Fireproof - Review

Say what you want. Trash it. Curse about it. Make fun of it. But plain and simple...this movie spoke truth to me and to my wife Most importantly, it helped to save our marriage.

Atheism, not a religion, is the real force behind mass murders of history.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

This was an evangelical Trojan Horse. I should have known better. For those who already believe it just reaffirms their faith but for guys like me it sucked my will to live. I went with the understanding that we can all use some relationship strengthening but the religious hard sell did the Christian community a disservice at best. This was a distasteful, disingenuous and dishonest presentation by devious Christians. Getting movie viewers into the theaters was the first guise of tricky. This movie was disrespectful to those who were misled and convinced to attend. As a firefighter I had at least an expectation of forthrightness but Smoke and Mirrors got me there only to be sickened by this approach. I am not a Christian but my Wife is…she was embarrassed by this dishonest attempt to convert those who have different belief systems…it was very disrespectful and not reflective of the Christian ideals that I have studied throughout my lifetime…

This was an evangelical Trojan Horse. I should have known better. For those who already believe it just reaffirms their faith but for guys like me it sucked my will to live. I went with the understanding that we can all use some relationship strengthening but the religious hard sell did the Christian community a disservice at best. This was a distasteful, disingenuous and dishonest presentation by devious Christians. Getting movie viewers into the theaters was the first guise of tricky. This movie was disrespectful to those who were misled and convinced to attend. As a firefighter I had at least an expectation of forthrightness but Smoke and Mirrors got me there only to be sickened by this approach. I am not a Christian but my Wife is…she was embarrassed by this dishonest attempt to convert those who have different belief systems…it was very disrespectful and not reflective of the Christian ideals that I have studied throughout my lifetime…

well if Jesus is real (He is) then somebody's wrong......

This is a movie that all couples should watch. The value of this movie is life changing. Every couple will learn a lesson that will enrich their relationship/marriage. It won't win any awards because there are no big time movie stars, but it will change lives and that is worth more than any object you can set upon your mantel. A MUST SEE for all husbands and wives.

Super Wow! Wormwood, what anger! I apologize for any Christians who have hurt you. It appears that somebody trampled all over you in the name of Yeshua.

Why do people believe that we live in a "fundamentally SECULAR American culture" when 82% of Americans profess to be Christian? I am a Christian living in the BIble Belt. I am against abortion AND against the death penalty. I also support our new President Elect who also professes a relationship with Christ.

Back to the movie...Mack Rawken's rating was low. I think he misunderstood message and intent of the movie (marriage reconciliation and healing), but I'm glad he gave it attention and a rating for the nearly 250,000,000 Americans involved in our "death-obsessed cult."

Outstanding film! This is one of the best films I've seen in years, a must-see for anyone who is experiencing marital strife, or someone who is just married. It was deep, interestings, very entertaining, and had some excellent acting by Erin Bethea. Just proof that you don't need a big budget or big names to make great film. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone!

Wow, wormwood is really a bitter person. I liked the movie and I really think it was under-rated by this reviewer. It's a very touching movie!

S - didn't anyone ever tell you that when you take your ball and go home, it's YOU who loses? I could have done that weeks ago, but unlike those of you who can only resort to insult, I have provided volumes of reason behind my views, and it rips your nonsense to shreds.

If the movie in question was about a relationship and not about selling Christianity, than religion would have been kept out of it. You don't deserve your religious freedom because you can't stop insulting everyone in society who isn't Christian like you are, as you opportunistically infiltrate our fundamentally SECULAR American culture with (speaking of nonsense) your ridiculous dogma, trash-filled books, and now movies. Mack Rawden made a mistake in not ignoring this peace of trash completely, instead of giving you the space to promote it yourselves - but at least the rating he gave it demonstrates that he understands who actually reads his reviews.

Goodbye, S, Brian, and all you "really awesome" morons for God-droppings! Try as you may, you will never make all the world embrace your over-promoted, overfunded, and fundamentally death-obsessed cult. Go on and bawl your eyes out, now that the black Antichrist has been elected president, because all who are too smart for your drivel have spoken! He will bring world peace, prosperity, and tattoos for everyone which read "666" - LOL, you morons believe such wild crap, and then talk "peace of mind"! B-byyyyyee!

I love intellectual elites. I bet there is at least one reviewer who gave this movie a 1 star or less review who in his or her own life quotes or references Kierkegaard. The whole movie is about the idea of passionate commitment which is central to Kierkegaard's thought. One cannot love without volition; choosing to love rather than hoping their hunger for pleasure will hold them to someone for a long time or life. I love watching these pathetic relationships wax and whane over whether this or that person is really the "one". I wish more movies had deeper spiritual ideas than do-what-you-feel mumbo jumbo. Everyone who lives their lives by following the dictates of their pleasure/happiness seeking internal biology will be made anxious and irritated by this film. I find it funny when they mock the writer/director's inteligence. Mocking is so fitting for these self-proclaimed smarty pants.

Before we continue in our dialogue, I must ask you, "With whom am I actually in conversation: Wormwood, or Big Bad Atheist?" Are you one person with two different ID's? If so, why the duplicity?

Wormwood: Again, you didn't understand (or else just didn't actually read) anything I said. You're just looking for an excuse to vent your frustration with religion and attempting to use my comments as a scapegoat. This is the point where I realize that it is a waste of time to continue indulging your ridiculous run-ons. Sorry!

Brian: "So, are you advocating that Christianity is a disease?"

"Advocating"? I'll put it this way - in the year 1 AD, news got around by word of mouth, typically by smelly-robed, long-haired, beardy guys. By the time it got beyond town limits (much less national borders), it was not quite the same story which it was originally. This, of course, presumes that each storyteller told what he did with honest intent. A poor, but bright man with greater ambition than honesty would do just what Jesus is reported to have done, when he rounded up number of other smart, but loyal guys who would find the work of apostlehood more rewarding than the hard, dull life of a fisherman in those days. They had the advantage of a much less enlightened population to pitch their claims to, in a world where much less was known of the causes behind the natural forces which people feared. Those who they spoke to never had contact with the ruling class (and therefore their thought processes) who established the religion of their culture, and therefore they had much less at their disposal to cut through all the baloney. Ultimately, it didn't just catch on, as cults sometimes do (and there sure wasn't a mass media to warn every single Earth resident that THIS GROUP IS A CULT - STAY AWAY!), but it turned out that the ruling class found this particular cult to be more useful to them than their current religions - and what soon followed was a whole lot of organized nonsense orchestrated from the Vatican. Unlike scientific truth, which the average person can, in most cases, prove on his own, religious truth has no proof other than that it is accepted by civil and social authority figures (of course it was, they had a working class to control, and Christianity made that easier). Generations later, proof no longer mattered - you trust the parents who raised you since birth, and they trust who their parents trusted. The fact that the stories given by these trusted persons are stories which ultimately originated from strangers is an observation which too many people fail to make. If Stephen King told you that Randall Flagg will attack your first-born with hordes of flies unless you send him a truckload of Moon Pies, your first question should be "if Randall Flagg does exist, and he could cause such things, then why does he need Stephen King to speak for him?" Well, why does Jesus, or any other god, need a minister, priest, or otherwise? If you have the intelligence to follow this blog, you are already aware of all this, but you choose instead to cling to your ignorance, rather than face the reality that your've been duped. Yes, this does make Christianity a social disease. It is not benign, but it is not uncontrolled either. It is sort of like biological weaponry, but it is used by it's investees to act on the minds of it's victims.

Brian: "Are you suggesting that one CAN be a Christian ("a Christ follower") WITHOUT believing in Jesus? It's logically impossible. . .that's nonsense. Of course you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in Jesus. "

Brian, that's not what I said, as most people who read this know. However, I have a question for you - do you believe that you have the power to read other people's minds? Belief is not a course of action, but a mental concept.

Not all stories of Jesus paint him as peaceful and kind. I have heard, in every church which I've been to, the story of how he stormed the temple when certain people there pissed him off, and in telling this event the Christian leaders are themselves culpable for encouraging those who are predisposed to engaging in angry, radical behavior. You can believe anything, no matter what you decide you need to do.

Brian: If have to tell you that I don't believe you. I don't believe that you actually think there is no such thing as God. I think you know full well that there is a God. . .you are just trying your hardest to disprove"

Wheels of thought spin ever faster - better slow down, I'd hate to see you hurt yourself!

Actually, I could care less on proving or disproving that some higher and unknown forces exist throughout, or beyond, this universe. But I really don't need to try hard at all to prove that Christianity is not only based on the made-up stories of smelly-robed, long-haired, beardy old mortals, but is also pirated intellectual property!

Brian: "So, are you advocating that Christianity is a disease? In your less that "tolerant" remarks about pathology and the Christian, I cannot help but deduce that you feel as though Christianity is some abhorrent mental or pathological disorder?"

Christianity is based on religious faith, which requires the acceptance of outragious fiction as fact. If a guy with wild hair, and a tie-dyed shirt told you that every Stephen King story actually happened, you wouldn't believe him - but if all who represent authority in your community were telling you this since you were a toddler, then you would have no doubt that this claim is truth - in short, it's called brainwashing. Well, in the year 1 AD, the news was spread primarily by word of mouth, by bearded, long-haired guys in smelly robes, but they were the accepted authorities then to a much less educated
population, living in a world which had much less understanding to sort out reality from any wild idea which the human mind could create. Modern (if they can be called that) Christians don't have the excuses of past generations - if they are intelligent enough to participate in this blog, then they are aware of the tricks which strangers can use to take them. If Stephen King told them that Randall Flagg will attack their first-born with flies if they don't send a case of moon pies to Stephen King's house, they would question why Randall Flagg, if he really exists, and could do such a thing, would need Stephen King to speak for him. This is exactly how the church leaders operate on the minds of their followers. You know them as your parents did, but they believe in people who you don't know, who may actually be as innocent as all of you - the point is that the stories cannot be proven scientifically, their ultimate origin is from strangers, they simply don't add up, and YOU KNOW IT - but you're afraid of facing reality, so you cling to ignorant ways. Yes, this is a pathological evasion of reality, which often involves enforcement of this evasion's derivative culture on those who have opened their eyes, therefore it is at best a social disease.

Brian: "Are you suggesting that one CAN be a Christian ("a Christ follower") WITHOUT believing in Jesus? It's logically impossible. . .that's nonsense."

Brian, I did not say that, but I have a question for you - do you think you can read minds? Belief is not an action, it's a mental conception. You can believe in something, no matter what you choose to do.

Jesus was not always the nicest guy who ever walked the planet, and one popular story paints him as an angry radical who stormed the temple (all of your preachers tell this one, therefore they are culpable for encouraging those who would behave this way). Those who feel that they are called to punish those who would terminate a fetus would believe that Jesus sometimes did more than "turn the other cheek", especially when it wasn't personal.

Brian: "If have to tell you that I don't believe you. I don't believe that you actually think there is no such thing as God. I think you know full well that there is a God. . .you are just trying your hardest to disprove "

Wheels of thought spinning, ever faster - better slow down, I'd hate to see you hurt yourself!

Actually, I have no interest in proving or disproving that greater powers exist throughout or beyond the universe, but I really don't have to try hard to prove that Christianity is completely made up by smelly-robed, long-haired, beardy old mortal guys.

Peace!

fireproof is awesome movie ever!
i already been watched fews times, but still want to watch over and over again!
this movie just showed each of us' life, and how God works in our life

Big Bad Athiest: "Here we have the finest example of pathology in the Christian mind - anytime someone from his camp does exactly what the Bible least conveniently exhorts him to do (and the Bible is every bit as full of said holy orders to commit violence as the Koran), you don't just disown them, but you step on your own god's toes in pretending that you are omniscient enough to know what he believes."

So, are you advocating that Christianity is a disease? In your less that "tolerant" remarks about pathology and the Christian, I cannot help but deduce that you feel as though Christianity is some abhorrent mental or pathological disorder? Do I correctly assume that this is how you feel, or have I misrepresented your feelings? If you do feel this way, then you are dangerously close, my friend, to the very thing which you claim to be against. More to the point, however, I'm not sure what you mean in the above quote. If you mean that we, as Christians, presume to know the mind of God, or our idea of God, then you are both correct and incorrect. You are correct that the Christian does not know the full counsel or the hidden thoughts of the triune God. The secret things do belong to the Lord. However, God has indeed made known to us His will, thoughts, attributes, and moral obligations in the Holy Scriptures. We, as Christians, believe the Bible is the inherrant and infallible Word of God. If an action of a professing Christians goes against the revelation of God's law and moral code as revealed in the Bible, then, yes, we do know what He, our God, believes about that action since it is clearly spelled out in the Bible. We are not guessing. . .we know. "Thou shall not steal" is wholly unambiguous. Therefore, we don't have to "guess" what God thinks about it. Sadly, many naysayers argue ad nauseum about the presence of massive and widespread violence described in the Old Testament, namely in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Joshua. If you are interested in an apologia of those books of the Bible, then I would be obliged to offer one. Suffice it to say, however, that the presence of violence in the Old Testament is not a permission slip for New Testament believers to commit astrocities in the name of Christ. In fact, Christ admonished us that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. His kingdom will not and should not be furthered by violence. It is a total mispresentation to say that the presence of violence in the Old Testament permits Christians to do the same.

"It is you people who said this - the only qualification for being a Christian is to believe in Jesus and his deity as alleged in the four Gospels."

Are you suggesting that one CAN be a Christian ("a Christ follower") WITHOUT believing in Jesus? It's logically impossible. . .that's nonsense. Of course you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in Jesus. That's like saying you can be a Muslim even if you don't believe in Muhammad. What? And you've got your facts wrong: Christ himself, not us, said that he is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6.

With all due respect, your second paragraph is like drinking water from a fire hydrant. . .I was a bit overwhelmed. Are you saying that Christianity is some crowd control device? Please tell me that you haven't sadly bought into the Dawkins concept of "opiate for the masses." I don't know you that well, but I can tell that you are much too intelligent to buy into that garbage.

In closing, I again return to my original question: At whom, or what, are you so angry? Forgive me, but your words drip with antagonism. If atheism is a religion of "tolerance," then your words betray your espoused beliefs.

Wormwood: "You can't actually be grounded in something which isn't factually real, and just because it's real to you doesn't make it fact."

Are you certain that atheism is factually real? Just because it's not real to you doesn't make it false either.

If have to tell you that I don't believe you. I don't believe that you actually think there is no such thing as God. I think you know full well that there is a God. . .you are just trying your hardest to disprove Him. Just an observation.

S: "Wormwood: Thank you for your insightful comment. I shouldn't have used the phrase "something bigger than themselves." It's my fault for assuming people would realize I was talking about God. I just wonder the potential that those non-Christian marriages could have if they were grounded in God (as God can supply a couple with Love greater than they can ever know without Him). I hope that clears up the misunderstanding."

No, S, the misunderstanding is with you - those who love other people and give what they can to make this world a better place to live in, with or without any fictional religious deities, are people who are grounded in a bigger something which is real - but that real something is society, not anyone's chosen gods. You can't actually be grounded in something which isn't factually real, and just because it's real to you doesn't make it fact.

Wormwood: Thank you for your insightful comment. I shouldn't have used the phrase "something bigger than themselves." It's my fault for assuming people would realize I was talking about God. I just wonder the potential that those non-Christian marriages could have if they were grounded in God (as God can supply a couple with Love greater than they can ever know without Him). I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.
Aside from that, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that everything you listed up there can be accomplished with selfish intentions anyways. Please don't take my comment as saying that Christians are better people that non-Christians either, because I don't believe that to be true. I don't see humans as scales, who can be defined as "good" if only they successfully do more nice things than naughty things. If you've done bad things, doing good things won't undo the wrong things you've done. I think all of humanity has done evil at some point in their lives and is in great need of redemption (Christians and non-Christians alike)! This is my opinion, however, and I trust that you will probably respectfully disagree in your own right.

Brian: "Also, you incorrectly point out that Christians "bomb abortion clinics and commit violence in the name of our selected God." I respectfully submit that your statement is a fallacious argument. These individuals may claim to be Christians, but their actions point out that they are truly not followers of Christ."

Here we have the finest example of pathology in the Christian mind - anytime someone from his camp does exactly what the Bible least conveniently exhorts him to do (and the Bible is every bit as full of said holy orders to commit violence as the Koran), you don't just disown them, but you step on your own god's toes in pretending that you are omniscient enough to know what he believes. It is you people who said this - the only qualification for being a Christian is to believe in Jesus and his deity as alleged in the four Gospels. Therefore, if a man or woman believes in Jesus, the claims he made, that same Jesus who trashed the Jewish temples because the merchants there pissed him off, and from there was inspired to take seriously more of the Bible than most preachers choose to cherry-pick on Sundays, and then act on it - well, sorry, but the truth is he's still one of your own.

Fact is that most Muslims cherry-pick the Koran much the way you do the Bible - if the world had as many poor Christians as it does poor Muslims, a Christian al Queada movement would have as easily caught on (in American free-speech culture, probably easier. In the Middle East, whole villages are frequently uprooted and made homeless. Their children don't go to school, there is no working economy, lots of them face a lifetime of unemployment if they don't turn to crime - and then the religious pied pipers come and lead them away, with a new sense of purpose. That purpose may be for a death mission, but the mullahs said that it's holy and rewarding, and they are too ignorant (every bit as the American white trash) to think otherwise - when all the trailer-trash Americans become homeless, I'll probably wish there was a decent, real god that could save us! Ignorance does not discriminate by color nor creed - it is in fact the very foundation of religious faith, and is also, by it's exploitation, the most deadly weapon ever wielded by one man against another.

majedama: "This isn't a film intended for unbelievers, it is intended for individuals who would like to become effective in their service to the cause of Christ."

We may as well be living in the illusory environment of The Matrix movies, where the spoon-bending child admonished Neo that "there is no spoon" Unlike those movies, however, the more that Christians tap into the powers of the unreal, the more they strengthen the very human parties who have been controlling them. There is no real spoon in the movie, and THERE IS NO REAL CAUSE OF CHRIST in this world, because Christ is fictitious. The truth, if you care about truth, is that everything which makes this fictional character real to you Christians is a psychological trick, orchestrated by highly-trained modern magicians whose stock in trade is the pushing of your buttons.

Consider, if you can, the following question:

What does it take for a young person to have aspirations for the Catholic priesthood or the Protestant ministry? Possible answers:

1) A true love of people with a sincere desire to bring them comfort, hope, and help them through difficult times.

Well, how often is this truly the case, anyway? You know this career path isn't the only way to comfort and help others. Medicine is one alternative route for such people, especially in nursing. If you want to do something that's real, there's nothing more real than the work which saves lives. Another career choice with indisputably real positive impact is the work of those who work at legal advocacy centers, which are dedicated to serving impoverished persons whose disabilities have prevented them from obtaining gainful employment. My best friend, who has a master's degree (I don't) has done this for 20 years, and makes one third less than I do. This is work which truly helps people obtain the assistance which they need in learning the job skills which best suit them, teaches them their legal rights in the workplace, and gives them true hope - not just soup for one day. There is absolutely no glamour in this profession, which requires great patience in dealing with people and situations which are frequently tedious and often downright unpleasant. Most of all, the horrible pay which such people put up with is the very essence of the "Christian" humility which the preachers, who often live in quite comfortable parsonages (or their own mansions) rail so much about.

2) They really love attention, which makes the idea of having a congregation of hundreds to millions of people hanging on their every word understandably attractive. Oh, they know they will be visiting the sick in hospitals, and assisting the poor, too, but that's just a manifestation of their great ego. It's not (usually, anyway) that they don't love humanity, but it only goes as deep and as far as is needed to maintain credibility with the crowd which is fixed on them on Sunday mornings, whose attention is what they truly. Add to that a fairly decent to downright sweet tax-free, church paid house to live in, travel expenses paid, and more vacation time than most of their parishioners (my family minister didn't wait for retirement to go cross-country for sight-seeing in his Winnebago) and it all makes a powerfully attractive deal to lure such candidates. If you think there has ever been even one single televangelist (including Billy Graham) who isn't this type of candidate, well, perhaps you'd like to contact me and buy a piece of the real Noah's ark.

3) The Catholic priesthood and the Protestant ministry require natural skill for using rhetorical argument, which is what they are good at, and work hours are much better than the legal profession.

As for all you say about marriage and extramarital lust, it was all well-understood in monogamous cultures long, long before Jesus or Yahweh.

S: "Many Christian marriages fail and a great number of non-Christian marriages survive. I just wonder the potential that those non-Christian marriages could have if they were grounded in something bigger than themselves"

Can you explain how a non-Christian couple, each living for each other, their children, their neighbors, and volunteering in community activities are NOT ground in something bigger than themselves? The way I see it is that the only thing which Christians are grounded in which such atheists aren't is an unnatural fear for their own said eternal spiritual fat. Hate to spell it out for you so crassly, but that just happens to be what it all comes down to.

It is no surprise to me that those who do not believe in Jesus have such low rated reviews of the film Fireproof. This isn't a film intended for unbelievers, it is intended for individuals who would like to become effective in their service to the cause of Christ. Marriage is an institution designed by God that is being eroded by sexual immorality, and, for a number of reasons, the church has been very ineffective in dealing with issues of sexual immorality. However, this film brings to the light that what Jesus said so long ago "if a man so much as looks at another woman and lusts after her, he has committed adultery with her in his heart" holds just as much truth in Jesus' day, when there were no such thing as pornographic magazines or internet opportunities to "lust" at the click of our fingertips, as it does in our sexually saturated culture today. The moral of this story is that "lust" kills love ~ I don't care what denomination you belong to, or whether or not you believe in God ... if you lust after other women while being committed to one that you vowed to cherish, you will lose true intimacy in your marital relationship. There is no debate to be made here ... this is a moral law that applies to all husband and wife relationships. To go against it is to reap what you sow. At any rate, I am looking forward to seeing the film and believe it will prove to be extremely useful in bringing this issue of the problems of sexual immorality to the forefront for all believers and non believers alike. And to that I say, it's about friggin' time this issue is presented to the church so it can bring the matter into the light rather than pretend it doesn't exist!!!

Kirk was about the only good actor in the movie. I do feel that he played the role exceptionally, and it was probably the best acting that I have ever seen from him. There were some cheesy parts and some scenes that probably should have been cut. With all that said, this was a very powerful movie.
I am not married, but I would certainly recommend for any couple or anyone intending on getting married someday to see it. I think that the movie is very real and I do not doubt that it has already saved a number of marriages. Many Christian marriages fail and a great number of non-Christian marriages survive. I just wonder the potential that those non-Christian marriages could have if they were grounded in something bigger than themselves and I have no doubt the Christian ones would not have failed had there been two people, in the marriage, who cared for each other more than themselves.
Fairly accurate review.... as the movie is definitely a Christian movie, I would not expect anything different from the reviewer. They cannot help it, but they are as biased against it as the Christian is biased towards it. If you talk to someone who is open to the gospel and Christianity, they will obtain much more from the movie. I would give it 2.5 stars for production and 5 stars for the message.