn’t intent to.

I was just two examples I could think of off the top of my head. I then used those two examples to equate that tactic (and that tactic only) that to the AIG who seemed to be using moral high ground to defend YEC.

There was no intent nor am I claiming to chose political sides here, not am I intended to pin YEC to the liberals or conservatives. At the time I couldn’t think of any conservative arguments that they use this tactic, I am sure there are some.

Feel free to pm me if you have any questions as to my political views, but I don’t want to go there in this forum, it was merely an analogy to use an example I assume many are familiar with, and show this is what i see AIG as doing.

I didn’t want it to take forever to write, I used the first thing that came to my mind. If it makes you feel better, provide me with a good conservative analogy and I can put them up there too.

And to clarify, I am not saying a specific stance is wrong or bad, rather the argument used, the argument of ‘moral high ground’.

Placing the “knowing God” conversation on the shelf for the time being…

Do you believe there is such a thing as ‘moral high ground’?

That is a tough question, and I would say it depends on the topic first.

I have even argued there is no such thing as ‘moral’ outside of the Bible, rather equate morals to a perceived benefit as a moral. the only ‘good’ that is done outside of God, is all about the perceived benefit.

What about WW2. Is it moral to kill 200,000 people (women and children) if it was to save millions? (atomic bomb)
That is where perceived benefit plays a role. Our morals can, and are bent and changed by the society and culture we live in. Is it possible Hitler was moral? He clearly wasn’t right in his mind in thinking non-arian’s were inferior and less than human. But, if they were inferior and ruining the human race, would it not be a good and moral thing to kill them all? People claim they want world peace (I do not) because the ideal of world peace may be nice, attaining it would be horrendous, and maintaining it would be sick too. So should we just kill all the weird crazy violent people to attain world peace? Would that be moral?

We think child sacrifice isn’t moral, but is sure was fine to some cultures to get good crops or weather or some other kind of benefit perceived.

Trusting in the Father and His good will, that is moral and righteous. We don’t need to have pride and take matters into our own hands with such fervent zeal.

That being said, we should stand up for those who don’t have a voice, and we are Biblically called to. BUT not to the extent of hating others and ruining our main purpose to love our neighbors. God can use us as tools, but we need to remember He is in control and have faith and love as we pursue to protect those who can’t themselves.

But back to the question…

No, I don’t think there is such a thing as moral high ground, as morals are relative, so is the ‘height’ of that ground. That it is gets no one anywhere.
But I would argue that the majority of people do actually want the ‘good’ and ‘moral’ thing. The perceived benefit is a good thing. The problem there is we all perceive something different in our own minds.

This is why debates on many many topics need to have logic involved and tangible points to consider on both sides. Maybe even a trial period (a hypothesis and experiment and measure it) to see how well something works or doesn’t work. To analogize, almost like having the states try something and not have the federal gov interfere.

Like I have said in other threads. If you are born with blue glasses on and someone says the sky is blue. You think, no its not, its normal. It isn’t until you take those glasses off that you see it as blue. We need to be willing to see the other side, put on their glasses and want it to be right, try to prove it, play devils advocate. Then if you still disagree with ideals, that is fine (on some topics, politics and relationships need to be able to learn to compromise, not so much with ideals), but try to put on other glasses, and maybe you can then see what they see. I still don’t think you are right the sky is normal(it is blue), but, I see how you see it as normal. Both sides can learn a lot from that exercise.

I enjoy watching an educated atheist and Christian debate, I learn what makes atheist tick and learn much from the Christians too when logic and thought out points are used. I learn nothing from “You are stupid and weak to believe in a God, science proves you wrong.” Or" God says He is the only God in the Bible, so it must be true." That isn’t the moral high ground technique, but no logic or circular logic is just as frustrating to hear and no one learns anything from either, just like with ‘moral high ground’.

Just for the record, the liberal argument is that universal health care is working in other 1st world western democracies, and it is working well. In fact, the US pays twice what other countries pay who have universal health care. Every other 1st world nation has shown that it works. The only people who the US health care system is benefiting are those who profit off of health care.


That’s fine, I am aware that there is a logical argument on both sides. I wasn’t giving the ‘official liberal argument’ nor was I intending to say that one is better than the other. Rather pointing out that I do not like the ‘moral high ground’ technique to win a debate.

I wouldn’t mind talking with you via pm’s if you wanted about this. I would like to see the logical argument for universal healthcare. Just not in this thread, and I am not so sure if it is allowed to have such a thread as the rules or intent of this site. If you are disinterested that is fine too, but I wouldn’t mind learning another perspective.

Productions like this are just preaching to the choir of those who already hold a YEC position - in the end it’s just another feel good movie for themselves. It would be interesting to survey the theater and find out if anyone doesn’t already sit in the YEC camp.

I seriously doubt that anyone who might be thinking about God’s existence let alone Christianity would come away from this with any positive feelings about either.


I can’t imagine any more than maybe 10% that were not already firmly YEC.

Although there are a lot of people out there who are not very scientifically literate, and they are susceptible to getting sucked into some of dubious claims, so it is worthwhile to hold the film makers accountable.



The production values in that film made me sick they were so good. And I only watched the trailers!

It would be very hard not to be impressed with the pseudo-logic and pseudo-evidence in that film!

1 Like

Well, if you all are not very excited about this movie, at least Star Wars episode VIII should be coming out this December…

1 Like

We could try and figure out which movie has the most accurate scientific content. :wink:


Genesis movie, definitely.
Star Wars need not make claims to credible science, for they have the force! This is why SW does not bear as much scorn from me as Star Trek, but that is a ‘wormhole’ that I don’t think we should go down (or is it through?) on this forum… :wink:

Tonight, I watched the Genesis movie (Genesis: Paradise Lost). And I wish others of you did (maybe some of you have [here’s hoping]?) so that we can discuss it…

Overall, I thought it was quite good. There were only a couple times where I thought the evidence was a bit faulty, but other than that, excellent. Even if you all disagree with everything said in the film, I would be really interested in hearing why, and then evaluating those reasons to see if they hold up (which they may occasionally ;))…Also, it ended with “to be continued,” and now I am anticipating the sequel…

1 Like

Guess I should see it. There was a group from our church who went last night, with raving reviews on facebook. I had to bite my tongue (metaphorically) a bit, and remind myself that I need to respond in love, or not at all. The not at all response is what I going with at the present time, but self pride and so forth wants to rear its ugly head.

I would definitely encourage you to give it a try!

Just one question here — did the film say anything that isn’t already being said on the AIG/ICR/CMI websites? Any particular highlights?

I don’t know the answer to your question, but I would go with: doubtful.

As far as highlights go, it was quite a powerful movie in general, and they did a good job (as usual) of sharing the Gospel…

How well does the trailer represent what the movie actually says? If the movie presents the same old tired false dichotomy of accepting YEC or accepting atheism (as the trailer does) I think I will give it a pass.

1 Like

I haven’t watched the trailer in a while, but the actual movie didn’t have the whole bust of Darwin crumbling deal, and I did not think they had that false dichotomy (you taught me how to spell that word! Many thanks!) overtly presented…

A quote from the trailer, “Really we only have two possibilities. We just happened or somebody made us.” This was said by one of the experts that I assume would also be included in the movie. I don’t know if you would consider that statement “overt” but it is to my EC sensibilities.

1 Like