The Encounter: Jesus is an Eldritch Abomination

The Encounter is a Christian movie which features one of the most frightening depictions of any god in film history.

About DiamandaHagan

Screams from the Netherworld of fandom. Diamanda Hagan, reviews movies and rants about them online.

29 comments

  1. … Ok. Is it just me, or did jesus at the end there give off a VERY pinhead vibe..? I realy liked this, and hope to see more!

    • Yeh. That is downright horrible depiction of Christ.. not because it can’t be anything else outside bland good (hell there is possible theory that Lucifer and Christ are this same) but because he isn’t smart about that in this movie. Whole idea that God demand blind fallowing his will is dumb (story of Issac is clear about that), yes we do that because he created everything and even fact that free will and evil exist is because his order, so even if we oppose him we do that on his conditions. But still whole point of being good is come to conclusion that we want and should try to be such.. in fact most of those self-pretentious Christian douches would be surprised when they learn that God don’t want self interested opportunists.

  2. Jesus did not create the world…God did that! Jesus is not all powerful, not imnipotent, not omnipresent, Jesus did not create any of these people!

    Jesus is the SON of God! NOT God!

    Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity but NOT the whole!

    Jesus is sent to save those who will allow him to do so!

    God gave us free-will, Jesus cannot go against this tenet!

    Maybe this film is a bad film, maybe it does a bad job in it’s dialog and maybe the Jesus and Sting {didn’t look like Sting to me} characters were let down by bad dialog and acting.

    As a Catholic I really don’t like the term “Christian Movies” as it seems to simply mean bad z-list movies written for propaganda reasons and nothing else.
    And there surely has to be some “Christian Movies” out there that aren’t like this but that get lumped in with those that are?

    I also have to state that Christianity is not a single religion and the many denominations of Christianity have many differing viewpoints.

    Was this movie good, bad or simply indifferent? You didn’t say.
    From the couple of scenes you did show my guess would be on the indifferent to bad side and I don’t think I’ll be watching it to find out as I’d never even heard of it before this review.

    In fact that’s another beef I have – Why exactly are these so called “Christian Movies” getting reviews? Who are you trying to convince? and what of.
    They’re Z-List Movies aimed at a certain subset of the US Population – A subset that is unlikely in the extreme to be watching your reviews.

    • According to your Bible, you’re completely and entirely wrong. Your god or Jesus or whatever didn’t give humanity free will, your god wanted to keep humans ignorant and stupid. Lucifer was the one who gave man freedom of will, telling Adam and Eve that if they ate from the forbidden fruit, they would gain knowledge. If the bible was correct, which it isn’t because it’s a load of made up nonsense and some moral stories and less than moral rules, particularly by today’s standards. So Lucifier, if anything, is the anti-hero of the Bible and your god is the vicious, evil and petty villain of it. If you believe the Bible is true or correct, then you should be worshiping Lucifier.

      • I’m not a Bible literalist, particularly when it comes to Genesis and Revelations. But putting that aside if Adam and Eve hadn’t had free will they wouldn’t have been able to choose to eat the fruit in the first place, no matter what the serpent said.

        • They didn’t really have free will though. They were too ignorant to really understand what they were doing by your god’s decree. A choice you don’t understand is not a choice at all.

          I have to ask though, simply for my own sense of curiosity, if you don’t believe in the Bible, why do you believe in a god? Outside of the Bible claiming there is a god, there’s no proof I’m aware of that shows any god or gods exist.

          From what I understand of it, the Bible is the word of your god written by men divinely inspired by the holy spirit and if it is a divine tome, then it should be timelessly perfect in all things both scientific and morally yet it’s a disaster of contradictions, utterly hideous beliefs that you’d expect from a backwards, barely bronze age society that didn’t know anything about anything.

          • Setting aside the fact there are innumerable other religious traditions with their own sacred texts and arguments for variations on God, there are cogent philosophical arguments worth considering (ontological, telelogical, etc). I’m not here to evaluate any of them, but to say the Bible is all there is is patently ridiculous.

            Also, why would the Bible being the divinely inspired account of flawed human beings require it to be timelessly perfect? That’s just nonsense. I’m not even defending the Bible necessarily but your argument is silly.

          • They understood well enough. The idea is that the concept of evil (that which is against God, who is the supreme good) entered humanity through their action.

            Well, first of all you should know that most Christians aren’t Bible literalists. Catholics, Orthodox Christians and a lot of mainstream Protestant churches don’t hold to a strict literal interpretation of the Bible. As far as my belief in God goes, it was my own choice according to my own study of religion and secular philosophy. I can’t really tell you much more than that.

          • OH I understand that other religions have their own Bibles or equivalents that preach that theirs is the only right way etc. If there are other texts about the Christian god that aren’t in the Bible, I’d be interested in looking them up.

            As to what you think my argument that the Bible is timeless, I seriously don’t believe that it is. But why I brought that up is literally what I’ve been told by teachers in religion class (We have those here in Ireland), priests I’ve spoken to on the subject and seen others say here and there over the years. They all claimed that the Bible is a work divinely inspired by the holy spirit and is therefore perfect.

          • ” If there are other texts about the Christian god that aren’t in the Bible, I’d be interested in looking them up.”

            It is called theology. Whole study about God.

            “But why I brought that up is literally what I’ve been told by teachers in religion class (We have those here in Ireland)”

            Oh.. that explain everything. Most religious teachers are propagandists. Don’t expect any competency from them.

            “priests I’ve spoken to on the subject and seen others say here and there over the years. They all claimed that the Bible is a work divinely inspired by the holy spirit and is therefore perfect.”

            Important question: Catholic or Protestants? Catholic see bible as divine but non-literal work. Some protestants on the other hand claim that it should be interpret literally what is clear idiocy.

      • Dude.. you are another ignorant hater. You don’t help our cause.

        1) You mistake clerical-logic with religious-logic. Church in fact try keep people in ignorance but religion clearly state otherwise. As you most likely don’t have arguments to support own claim I say only that: 0_0

        2) Lucifer isn’t mentioned in bible or is in completely different context. Also it was Samael aka Satanael who lead to humanity fall. Lucifer is completely different story only mistakenly associated with Satan.

        3) Adam and Eve eat fruit of knowledge-of-good-and-evil not free will, as those are two separate things. Also according to Luciferians he is symbol of free will as he opposed the God as first. They don’t claim that he give them free will as such statement is clear idiocy.

        4) You are clear idiot. Learn own enemy, don’t repeat retarded arguments from Christlotation movies because that may you look as idiots in eyes of Christians and so suport they confidence.

    • First and foremost, Hagan is only referring to the Jesus depicted in this movie, so I’m really not excited about getting into the rest of this theological debate that spawned from your post. However, that being said, being that I grew up Catholic and was one foot into the seminary before I left the Church and eventually became an atheist, I feel the need to help you along your path because you’ve actually stated 2 heresies in your post, and I don’t want you getting excommunicated over your flawed understanding of the complicated belief system that is Roman Catholicism.

      First, according to Catholicism the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all inherently God, 3 persons (aspects) of the same One God not simply part; that is Sabellianism, one of the Great Heresies from the 3rd century. In fact, just to make sure everyone was clear on that being heresy, your Credo explicitly states of Jesus that he is “Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero, Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: Per quem ómnia facta sunt.” That last line “by whom all things were made” is not referring back to Patri (Father) but rather the entire sentence prior, beginning with “And in one Lord, Jesus Christ” so your argument that not only movie Jesus, but also Catholic Jesus, is God, is omnipotent (being of the same substance as the Father he must indeed then therefore be omnipotent as well) and did indeed create the world (because he created everything because he’s God).

      Second, what you say about Jesus only saving those who will allow him to is also heresy. It’s the Protestant heresy, actually – that thing I feel you are already against based on your distaste for being lumped in with the rest of Christianity as though it’s a single religion. While you aren’t arguing “sola Scriptura” in this argument, you do make and argument here about salvation that is derived from “sola fide,” i.e., “by faith alone.” The Protestants heresy (and thereby Protestant Christians from Calvinists to Lutherans to all those “non-denominational” sects) believe that you must have faith in Jesus to be saved. Catholics believe that Jesus already saved *everyone* once and for all eternity (which means those who lived prior as well) – Salvation for Catholicism is the atonement for Original Sin. According to Catholicism, we’re all saved. What you do with that salvation is up to you, and you can still choose to be evil and go to Hell, or you can lead a good life and have a shot at Heaven; and if you believe in Jesus and follow the teachings of the Church, he’ll help you get there through the eternal outpouring of grace upon those who seek it. You’re mixing up faith and grace. By claiming Jesus only saves those who believe is a heresy. All mankind is saved, was saved, and will forever be saved by Jesus’ death and resurrection – at least according to Catholicism. Kind of funny how you missed all of that being Easter was only a few weeks ago and I’m sure there were plenty of homilies about it to go along with the liturgical language that celebrates that fact…

      Of course, as for you last argument in regard to free will, I have no criticism – that is indeed the belief of all Christians including Catholics. What Hagan is criticizing in this movie, however, is that it seems as though movie Jesus violates that “rule” (I would say it’s sort of silly to say God can’t break God’s own rules though) for everyone else except for Sting’s character (and yes, that is indeed Sting…the professional wrestler – and if you realized it was that Sting, I’ll clarify further that in the last 10 years he got old and grew out a soul patch). So at the very least, movie Jesus here is a hypocrite and at the worst movie Jesus is an evil deity.

      • I organically also want lecture him about that but I come to conclusion that he more poorly describe his point then support those positions. Still, thanks for explanation.

    • I prefer here term Christploitation movies. Personally I think that any movie intended as Christian is bad. Good movies are simply good and in good Christin movie you typically get the point, not that it’s Christin.

  3. MidnightScreeningsman2014

    I believe I saw the old channel awesome producer BrotherHumble revoew this and in the videos description it said “Jesus in a diner” and that couldn’t be more right!!! I saw you put these on your YouTube page and never knew why you didn’t post these to the site but now you finally did and I’m pretty sure this isint the only one we’ll be seeing of this series.

    I never thought I’d see you the goddess of pure evil who has minions review Christian movies but I’m cool with that and hey didn’t know David A.R. White directed this.

  4. The counter argument would be that human’s free will leaves the future in question, such that even he could not absolutely know what the results would be. That is kinda the point of free will, after all.

    • If that’s the case then the Christian god is not all powerful and doesn’t know what will happen which is contrary to everything said about it. If that particular god knows everything, then it will know in advance what choices someone makes, say to commit suicide, kill, harm others etc, so the aforementioned god is literally setting people up to go to hell.

      If god does exist and knows all, then there’s no real free will, because it’s all been predetermined. I could decide to go outside walk in front of traffic or kill someone by pushing someone else into traffic. Ultimately, if god knows everything then it’ll know what I’ll choose and then technically, whatever I’ll have chosen will be foretold by god and technically part of it’s plan and if everything is already decided like that, then there is no free will. Or else god isn’t omniscient.

      Honestly, my attempt to describe this is rather bad, Hagan’s explanation is far more succinct.

    • Answer on that is simple: God is beyond time. For him everything already happened and decisions were made. It is like in the move.. in exact point decision could be made, but how movie ended (result of that decision) already is on the tape.

  5. Saying the exact right words that will ultimately and unquestioningly convince someone is not really offering a choice. It’s like saying: “cake or death.” It’s not really a choice, unless a person happens to be suicidal. The choice must ultimately be the person’s.

    This was the same argument for King Saul, Judas, etc. There are some people are not convinced, and turn away from God, and short of FORCING them, God cannot convince them.

    • I’m pretty sure “eternal bliss or eternal torment” is just “cake or death” times infinity. You’re still threatening them with an extreme consequence that goes against their self interest, so the problem is in the presentation.

      Like in Saul’s case, where the prophet did not live up to his own claim and the disobeyed instruction was “utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” When your directions are second-hand, shady, genocidal, and incomprehensible, even pro-genocide types are going to hesitate. There are arguable benefits to not immediately obeying those types of instructions even if they are supposedly from God.

      • Answer on that is story of Issac. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac and Abraham disobeyed order.. to find out that God exactly expected him to do that. What matter is to be good person. Blindly fallowing orders isn’t real what God really want from us.

        Also “cake or death” is still a choice. You don’t need to be suicidal.. idealists or sly people also could do that. In second case because they could be confident to hit two birds with one stone and turn situation to own bigger profits.

        • Abraham never disobeyed God. It’s why we have a Renaissance art trend of angels zooming in Superman style to put him in an arm lock. He had to be stopped and was told, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” The only lesson was proving his faith, not being a “good person.”

          Saul fell out of favor for not going all the way with his genocide and blood sacrifice. There was never any clear “good” or followable logic to it or the consequences. It does not even agree with your morals. How to be a “good person” is either not in the instructions at all or badly presented.

          • Yeh, you are correct. I simply forget how this story exactly goes..

            Still there is clear trend in bible when morality change with evolution of Israel. Hammurabi Law “eye for eye” was quite just when it was introduced, but later God bring more laws.. Jesus reveal us that God is in fact good and through understanding what is really good you will understand him. That is main difference between how Christians and Jews see God.

          • But if the trend is clear, why would Jews see God differently? They are trying to obey the same God. The Koran and Book of Mormon are similar updates, so Christians are also refusing to follow their God’s “clear” trends. Each group sees their own version with a different set of instructions to be “really good” and “understand him.”

            And these are the people who already believe in God. Their religions’ claims are not even convincing to each other. After thousands of years, there are now countless branches that each think everybody else is wrong. That usually does not happen if your instructions are meant to be understood.

            Actually, forget all that. Tell me how an idealist would choose death over cake to hit two birds with one stone for bigger profits.

  6. “You can’t marry Paul” – He is going to be too busy building the church to settle for commitment honey, ba boom tish! XD

  7. There are quite a few answers to the apparent paradox between free will and omniscience, from the idea that God is outside time (as proposed by C.S. Lewis) to the less conventional idea that God knows all that is and was, but not necessary what will be. The very concept of free will precludes strict determinism, as is proposed by the argument that Jesus / God would know “the magic combination of words” necessary to alter his heart.

    I would never propose Wikipedia as a sole source, but it at least presents a summary of the theology and philosophy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

    • How exactly idea that “God knows all that is and was, but not necessary what will be” is less controversial if it deny omniscience? Only reason why people would have problem with God beyond time is because they can’t imagine that even if that is almost obvious from theory of God perspective. Also greatest mistake of that movie is that he even try convince anyone.. convincing even if quite soft solution is still form of manipulation. God would let us come to conclusion about our life to ensure proper judgment of us, not our conformism and ability to agree with anything.

  8. Hm. Gotta wonder how Jesus movies would look today if there had never been a council of nicea.

    Though he probably wouldn’t have the superhero status he has right now so there might not be that many movies to begin with.

    • If I recall Nicea didn’t change that much in his description.. problem is more that those propaganda movies are made by idiots who instead showing by own example try use chap tactic to promote own bullshit.

Leave a Reply