The screenplay itself, mainly focusing on the conflict between Christian student Josh Wheaton and his atheist philosophy professor, really has a narrow point of view. Ayisha removes the face covering. I would say this film is worth watching as a curiosity if nothing else. Although Josh tries his best to graciously refuse, Professor Radisson informs him that in order to continue in the class, the disagreeable student must make an air-tight argument for the defense. James Church, Hadleigh University leaders use the tragedy to push the congregation off campus, forcing the church to defend its rights and bringing together estranged brothers for a reunion that opens old wounds and forces them to address the issues that pulled them apart.
Although its story in unrelated, this sequel resembles its predecessor in that it tells a story about Christians being persecuted by non-believers. Yet even in life's darkest valleys, a small flame can light the way toward healing and hope. It turns out that Ayisha is a closet Christian, and when dad finds out he reacts as we would expect any Muslim man to react who is three times his daughters size - he smacks her around fist to face and then physically throws her out into the street. At least in this case he probably was, because this film is a great big stereotype machine. What happened to free will if these two are just manipulated actors in God's grandiose play?.
I'll cut it some slack on acting and direction because the whole thing was shot in 20 days with probably a low budget. Josh Wheaton Shane Harper is a Christian who never thought his faith would get in the way of his higher education. Josh makes a big deal during his portion of the debate about God allowing free will to reign on earth and that being the reason for all of the evil, and then the plot goes on to disprove exactly that by implying divine destruction of the ignition capabilities of every car that two random missionaries on their way to Disneyland touch in one of many sideplots so that they can be at a particular place at a crucial time. Not only that, but the semester will culminate in a debate between teacher and student on the subject. I know several atheists, and they are not all narcissists that abandon sick friends or people that blame God for some tragedy in their past.
Should the class still remain unconvinced of God's existence, Josh will fail, sending his entire academic future up in flames. In this Christian drama, a school teacher is suspended after mentioning Jesus in her class room, and she is forced to stand trial in order to save her career. He doesn't seem to mind that she has on short sleeves and clothes that are just as revealing as her peers. As a result, he is deeply shaken when, on the first day of his Philosophy class, Professor Radisson Sorbo begins the semester by demanding that each of his students deny the existence of God in order to earn a passing grade. Inquiring minds want to know. Other interesting points - apparently all atheists turn to Christ when confronted with death a point the late Christopher Hitchens disproves , and exactly what is this generic cancer that the atheist blogger has? The great irony here - the screenwriter for Spartacus was James Dalton Trumbo, who just happened to be an atheist.
Getting back to the film's main protagonist,Josh, he is now having to debate the philosophy prof in class as to the existence of God using philosophical arguments or else he will fail. After a deadly fire rips through St. Note to dad - the face is not the only physical thing about a young lady that catches the eye of young men. Meanwhile, we get a look at what is supposed to pass for a typical Arab-American Muslim household, as dad always makes sure that his daughter Ayisha has her face totally covered when he drops her off at school. No matter though, because as soon as dad is out of sight. When Josh refuses due to his own beliefs , the professor challenges him to defend his position, leading to a series of confrontational presentations between himself and the professor, with the class as jury.
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .