Do I Need a Strategy for Dining on Sweetbreads?

After having seen Inside Llewyn Davis for a second time — it is growing on the Harts — I am intrigued by the exchange between Trevin Wax and Alissa Wilkinson about Christians watching movies. Wilkinson advocates seeing movies, in part, as a way of knowing what our neighbors are talking about. This facility will allow us to love them better and perhaps even evangelize. Wax thinks the idea of watching The Wolf of Wall Street as either neighbor love or pre-evangelism is a stretch. In the narrow confines of this debate, Wax largely has a point, though his fears of “heading down a rocky terrain without any brake system working on our vehicle” is at odds with the no-brakes approach of the apostle Paul who said everything is lawful. (Paul’s brake was whether something was beneficial either for us or other believers — a pretty complicated question but not necessarily so if you’re not blogging about what movies you see.)

What is missing from this classic evangelical approach to culture — either it helps with evangelism or it needs to bolster our moral posture — is (all about) I. What if I watch a movie simply because I like it, that is, I enjoy certain actors (George Clooney) or directors (Joel Coen) or writers (Ethan Coen) and I go out of my way to follow what they do. It is like acquiring a taste for a kind of food that some people might find objectionable — like sweetbreads (the thymus and pancreas of calves or lambs). If it’s on the menu, I generally order it. And if the Coens come out with a movie I see it. Why? A theological explanation could be that this is how God has providentially overseen my life so that I am predisposed to sweetbreads and the Coens.

That is way more theology than I think is necessary to justify such mundane affairs as food and movies. I understand that simply “enjoying” something can be a route to escapism or obesity — that is, not critically reflecting on what we watch or eat. But I see no reason why we can’t have a fuller account of enjoyment as a sufficient reason for seeing a film. If all things are lawful, maybe they are also enjoyable.

613 thoughts on “Do I Need a Strategy for Dining on Sweetbreads?

  1. Right, but there’s a difference between eating sweetbread and watching people have (pretend) sex.

    It’s like the alcohol and marijuana debate – I would give a glass of wine to my neighbor but not a joint.

    Like

  2. Film is the lingua franca of our day, probably more than books.

    I think the issue with “The Wolf of Wall Street” is the story is almost nonexistent so it borders on porn. Any time you pretty much completely know what you are going to get before you see it you should perhaps pause and ask if you are being worked over.

    If you watch porn you know the storyline already — there is none.

    There is a difference between “Last Tango in Paris”, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”, “Boogie Nights” and “The Wolf of Wall Street”. Not to say that the first three are for everyone by any means. Evaluate your own conscience and your strengths and weaknesses with regards to temptation. Don’t kid yourself about what you can and can’t handle.

    Like

  3. One question to ask is, do I have to lie to anyone important to me in order to take part in X. If you do, you probably should not take part in it. Your relationship with that person and them being able to trust you is more important than whatever you will gain from X.

    Like

  4. I gotta say I’m pretty jaded in comparison to many churchgoers and I almost did, and probably should’ve, walked out on “Wolf”. Beyond the porn, I get my hackles up about Scorsese continuing to propagate the ethic that the ‘working man is a sucker’. I understand it’s part of the story he’s telling, but I’m convinced he believes it and he glamorizes it. In the end, that pissed me off more than the graphic sex. I can make big bucks too selling sex and exploiting others, it isn’t hard once you sear your conscience. I have zero regard for that sort of ‘earthiness’, it’s lazy and dishonest to say the least.

    Like

  5. Seriously, Darryl. And if (IF) justification is the ground of our sanctification, God by the Holy Spirit os leading his people into things as Phil. 4 says that are excellent and praiseworthy.

    To quote back to the future, the last thing you need, is headaches.

    Like

  6. Erik, ding ding (though I don’t get that privelage, heretic me and all..).

    Can you say it with a straight face? Would you do that if grandma was in the room? Act as you would if your kids were around?

    Many ways to phrase your latest combox here. To me, it was a hum dinger.

    Cheers.

    Like

  7. Zrim,

    I see your point, but I think there’s fundamentally something different about sex (and explicit sexual content) and viewing it. I think it’s an implication of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 6:18

    Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

    Like

  8. Nate, but in viewing either pretend gluttony or sex I am not participating in them bodily. This isn’t to make way for unbridled license, it’s to make a point about discernment. So, yes, there’s a difference between eating sweetbread and watching people have (pretend) sex. But it could be that one is more in danger with regard to the former since it could lead to gluttony in the body.

    Like

  9. To take this analogy in a slightly different (and perhaps unintended) direction, enjoying sweetbreads has a great deal to do with how well they were prepared. The one and only time I ate them they were poorly prepared and tough, making them thoroughly unenjoyable. I’d sure like to find a chef who knows what he’s doing to find out how they’re really supposed to taste.

    Maybe the same thing can be said for the theater – those films that are poorly made just in order to display explicit, not to mention raunchy and even sometimes gory, sex to a bottom-feeding audience adds nothing to a story line, not to mention good cinematography. I avoid those kinds of movies, not because of any self-righteous sanctimony, but because I do not feel “entertained” and because I often walk around and sleep with rude and unwanted images spinning around in my mind.

    Like

  10. Sean,

    Why do you think Scorsese “believes it and he glamorizes it”? He was adapting a memoir. Do you think he either should not have adapted the story and passed on it, or should have adapted it so as not to be true to its subject matter and undercurrents? You said “I understand it’s part of the story he’s telling” – bingo – so why do you think he’s not just doing that? Does a director choosing a project and filming it well and according to his skills means he must therefore believe and glamorize it? It’s pretty obvious such a mentality about the working man has existed and continues to exist amongst various sectors of society, he’s just reflecting one such sector – would you rather he film it so as to preachily condemn that mentality?

    What other works of Scorsese give you the impression he believes and glamorizes it?

    Like

  11. D.G. – Nate, the Coens don’t have sex.

    I know a guy who went to high school with at least one of these actresses in real life. I should maybe put “actresses” in quotes since I don’t know if they were in anything else.

    Maybe the bottom line question on sex in film is whether or not it is appropriate for Christians to view other people naked at all.

    If not, can we read about sex in a book in which there are no pictures?

    Why or why not on both?

    Like

  12. To further crack open the cans of worms, God has obviously created a lot of beauty in the world — including beautiful women. To what degree can Christian men “take note” of this without sinning — against God and against our own wives.

    Does anything distinguish our piety from that of Islam?

    With that I’ll get back to work.

    Like

  13. Clete, I’ve seen enough of Scorcese and his background, to watch him bounce back and forth between the Italian catholic street mindset(who isn’t familiar with it by now) and his themes of redemption. He likes the interplay and dualities of that particular culture and stories that play into those dynamics. I’ve seen enough to note more than a grudging acknowledgement. but an admiration for those who beat the system and profit, even if to their own moral demise. But, that’s like, my opinion.

    Like

  14. I hate the argument/assumption/rationalization that the only reason to watch a film (or listen to music or look at a painting) is to know what my neighbor is watching to I can better evangelize him/her (unless, of course, said film, etc. explicitly and clearly “points me to Christ” or reaffirms “family values”). In the comment section, I tried to suggest that it is okay to watch a film because you are human and enjoy/respond to art. It didn’t turn out well. Turns out that I’m probably not a Christian.

    Like

  15. Erik, the question of beauty (much like the question of value(hello Robert Prisig Motorcycle Maintenance)) was high school Buddhism discussion.

    Go tiger woods. Grr.

    Like

  16. Andrew,

    Why? Because it has sex and drugs in it and is capturing a snapshot of a history and part of American society? Lots of great film and books have both. Lots of great film and books have violence. As Scorsese has agreed with his priest’s evaluation of Taxi Driver – “Too much Good Friday, not enough Easter Sunday” which he thinks sums up his entire career. Sin, suffering, excess, tragedy is part of the human condition and makes for great drama/conflict. Not to say those are prerequisites for a good movie obviously.

    Sean,
    “admiration for those who beat the system and profit, even if to their own moral demise.”

    What other films of his do you have in mind specifically? If he’s showing moral demise, I don’t know how that can be viewed as him endorsing it or glamorizing it. He could just be showing the lure and temptation of such which is so common to fallen man which speaks to him.

    Like

  17. Cletus, I’ll blog about sex. Until then, you are talking to a human with a presby elder prosiding.

    Staunch 2ker. And I am free to preference and to live and let live.

    Enjoy it, man. Not my cup of tea.

    Like

  18. Personally, if I am going to watch a movie I want a movie that is entertaining. If I wanted to think, I have plenty of books and school work for that; if I am feeling artsy I’ll look at a painting or something.

    If I am going to watch a movie (which I don’t do all that often), then I want the one with the loudest shooting, the biggest explosions, and the most round-house kicks to the head.

    The evangelical’s constant search for justification is tiresome. If people can’t handle the heat, then they can just stay out of my kitchen and keep to their own and we won’t have any problems.

    Of course, if they then doubt my salvation then they are welcome to watch whatever I am watching so we can talk about it, but that seems to defeat the purpose.

    Like

  19. Clete, he could be, but I don’t think so. For some folks, moral demise is just a price like any other price. If the pauper and the prince end up in the same spot in the end, what’s the difference. Like I said, I think he vacillates back and forth, just like he does in regards to his catholicism.

    Like

  20. One of the reasons to watch things, to read things, to listen to things, and to talk to people is to become a more interesting person. This doesn’t just benefit you, it benefits the people who have to interact with you. Christians can be some of the dullest people around and it doesn’t have to be that way.

    Another beef with evangelicalism — evangelicals tend to be some of the blankest slates around when it comes to cultural literacy. I would much rather hang out with a liberal, secular, college humanities professor than an evangelical if I wanted to have an interesting conversation. Just because you love Jesus doesn’t mean you have to go through life as a dullard.

    Like

  21. Erik, good comments. Lately, I’ve been thinking of religion as I do music.

    It enriches my life, I can’t imagine life without it.

    Like

  22. And James wants my thoughts on wolf

    What I joke. My guess – 19 years old. Nothing wrong with that. Just come on people..

    Like

  23. Erik — I am only partly Hungarian and that side of my family has thoroughly Americanized. I doubt that I have ever seen a Hungarian movie and if so I would have been reading the subtitles.

    I agree Evangelicals can be quite dull, but I find liberal humanities profs just as dull and preachy. I would rather hang out with the rednecks at the local sports bar. It is even better if the rednecks at the sports bar also happen to include fellow OPC members.

    Like

  24. Erik,

    Correctumundo. If I was sitting around people all day who only wanted to talk about Fireproof and The Passion and Mark Burnett’s The Bible (oh can’t wait for the theatrical version coming out!) I may shoot myself.

    But Aronofsky is doing Noah. That I might watch.

    Like

  25. Zrim,

    But there’s something to do with nobility. Paul understands that there’s something different with the body and how it’s presented (1 Cor 12:22):

    On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require.

    You don’t go flashing your jewels around because it’s dishonorable to do so, as Jesus says, “don’t throw your jewels before swine”. Certainly there are contexts in which are permissible to show your jewels (e.g., a check-up with the doctor or with your spouse, etc.), but otherwise, you keep ’em covered. If we ought to present ourselves in such a way, shouldn’t we, by extension, view others in the same way?

    Additionally, if it’s permissible to view it, is it wrong for Christian’s to do it? I mean if it’s ok for me to sit in a movie and watch to people having (pretend) sex, then would it be wrong for a Christian to be acting the part?

    Like

  26. “MG, too bad, sweetbreads is great.”

    DGH, I took the afternoon off to give this some more thought and this is what I came up with: I think you will get hits with the google search “sweetbreads marijuana.” And those guys won’t be uptight, so I think you’re in good shape.

    Like

  27. BTW, I watched The Big Kahuna over the weekend and thought it was excellent. I had been under the impression that dialogue was dead.

    While we’re close to the topic, I’m wondering if folks have any recommendation for informal movie nights for a group of adult men from church. I think Elmer Gantry might work. The Big Kahuna might, but there’s a lot of profanity.

    Ideas?

    Like

  28. mikelmann: Anything by Werner Herzog that isn’t Grizzly Man (as great as it is). I would love to hear how a church movie night featuring Herzog goes…”The Enigma of Kasper Hauser,” “Aguirre, the Wrath of God”, “Fitzcarraldo,” “Heart of Glass,” “Cobra Verde,” “Wheel of Time,” “Stroszek”. Have at it.

    Like

  29. Mad Hungarian,

    Why don’t you go to films to think? I understand wanting to be entertained sometimes, sure. But there is nothing inherent in film that makes it any less worthy than painting or writing/reading. Tarkovsky, Bergman, Herzog, Morris, Lumet, Brakhage, Coens, etc..plenty to think about. Don’t be fooled by those who would tell you that Christopher Nolan is the place to go. Or the Wachowskis…

    Like

  30. I will go to films that make me think, but not films that are trying to teach me something. The difference is huge, and it pretty much eliminates any “Christian” film that’s ever been made.

    Like

  31. Nate, ew. But all I’m trying to do over here is work out a theory for a practice. Are you saying you don’t view films that include sex? Ok. But if you do then what’s your justification? Mine is that it’s just a movie and movies are lawful.

    Like

  32. m&m, how highbrow is your group? If not, some oldies might work — like Who Shot Liberty Valence?, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But if these are seasoned movie watchers, how about The Artist, or True Grit (Coens), or The Natural, or Michael Clayton.

    Like

  33. Clete,

    The guy who made “Black Swan” doing “Noah”. Not sure what that’s going to look like at all.

    I admit to kind of liking “Fireproof” as well as the other Kendrick Brothers movies. Corny, but done in a good spirit. I have been trying to buy a “Fireproof” DVD cheap and it’s been tough. People like that film.

    I want to see more Erin Bethea.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2814621/?ref_=tt_cl_t2

    Like

  34. Nate – You don’t go flashing your jewels around because it’s dishonorable to do so, as Jesus says, “don’t throw your jewels before swine”. Certainly there are contexts in which are permissible to show your jewels (e.g., a check-up with the doctor or with your spouse, etc.), but otherwise, you keep ‘em covered. If we ought to present ourselves in such a way, shouldn’t we, by extension, view others in the same way?

    Erik – That may be the most interesting interpretation of that passage that I’ve ever heard.

    Really trying not to visualize it.

    Like

  35. Caleb,

    Great call on Herzog, although people have to be willing to read subititles. Of the ones you listed I’ve only seen “Aguirre” and “Fitzcarraldo”, but they both rock. Also tough to buy cheap. “Aguirre” is kind of a picture of what it’s like trying to maintain a P&R church (ha, ha).

    I need to get the others into my queue.

    Like

  36. Is clete van dumb an olts plant?

    Types ans shadows.

    Give me Coen. Serious, I thought I was the only one who liked Brother.

    These clete guy, I mean, really. Shall we talk the sex scenes in the latest you saw?
    Good grief.

    Like

  37. Andrew,

    “Noah? Might as well rent The Passion, right?”

    No, as Erik said: “The guy who made “Black Swan” doing “Noah”. Not sure what that’s going to look like at all.” Bingo. (Add to that Requiem, Wrestler, Fountain) – not that those are amazing movies but he’s at least an interesting director not doing boring mainstream stuff – that’s why I might give it a shot. But if Gibson ever did a biblical epic, that would be on my radar for sure – too bad his Maccabees project fell through during his meltdown phase.

    Uh, and I never asked to talk about specific sex scenes in movies so I don’t know why you’re pulling a charlie brown. I’ve said there have been many great movies that have sex/drug/violence in them. Obviously there have been many bad movies that use it gratuitously as well.

    And to add to the Coens love, yep – although No Country and Lebowski are my faves from them.

    Like

  38. Glengarry Glen Ross better than Spanish Prisoner imo if you’re a Mamet fan, but yeah if you’re looking for clean, not gonna fly.

    Like

  39. Cletus van Damme is a plant, though I don’t know DG is in on it.

    I say until we can Google him, we don’t expend the energy.

    Unless he’s that Texan monsignor

    Or maybe that’s a fake website too.

    DG of course, proceed, but he smells fishy. Viking, the picked up on it.

    Root him out!

    Like

  40. Clete who are you, and no YouTube. Kenwins we figured out today. Are you and Darryl square, or are you just a troll?

    So far, I got: married, Texas, cradle cat.

    Kids? Age? 31 here.

    Come on. Dont be a coward.

    Like

  41. Do you really want to let it all out about sex at Who’s in charge here??

    I even got Kenwins over there. My mom posted about five comments down. I’m sure she’d love to read what you are asking of me.

    Grow up? Indeed..

    Like

  42. Andrew,

    Adults should be able to discuss sex/violence in art. It’s not a big deal or some dealbreaker. Was Kubrick a hack for making Eyes Wide Shut? Is Paul Thomas Anderson a hack for making Boogie Nights (or even The Master which had sexual undertones underscoring its whole man/animal duality theme)? Of course not. It can be used intelligently and artistically and with purpose, as well as gratuitously and coarsely. Same as many things.

    Like

  43. Glengarry is great. Underappreciated Mamet piece is “Homicide”

    If you want to go deeper, Mamet adapted Chekhov’s play for Andre Gregory’s screenplay for Louis Malle’s “Vanya on 42nd Street.” Confusing enough? Though it may not be so great for a church film night, it is great in general.

    Like

  44. Erik,

    Cobra Verde is uneven but recommended. One of the great endings, like, ever. Kinski unravels.

    The others are equally weird and fascinating. Heck, even Grizzly Man would be good for a film night. It is justly praised. “The White Diamond” is a wonderful little non-fiction film that he made immediately before it.

    I’ve heard of Burden of Dreams but have yet to get to it…I did read Herzog’s “diary” about Fitz though. He’s a better filmmaker than a writer.

    I would recommend the Herzog-Kinski box set; a worthwhile investment. Or move to a big city with a decent public library system…

    Like

  45. ” It can be used intelligently and artistically and with purpose,”

    We may be on opposite sides here

    Like

  46. Look, I was peeping in when on stellmans blog, BC and others were weighing in on the sexual positions to help avoid pregnancy. Sorry Darryl. But look Cletus, your church is lost when it comes to women’s health. Period.

    Every sperm is sacred, yo. Nothing new under the sun.

    Now, what shall I write for my mother to read on my blog? What do you want to know, Cletus van Dam me?

    Like

  47. What’s the Larger Cat. say, Erik?

    Q. 99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?
    A. For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed:

    7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their placesm.
    m Exod.20:10; Lev.19:17; Gen.18:19; Josh.24:15; Deut.6:6,7

    8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to themn; and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden themo.
    n 2 Cor.1:24 o 1 Tim.5:22; Eph.5:11

    Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
    A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides . . . lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage playst; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or othersu.
    t Eph.5:4; Ezek.23:14-16; Isa.23:15-17; Isa.3:16; Mark 6:22; Rom.13:13; 1 Pet.4:3 u 2 Kings 9:30 compared with Jer.4:30 and with Ezek 23:40

    Veith pointed out in Reading Between the Lines, “obscene” means offstage. The Greeks were hardly prudes, but sex and violence on stage destroyed the aesthetic experience, hence they were reported on, not graphically acted out.

    But if films are the lingua franca of the day/prerequisite for evangelism (no mention of the Stupor Bowl or the State of the Union?) all hail the rise of pictures over the printed word.
    Neil Postman call your agent, a Kindle reprint of Amusing Ourselves to Death is in order.

    Like

  48. Erik,I hear you.

    Clete, nows the time to come clean on this. Don’t back down. This is your moment to shine for all us to shine. Explain exactly the sin of the condom. We are waiting your enlightenment.

    As a Boston College sophomore in my 15th year of Catholic education, I am very familiar with the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control despite the fact that 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception. Boston College, for example, continues to prohibit the distribution of condoms or birth control on campus despite the fact that 90 percent of the student body signed a resolution in 2009 to access to sexual health resources on campus. This underscores the huge gap between the views of the Church and Catholic universities and practicing Catholics.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madeline-walsh/catholic-church-birth-control_b_1268688.html

    Like

  49. Caleb – I would recommend the Herzog-Kinski box set; a worthwhile investment. Or move to a big city with a decent public library system…

    Erik – Thanks for the recommendations. My problem with foreign films, and it’s a big one, is they require my undivided attention to read the subtitles. I need to make more time, though. Netflix is a good resource and my university town public library also has a good selection.

    Most of the time I watch something I’m multitasking. If it’s really good I’ll go back and watch it with my wife with no distractions.

    Like

  50. Bob S gets a ding a ling ding (intentional) for bringing up the Greeks. The stuff they did makes Miley look, well, like Miley.

    I’m waiting clete.

    Like

  51. Done, Erik. But when the cats I spend time with try to get me to buy off on abortion, I mean, i don’t get cats, man.

    Sirry, I need sleep. I’m don’t posting. No lie.

    Peace.

    Like

  52. I get what the roman church holds to. Its just that Francis says cats are obsessed on this sex stuff. Cletus proves it.

    Sorry. Done now.

    Like

  53. Thanks, guys. As it turns out, I’ve seen a Herzog documentary about a village in Siberia. Loved it but I’m a Russophile.

    DGH: not high.

    Erik: “Sorry guys, if I go to the movies I’m taking Caleb & Clete.”
    You slut.

    Like

  54. I have no problem of others want to go watch porn. But I’ll never forget that factoid about them.

    Cletus doesn’t have the scarlet a. He’s just undrstood well by Francis. This is exactly where this convo needs to be.

    Eating popcorn. I want to hear the defense. A non answer is quite telling, you know.

    Like

  55. Zrim,

    Apparently talking about ones jewels elicits more aversion than showing them (sorry, Erik. The visual can’t be as bad as the one given by all those movies though. Zing!). I’m baffled over here…

    Pretty much no sex or nudity if sexualized. It’s a tough one when you have a PG movie like Dead Poets Society. I’m not exact on it but that pretty much my approach. If it’s in the theatre I wait until DVD and FFWD the scenes. I can’t ever think of a movie that a sex scene contributed to the story (could be that I’m watching all the wrong movies). Maybe it’s a holdover from my prudish evengelical upbringing but from where I sit it seems human persons and their bodies get special treatment in the bible regarding sex. I’m not gonna throw stones at my brothers on this issue though.

    I’m not disagreeing over movies being lawful, but our discernment when it comes to explicit sexual content in movies.

    Like

  56. [third second time attempt to post second post. My first amendment rights are being violated. Did I p*ss somebody off?]

    Yo Erik, it’s not all about you know who.
    The first part was, but sometimes we just like, comment in general.
    IOW distinguish.

    I have no problem of others want to go watch porn.

    For some reason this conversation is starting to remind me of my jesuit sophomore geometry teacher’s comments/defence of the jesuit principal and vice principal going to the dirty movies.

    Like

  57. MM, for some reason, I read your comment about movie suggestions, thinking you were asking about a movie for a youth group. Yeah, scratch hunger games and soul surfer.

    as for your men’s night, you’re on your own, but there’s peeps around here who seem to know their stuff

    anyway, as for me, vapor

    been fun, people. take care.

    Like

  58. I’m curious if Mr. Hart believes it is sin for movies where these “performers” are naked before a film crew not their spouse for millions of others also not their spouse is sin? And if not would he be ok with his wife and or children doing it?

    Hello Caleb?

    Like

  59. WORDS, and the ability to speak them are precious and sacred. Regardless of the exact theological implications upon the ordo salutis, confession is made with the mouth unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10) God created by the command of His WORD(Genesis 1:3, Hebrews 11:3 and John 1:2). Jesus Christ is the living WORD of almighty God. (John 1:1-14) Spoken communication is a major component of the Imago Dei whereby we bear His very image. (Genesis 1:3 and 1:27) That is why he commands in Ephesians 4:29 “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Should we intentionally pay God’s money to hear unbelievers thoughtlessly and many times blasphemously speak that which we are commanded never to say ourselves?

    And to anyone who may call legalism here, do please hear the incarnate WORD of God: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:33-37)

    Every careless WORD (ESV). Is the consumption of such “culture” conducive to transformation from the world by the renewing of one’s mind or conformity to it? (Romans 12:1-2) If we are not supposed to blaspheme, take the Lord’s name in vain or let ANY corrupting talk come out of our mouths, then why pray tell would we pay sinners to do it for us?

    Like

  60. NateDogg,

    You’re such a prudish turd. If mighty ducks 2 had nudity, would it have been any less of a masterpsice?? Are we even related?

    Like

  61. Greg, no, I don’t think it’s sinful. Have you been to a museum? Lots of nudity there and the artists weren’t exactly creating images in their minds.

    Would I be okay with my wife doing this? Can’t really say. It would be uncomfortable. But doesn’t Gen. 38 make you uncomfortable? Do you read it to your children?

    Like

  62. Eating shewbread isn’t a sin: we are allowed to eat what we want. Watching something which contains sin in the context of entertainment is a sin. We are not allowed to swear, have sex outside of marriage, cause harm to another. Why is it ok to watch these things as a form of entertainment?

    Like

  63. Nate, ah. Not to go epistemologically self-aware on you, but that is consistent at least. Still, now you sound like my evangies who censor their home movies (seriously, they make machines for this). We don’t believe in censorship in the Z residence, it’s offensive and sophomoric. Either watch the piece as the author intended or don’t, but don’t be a post-modernist about it.

    Like

  64. Alejandro,

    It’s not. One could say they didn’t have movies in Paul’s day. But seriously? The ancient world dealt with the same issues as we do today.

    What is 1 Corinthians 5 say about their church?

    All I know, is that the more things change, the more, they stay the same.

    I’d give you the words of the Larger Catechism, but I’m going to work. You’re in the right here.

    Blogs are a game. Try to enjoy yourself. Don’t be that guy

    emoticon

    Like

  65. no one owns the internet. but we all have fun trying.

    peace, olts. im taking a hammer to my keyboard now there’s someone named muddy who’s issued an order. Thus ends this theater major’s hobby.

    bye

    Like

  66. D.G. – Would I be okay with my wife doing this?

    Erik – Leaving our wives out of it, I would note that most of the time when there is nudity in art (film included) the people being shown are in the prime of life (say 18-40). This is when the body is at its peak of beauty. Not coincidentally this is the age when women are at their peak fertility so it is no surprise that God has engineered them to be the most attractive to a man during these years.

    God has created this beauty and has given us all eyes to see it. Are these things subject to abuse? Absolutely, sin is present always. Do we need to walk around with blindfolds on or dress our women so all we see is their eyes peeking out? No. Even if we did the sin of lust will still find a way to manifest itself.

    There is a healthy perspective on female beauty and there are extreme perspectives that tend toward both license and unhealthy restraint. I would guess that some of those guilty of unhealthy restraint may be the most prone to sexual addiction and porn addiction. Natural desires stay bottled up…until they don’t.

    Like

  67. Alexander, so that would mean eating meat that is cooked during an idolatrous worship service is something forbidden. But that is not Paul’s argument.

    It’s sweetbread — not kosher.

    Like

  68. It seems to me that maturity becomes one of the victims of prohibition. I think I’d rather take a chance on license than resign myself to the oppression of other’s sensibilities.

    Like

  69. Erik Charter
    Leaving our wives out of it,

    But not other people’s wives? Daughters? Sisters? Or the husbands, sons and brothers for that matter?
    It’s ok for them, but leave ours out of it? Can you make me understand the biblically informed mindset from which this duplicitous double standard is spawned please?

    Like

  70. Nate: I can’t ever think of a movie that a sex scene contributed to the story (could be that I’m watching all the wrong movies).

    Caleb: Ingmar Bergman’s “Hour of the Wolf”. Not a sex scene, but nudity that contributes to the art. Also, every 5th painting in the Louvre.

    Like

  71. I’m not going to list them, but I could probably come up with 50 movies in which a sex scene contributed to the story. If I add novels (and even nonfiction) books to the list I could probably come up with 100 if you gave me some time. God invented sex. It’s a big deal and has facilitated the multiple billions of people walking around on the planet.

    Like

  72. Erik Charter
    Greg,
    Any difference between window peeping, looking at someone in public, or watching a film that someone has made of their own volition?

    Of course. The instance where a person has voluntarily offered themselves for sinful purposes and the CHURCH, rather than loving and setting an example for them, instead participates and finances their sin is by far the worst.

    Erik Charter: “I’m not going to list them, but I could probably come up with 50 movies in which a sex scene contributed to the story. If I add novels (and even nonfiction) books to the list I could probably come up with 100 if you gave me some time.”
    But what you will NEVER come up with is a BIBLICAL warrant for anything even accidentally approaching God’s approval of such stories for the church from unbelievers at all. To say nothing of His bride watching them defile themselves AND His covenant in order to produce them. Go ahead. I’ll be waiting

    Erik Charter: “God invented sex. It’s a big deal and has facilitated the multiple billions of people walking around on the planet.”
    That’s right and it is precious and beautiful AND private. God Himself covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve once sin AND shame entered the world through them. It is corrupt degenerate man who attempts to vulgarize His glorious gift by calling “art and entertainment” that which the holy God has declared shameful unless practiced in redeemed love and liberty under His delightful precepts.

    Like

  73. Zrim,

    I’ll take the sophomoric approach for the time being. I get that puts me in a prudish-turd category, but nothing here pushes me over the edge to think otherwise yet.

    Like

  74. Caleb,

    I do distinguish nudity though in art, I’ve tried to use the context of explicit sexual content. There’s clearly a difference between Michelangelo and Playboy. Live-action sex and sexually explicit content, in my mind. I live in a hole, but it’s not that deep.

    Like

  75. Mr. Hart-

    Your point doesn’t stand. It’s not the meat that is the problem, but how it has been consecrated. Meat is indifferent; swearing, lewdness, fornication, violence are not.

    Also, I think we all know that when Paul said all things are lawful he didn’t mean everything conceivable is lawful. Sin is not made lawful just because it’s in a film.

    Like

  76. Erik Charter
    D.G., In the Queue.
    Right now I have “Before Midnight”

    From IMDB for “Before Midnight”
    When a man and a woman first get into their hotel room, they kiss and the woman pulls down the top portion of her dress. We see the man licking her bare breasts and they kiss passionately with the woman straddling the man on a bed. They are interrupted by a phone call; the woman doesn’t put her top back on until about four minutes later, so her bare breasts are visible several times.
    The men here would be ok if this were their wife? How bout their wives attitude if they were the man? That wouldn’t be sin? I’m jist askin. We’re discussing right?

    LANGUAGE?
    About 38 F-words and its derivatives, 26 scatological terms, 26 anatomical terms, and 14 religious exclamations.(read blasphemies)
    Please see my comment at the top of this page linked but he word “LANGUAGE” immediately above. We’re saying then that the Lord would not consider it a violation of His standards of speech if we to speak in this way? OR, again, it’s only sin for them, but not for me to pay them to do it? Blasphemous language? Speech that debases and pollutes his holy one flesh covenant of marriage. What would Machen say Darryl?

    Like

  77. Greg Tiribulus – read enough OL stuff here and you’ll discover how important it is that no one accuses OL’ers of Pietism. This thread is Exhibit A.

    Like

  78. Very good indeed Alexander.
    Alexander
    Mr. Hart-
    Your point doesn’t stand. It’s not the meat that is the problem, but how it has been consecrated. Meat is indifferent; swearing, lewdness, fornication, violence are not.

    Also, I think we all know that when Paul said all things are lawful he didn’t mean everything conceivable is lawful. Sin is not made lawful just because it’s in a film.
    Look folks, I really do NOT mean to be unkind here, but we are presently on a website run by an exceedingly capable man sporting 5 earned degrees and this actually has to be pointed out? Really? Same with Romans 14. Absolutely NO application to this kind of thing whatsoever.

    (I gotta get some stuff done, bbl on and off)

    Like

  79. Petros
    Greg Tiribulus – read enough OL stuff here and you’ll discover how important it is that no one accuses OL’ers of Pietism. This thread is Exhibit A.

    How would you like to be a hip n groovy dood and remind of what OL is please? LOL! I will humbly assert that I do have some considerable theological acumen, but I’ll be a horned toad if OL has not escaped me.😀

    Like

  80. G-T, just so it’s fair, please let us know what TV shows and movies you watch (we might be offended by some), daily caloric intake (with salt, fat, and carb breakdowns), whether you own firearms and what types, whether your smoke alarm batteries are changed yearly, whether you ever break the speed limit or text/talk while driving, and scan and post your tax returns too so we can evaluate your greed quotient and honesty. The law applies to all sorts of areas, doesn’t it? Read all the exposition of the law in the Westminster Larger Catechism — who can stand in that great day?

    Like

  81. Caleb,

    I’ve seen “Bad Lieutenant” (the Cage version, not the original with Keitel). Trying to forget about it. No one plays a man over the edge like Nicholas Cage. See also: “Leaving Las Vegas”.

    Like

  82. I love those blow-by-blow descriptions of sin in books and film. Bring back the Roman Catholic list of forbidden books! They had a good thing going there.

    Stop and think about what a minute-by-minute narrative of our day-to-day lives would look like — our secret thoughts, our anger, our trips to the bathroom, what we do with our wives. That would be pretty titillating, too. It’s real life. Deal with it.

    Like

  83. Chortles weakly asks: “G-T, just so it’s fair, please let us know what TV shows and movies you watch (we might be offended by some),
    I don’t own a TV and I haven’t seen a new movie in years.

    Chortles weakly asks: “daily caloric intake (with salt, fat, and carb breakdowns),”
    LOL, I actually know this, but it’s entirely irrelevant to what’s goin on here.

    Chortles weakly asks: ” whether you own firearms and what types,
    I do and they are legal. Also irrelevant.

    Chortles weakly asks: “whether your smoke alarm batteries are changed yearly,
    The landlord does that

    Chortles weakly asks: “whether you ever break the speed limit”
    I catch myself sometimes.

    Chortles weakly asks: ” or text/talk while driving,”
    Nope. Stupid

    Chortles weakly asks: “and scan and post your tax returns too so we can evaluate your greed quotient and honesty.”
    I’ve made less than 14,000 a year as a laid off, self employed (no choice in Detroit) computer repairman the last 3 . Long story, but I am neither even slightly greedy and am entirely above reproach in my affairs insofar as it depends upon me. If you don’t believe that, that’s like… tough.

    Chortles weakly asks: “The law applies to all sorts of areas, doesn’t it? Read all the exposition of the law in the Westminster Larger Catechism — who can stand in that great day?”
    Here’s what you are missing. There is a young man I know, fairly recent convert, who is at WAR with same sex attraction. He falls sometimes. When he tells me, I see Jesus in his eyes. He HATES his sin. It breaks his heart. He’s ashamed and weary, but he fights in the spirit like a heroic man of God, utterly REFUSING to deny the word, follow the culture and declare good what God has called evil.

    I love him. He is my brother and he can call me at 3 am if need be and I’ll be there. I have one thousand times more respect for him than I ever will for you people attempting to baptize that blasphemous, reprehensible decomposing filth factory in Hollywood.

    Like

  84. Andrew,

    I don’t know why you think I’m “obsessed with this sex stuff and want to go watch porn” just because I can appreciate art that also involves sex. To label directors such as Kubrick, PT Anderson, Lynch, Gaspar Noe, Inarritu, Ang Lee, Haneke (not to mention prior generation ones) as pornographers because they’ve used nudity/sex in their films in order to make statements is absurd. They are not using sex to arouse or excite.

    A benign “fun, popcorn” blockbuster movie like Bay’s Transformers is worse in this regard – he repeatedly and gratuitously objectifies the women in those movies even though there’s no explicit nudity (part of the reason Megan Fox criticized him) – not surprising since he comes from a music video background (although so does Fincher but Fincher’s the real deal and a great director). It’s the same as someone saying “torture porn” movies therefore puts anyone using violence in their movies on the same level. Something like the Hostel/Saw movies are not on the same level as Haneke’s Funny Games or Fight Club or the opening 20 mins of Saving Private Ryan for example.

    Note I am equal opportunity about criticizing gratuitous use of sex in movies – even in arthouse-type flicks. Lars von Trier’s Antichrist for example won’t work without the use of sex, but he did put a gratuitous unnecessary shot in one scene that was probably more for controversy than artistic merit. Just because you’re an “auteur” doesn’t mean you are justified in all your choices automatically.

    And as others were mentioning, if you take this line of thought to non-film art like painting and literature, it becomes even more absurd. I don’t go to the Louvre or read atheist/non-Christian books or go to the movie theater to hear a sermon. I thought you were all about the 2k stuff.

    Like

  85. “I am neither even slightly greedy and am entirely above reproach in my affairs insofar as it depends upon me. If you don’t believe that, that’s like… tough.”

    Wow, congrats on all that. I’m not going to stand too near you because when that Elijah-like whirlwind takes you up into heaven I don’t want to be injured.

    Like

  86. Probably the best argument against extreme pietism is the life of Jesus himself. Spent a lot of time with unsavory characters where they hung out, went to weddings, drank (and made) wine, wasn’t crazy about super-religious, self-righteous Pharisees. Just plain did a lot of inconvenient things that don’t fit the pietist blueprint.

    Like

  87. Erik Charter “Wow, Greg’s on record that seeing an R rated movie is worse than window peeping. Pull the shades”.
    Not even the window peeper himself will try to say that his behavior is acceptable. THAT is what makes your perversion so bad. Trying to justify it IN THE NAME OF JESUS no less!!! Repent. Do it today.

    Erik Charter “Is your version of the Bible “G” rated? How much did you have to cut out?”
    Can we take one really pitiful set of biblically indefensible points at a time please friend? We’ll get there.

    Erik Charter “Stop and think about what a minute-by-minute narrative of our day-to-day lives would look like — our secret thoughts, our anger, our trips to the bathroom, what we do with our wives. That would be pretty titillating, too. It’s real life. Deal with it.”
    When can I show up with a film crew to follow you and your wife around ALL the rooms of your house so we can watch? Where in SCRIPTURE do we find a warrant for a such a thing as watching others people’s sin as a past time LOL!!!. I’ll be waiting on that too.

    Like

  88. Greg: Where in scripture do we find a warrant for such a thing as watching others people’s sin as a pastime time LOL!!!.

    Caleb: Are you saying that the Bible rules out drama?

    Like

  89. I forget the whole premise of this discussion. Was it not that nudity can have a legitimate place in artistic expression? And now, Greg is championing a teetotaling(as regards nudity) perspective as the only acceptable biblical warrant?

    I’m not sure I object so much to the prudence as I do to the explicit mechanism of obedience. Maturity is the underlying biblical principle in sanctification as regards virtue and moral character. And maturity and wisdom are gained not in an environment of militant prohibition but one in where; “all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable”. This is the very principle at play in Col. 2, with Paul’s warning against the false religion of asceticism;

    Col. 2:18-23

    “18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,[d] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

    20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

    Apparently, it matters HOW we add virtue to our faith

    Like

  90. Chortles weakly asks: “Wow, congrats on all that. I’m not going to stand too near you because when that Elijah-like whirlwind takes you up into heaven I don’t want to be injured.”
    There’s nothing special about me Chortles. I’m just a sinful guy who’s been forgiven much and knows it. This is not an argument you made here though. Please try again.

    Erik Charter says “Probably the best argument against extreme pietism is the life of Jesus himself. Spent a lot of time with unsavory characters where they hung out, went to weddings, drank (and made) wine, wasn’t crazy about super-religious, self-righteous Pharisees. Just plain did a lot of inconvenient things that don’t fit the pietist blueprint.”
    HAHA!! Predictable as the day is long.
    From months ago in a debate just like this one:
    “Some presumptuous types may be shocked to learn my views on strong drink. I have been delivered from a servile bondage to alcohol and so for myself I do not drink. Ever. I am not however, nor would I wish to be authorized to bind the conscience of the church where God has not. Contrary to what ANYbody may wish to argue, 1st century Jewish weddings like the one at Cana were a rousing party down good time. Within Godly limits. Limits which this wedding did not exceed or Jesus would not have participated. They drank ALL the available wine and their spotless, sinless Messiah gave them more.SUPERNATURALLY. They also were not daily occurrences either.

    As it is the Word of the Lord I joyously receive that standard for others though I myself may not imbibe. I don’t know if there’s a line one can put on paper to point to and say AHA! THAT’S where drunkenness starts. We all know however when it’s been crossed when we see it. Of course drinking that leads to other sin is itself sinful. Just a word to settle the possible suspicions of some.”

    Show me where Jesus sat down and watched people fornicate, curse and blaspheme and you’ll have an argument. I can show you where we’re commanded to do just the opposite if you’re interested. Even in the Catechism as has been shown already. OOH OOH OOH, but that’s “extreme pietism” right? No sir. This is called “holiness”. We’re called to it as a testimony to a dying corrupt world. I’m sorry this is so foreign to you.

    Erik Charter says “
    “Greg,
    What do you think Hollywood has to do with your friend’s problem?”

    Lord Jesus, please help me with this man. Nothing directly Erik. My point was that even the most horrific struggle with sin is righteous and pleasing to the Lord IF IT’S A STRUGGLE. Do you hear me? My friend refuses to call evil good like you do. I respect that. It’s biblical and my hand will always be there if he needs it. He does not play pathetic, semantic, sophomoric eisegetical games with holy writ in order to convince himself that God approves of his perversion. You do.

    Like

  91. G-Beard, this may be the most audacious web comment I’ve ever seen:

    “I am neither even slightly greedy and am entirely above reproach in my affairs insofar as it depends upon me. If you don’t believe that, that’s like… tough.”

    If you can’t see why this is you may be little — ahem — deficient in the self knowledge department. I’ve only heard or read comments like this from televangelists, perfectionist Wesleyans, and rank pagans. Oh, and self-righteous liberals and deluded fundies. Again, congrats. You’re in great company.

    Like

  92. Job 31:1-2 -“I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? For what portion of God is there from above? and what inheritance of the Almighty from on high?”

    From Matthew Henry’s commentary on Job 31…

    “Now observe here,1. What the resolutions were which, in this matter, he kept to (v. 1): I made a covenant with my eyes, that is, “I watched against the occasions of the sin; why then should I think upon a maid?’’ that is, “by that means, through the grace of God, I kept myself from the very first step towards it.’’ So far was he from wanton dalliances, or any act of lasciviousness, that, (1.) He would not so much as admit a wanton look. He made a covenant with his eyes, made this bargain with them, that he would allow them the pleasure of beholding the light of the sun and the glory of God shining in the visible creation, provided they would never fasten upon any object that might occasion any impure imaginations, much less any impure desires, in his mind; and under this penalty, that, if they did, they must smart for it in penitential tears. Note, Those that would keep their hearts pure must guard their eyes, which are both the outlets and inlets of uncleanness. Hence we read of wanton eyes (Isa. 3:16 ) and eyes full of adultery, 2 Pt. 2:14 . The first sin began in the eye, Gen. 3:6 . What we must not meddle with we must not lust after; and what we must not lust after we must not look at; not the forbidden wealth (Prov. 23:5 ), not the forbidden wine (Prov. 23:31 ), not the forbidden woman, Mt. 5:28 . (2.) He would not so much as allow a wanton thought: “Why then should I think upon a maid with any unchaste fancy or desire towards her?’’ Shame and sense of honour might restrain him from soliciting the chastity of a beautiful virgin, but only grace and the fear of God would restrain him from so much as thinking of it.”

    Like

  93. Caleb quotes me as saying:“Where in scripture do we find a warrant for such a thing as watching others people’s sin as a pastime time LOL!!!.
    And then responds with:
    Are you saying that the Bible rules out drama?”
    CALEB!!!! I was beginning to have my feelings hurt. No holy kiss?!?!?!?!😀
    The bible rules out SIN Caleb. SIN. Chatta’ah. Hamartia. Missing the mark. Lawlessness. That’s where people break the commands of God see? In word thought or deed. And thereby violate and dishonor his name and nature. NO drama wherein the participants must SIN in order for it to be produced will ever be acceptable for His saints to finance and or consume. EH VER. Now did ya see that? If YOU cannot honorably do or say it then YOU CANNOT participate in others doing or saying it. That’s what the catechism says too, because the divines were not in bondage to the world.

    Like

  94. Unbelievable. Here’s the exchange Chortles:

    Chortles weakly asks: “and scan and post your tax returns too so we can evaluate your greed quotient and honesty.”
    I’ve made less than 14,000 a year as a laid off, self employed (no choice in Detroit) computer repairman the last 3 . Long story, but I am neither even slightly greedy and am entirely above reproach in my affairs insofar as it depends upon me. If you don’t believe that, that’s like… tough.

    In my financial affairs, which was the context of that statement, I am above reproach. Would you have me make something up?

    Could I now please prevail upon you sir to actually advance an argument regarding the topic at hand? I’m still waiting for your first syllable. Attacking ME does not help your non existent case.

    Like

  95. Wiggle your ears like good Mousketeers
    We’re gonna present a guest today
    ‘Cause “Tuesday is Guest Star Day”

    Like

  96. Greg,

    Seriously interested. Where do you draw this line. Do you think all classic paintings/sculptures with nudity need to be covered – would you just quickly walk by them in a museum? Is the only type of fiction one should read Christian fiction or fiction that does not deal at all with sexual themes, violence, or sin? I had to read Camus’ the Stranger in high school. I enjoyed it. It is obviously not at all coming from a christian worldview. Should I not have read that? Are authors like Nabokov and a billion others to be avoided due to the subject matter and themes they explore? Do you watch only disney shows and movies? Even cookie-cutter sitcoms on network tv can have sexual innuendo – are they forbidden carte blanche then? Will you not watch (or even read) something like Game of Thrones because of its occasional explicit sexual scenes at all, or would you just fast-forward through those scenes? I’m curious if you think such scenes corrupt the entire piece of art wholesale, or you feel like you can slice and dice to make it acceptable.

    Like

  97. Greg,

    Expound upon how watching a film with a guy drinking a beer and you drinking a beer are the same thing. Expound upon how your friend watching a film with a homosexual character and his committing homosexual acts are the same thing.

    How does you watching someone drink a beer on film tempt you to drink a beer?

    How does your friend watching a homosexual character on film tempt him toward homosexual acts?

    Two more:

    If the guy drinking a beer on film suffers bad consequences from it, how does it impact your answer?

    If the homosexual character in the film suffers bad consequences from his homosexual acts, how does it impact your answer?

    Like

  98. Greg,

    If you have these convictions and standards for yourself I have no beef with that. It’s your right to not watch anything you don’t want to watch.

    What is your church affiliation? If you are a church officer, flesh out how you work out your personal convictions in that role. How do you bring your convictions to bear in the area of church discipline of the people under your care?

    Same question for Nate, Bob, B, and others who have advocated strong “against” positions.

    Include your views of Christian liberty in your answer and whether or not you are currently a church officer.

    Like

  99. DG HART

    I asked: “I’m curious if Mr. Hart believes it is sin to produce movies where these “performers” are naked before a film crew not their spouse for millions of others also not their spouse? And if not would he be ok with his wife and or children doing it?”
    Hart answers: “Greg, no, I don’t think it’s sinful.”
    Lemme make sure I got this. Real people stripping naked in the presence and direction of other real people for the purpose of being viewed by millions of other people, none of these people within the covenant of marriage, on a three story movie screen in true to life full color cinematic realism is not sin to Presbyterians anymore? I jist manna make sure we’re clear here.

    Hart diverts: “Have you been to a museum? Lots of nudity there and the artists weren’t exactly creating images in their minds.”
    Do you folks have a secret club somewhere where you meet and strategize diversionary tactics like this together? I just recently finished a debate with a guy who tried this very thing. He ran away. I just know you won’t do the same. We’ll still get there.

    Hart equivocates: “Would I be okay with my wife doing this? Can’t really say.”
    You can’t really say? Your wife by divine covenant, whom you are commanded by almighty God to love as Christ loves his eternally elect church bride? Your wife with whom your one flesh union is supposed to uniquely model that relationship? Your wife whom you are commissioned to protect and sanctify and cleanse and present to the Lord? You can’t really say? Maybe somebody should tell her that her covenant head “can’t really say” whether he would be ok with her being naked and groped and fondled and kissed by another man on a giant movie screen for all the public to see. I wonder how loved and protected she would feel?

    I wonder how impressed she would be with his proclamation that the apostle has pre-approved such things by declaring them “lawful” in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23? A grotesque mangling of those texts btw. Romans 14 is another favorite target of this kinda butchery.

    Hart says: “It would be uncomfortable.”
    Uncomfortable? Well bless God, that’s better than nothing I guess.

    Hart says: “But doesn’t Gen. 38 make you uncomfortable?”
    Genesis 38 is the theopneustos word of the living God recorded in non visual literary form Darryl. I’m almost afraid of what kinda answer I may get from someone like you, but are you saying that reading these things in the scriptures is no different than paying pagans to put real people depicting them on a movie screen? Really? Can we look forward then to you playing Onan? How bout your wife costarring with George Clooney as Tamar?

    Hart asks: “Do you read it to your children?”
    Of course. It is the word of God. When they’re very young it goes right over their head and when they are a bit older it, like all of scripture, is a magnificent opportunity for teaching. FROM the word of God BY a man of God.

    Like

  100. Erik, whats the beef? Why do you need my credentials? My whole point was there is a difference between eating sweetbread and watching (pretend) sex. I think it’s warranted from scripture.

    There’s nothing wrong with body parts and looking at them, it’s just that there’s contexts that are appropriate and inappropriate, and I’m not in the camp that thinks watching other people have (pretend) sex is appropriate.

    Like

  101. Alexander, actually, Paul says it’s okay to eat meat that has been consecrated idolatrously.

    We still use language — even the same words — after someone takes God’s name in vain.

    We still have sex — even the same act — after someone fornicates.

    We still discipline children — even hitting them — after a hockey player gets a five minute penalty.

    Your point?

    Like

  102. [Second try. My comments ahem, seem to be moderated. Must be something I said.
    First they came for Tommy.
    Then…]

    Erik, you don’t like the LC’s take on the 7th.
    Enough said.
    But it’s the first time I’ve heard it insinuated that the West. divines were pietists.
    So Petros has his place in all this, as well as ‘get rid of the capslock’ Greg.
    And nobody quarrels about eating meat, kosher or no, barring cannibalism.
    (OK OK, you’re on a deserted desert island reality show and there is no other way for you to hold out until the Grammies. . . .)

    Rather the question seems to be, how lawful/edifying is it for purposes of entertainment – if not vain and idle amusements, the older term for the same as opposed to lawful recreation – to watch actual sin, the re-enactment of sin or even participate in those re-enactments.

    Likewise nobody is arguing against nudity per se.
    One of the things that supposedly led up to JEdward’s estrangement from his congregation was how he handled the issue of a handbook for midwives that was making the prurient rounds among some, but not all, of the young men in the congregation.

    Or maybe to put it another way, because to the pure all things are pure, is not an argument for porn is it? R rated movies? Peeping tomism (sorry Tom, I will say no more)?

    Like

  103. Greg,

    You evade questions too. Or fail to understand how they are related to your comments.

    Just so I’m clear. Drama is okay if no one doing the drama actually sins, even if they depict sin? So its okay to pretend to shoot someone because the actor is not actually shooting someone? But in the case of sex on screen (if the actors are actually naked, which they often aren’t), it is wrong because they are naked in front of other people? Or are you saying that even the act of depicting sin – for example, pretending to shoot someone or pretending to lie because that’s what the script calls for – is also wrong?

    Like

  104. Bub Ess: ..nobody is arguing against nudity per se.

    Caleb: I think that Greg might be. But it is hard to tell.

    Also, I would think that if you’re going to have a problem with the depiction/reenactment, whatever, of sin, then you have to stop watching violence, lying, etc. You probably shouldn’t watch a true crime show either, if they do a reenactment of the moment leading up to the crime.

    And hey, why the slander (“entertainment”)? Some of the stuff being discussed here is more than that, surely.

    Like

  105. Erik, the same way voting for someone who advocates for abortion rights is the same as having or providing an abortion. Duh.

    Like

  106. G-T, “Genesis 38 is the theopneustos word of the living God recorded in non visual literary form Darryl. I’m almost afraid of what kinda answer I may get from someone like you, but are you saying that reading these things in the scriptures is no different than paying pagans to put real people depicting them on a movie screen? Really? Can we look forward then to you playing Onan? How bout your wife costarring with George Clooney as Tamar?”

    Me sounding like G-T: Do you have a secret club somewhere where you meet and strategize diversionary tactics like this? I just recently finished a debate with a guy who tried this very thing. He ran away. I just know you won’t do the same. We’ll still get there.

    I’d still like an answer on the museum thing. It would help me know how serious you are. If you do believe that nude art is a problem — and I can imagine a plausible argument for that — shouldn’t you be parading out in front of the Detroit Museum?

    And how exactly do you teach Gen. 38? Don’t be like Judah? And what do you say to adolescents who ask, “why is Jesus in the line of Judah?” “Shouldn’t he have come from another tribe?”

    Like

  107. I”m quite looking forward to Greg coming on for a few hours each day and giving us all this food for thought in our Daily Walk.

    Hope he can keep this going through the end of March.

    Like

  108. Bub Ess – Rather the question seems to be, how lawful/edifying is it for purposes of entertainment – if not vain and idle amusements, the older term for the same as opposed to lawful recreation – to watch actual sin, the re-enactment of sin or even participate in those re-enactments.

    Erik – If a Christian pursues a Ph.D. in film, in literature, or in theater and watches R rated movies as part of that training, is that for the purpose of entertainment or idle amusement? If they are working as a film critic or literary critic?

    Like

  109. Terriblus, you axed for it. You came in condemning then asserted sinlessness. Good luck living that down. You took the bait and put on a first-class display of the folly of legalistic listmaking and gazing at the navels of others — which is pretty creepy as you’ve proven.

    Like

  110. Amen, Chortles, amen.

    Greg, oh friend, today is the day of repentance and salvation, do not turn aside while you (and I) still have time.

    Like

  111. Greg – keep fighting the good fight here, man. May a remnant here embrace your and Alexander’s wisdom on the topic.

    Hard to believe, but you’ll find that some of the guys here will warn you about the injurious impact upon the church of hymns written by Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley, but think nothing of arguing for the legitimacy of indulging their anything-goes prurient entertainment interests. IOW, wisdom/discernment is in short supply here. Some of them proudly claim to be officers in their church, too, with alleged responsibilities to discipline other church members.

    They are highly trained/skilled in diversionary tactics, to be sure. And, they’re pretty talented at clever ad hom attacks, too. They have safety in their numbers, so just plan to be a voice in the wildnerness here.

    I want to believe there’s another Presby/Reformed world out there, beyond what’s represented at this site. One can hope……..

    Like

  112. I’ve not had the thrill of a “regular” attacking Watts and Wesley’s hymns on here.

    I few crackpots may have, but they huff and puff and implode after a few days…

    Oh what fun it is to ride in a one-horse open sleigh, yo

    Like

  113. And hey, why the slander (“entertainment”)? Some of the stuff being discussed here is more than that, surely.

    Because historically that’s how they were referred to, though obviously times have changed. But we’re not anabaptists so an acknowledgement of history is still in order; maybe just in case there are those who don’t know the history.

    If a Christian pursues a Ph.D. in film, in literature, or in theater and watches R rated movies as part of that training, is that for the purpose of entertainment or idle amusement? If they are working as a film critic or literary critic?

    Dunno Erik. What do you think?
    Like duh. It’s obviously not entertainment, but then that all things are lawful, does not mean all things are expedient/edifying.
    What would you say to a Christian who wanted to pursue a Ph.D in Rosaria Butterfield’s field (Queer Theory) before she was converted? Would that be lawful? Guess so. Would it be entertaining? Let me go out on a limb here and say I wouldn’t think so. But hey, that’s just my private judgement paradigm.

    [cant post as Bob so bub will have to do]

    Like

  114. Geez louise, didn’t know it was National Pharisee Coming Out day at OL. Wow, when does Sowers show up? Darryl, you should just double down and post a youtube clip of Brokeback Mountain with Clockwork Orange spliced in, at this point. I have to go plant upside down crosses in my yard and get ready for 3:00 a.m.

    Like

  115. Erik Charter quotes me as saying
    “Where in SCRIPTURE do we find a warrant for a such a thing as watching others people’s sin as a past time LOL!!!.”
    And then answers with
    Greg Sowers?
    I honestly have no idea what this means.

    Cletus van Damme: “Greg,
    Seriously interested. Where do you draw this line.

    If there was any sin committed in it’s production, then it is sin in every case to participate. We’re talkin about visual media entertainment here. Not unsaved farmers or auto manufacturers or other unbelievers who’s life is sin by definition. It is not sin to grow corn or make cars or cut hair or sell Avon.. It IS sin to be naked with somebody of the opposite sex not you spouse save only for such things as medical emergencies or related inescapable life circumstances. Then a higher principle and appropriate grace is granted?

    Cletus van Damme asks: “Do you think all classic paintings/sculptures with nudity need to be covered – would you just quickly walk by them in a museum? “
    Certainly if a real person was modeled it was sin to produce and hence sin to consume. Even if it wasn’t a real person, marriage, sex, and nudity in scripture are guarded and precious. Nudity and sex outside of God’s generous prescription is shameful throughout the scriptures. The idea of artistic nudity or sex is entirely foreign to the biblical witness and was uniformly denounced by the early church. Dr. Hart’s theological and spiritual progenitors would weep bitterly if they knew what he was doing with what they left him. Execution might have been possible in Calvin’s Geneva.

    We’re not talking about literature now, but if it was sin to write then it is sin to read.

    Cletus van Damme asks: ” Do you watch only disney shows and movies? “
    The thing that disturbs me about questions like this is the underlying almost epistemological assumption that SOMETHING must be watched at all costs. I don’t believe that moving picture technology is evil in itself, but does it not disturb you just a little that simply NOT watching ANYthing is so unthinkable?

    Cletus van Damme asks: ” Even cookie-cutter sitcoms on network tv can have sexual innuendo – are they forbidden carte blanche then?
    I do NOT find anything comical about the denigration and debasement of God’s most ancient and foundational human institution of one flesh marriage. Frankly it is heartbreaking that anyone calling themselves by His name should have to be told that.

    Cletus van Damme asks: ” Will you not watch (or even read) something like Game of Thrones because of its occasional explicit sexual scenes at all, or would you just fast-forward through those scenes? I’m curious if you think such scenes corrupt the entire piece of art wholesale, or you feel like you can slice and dice to make it acceptable.”
    I would submit to having my eyes gouged out with a hot poker before subjecting them to anything as degenerate and utterly perverse as Game of Thrones. If there is ANY sin in it’s production I do NOT go near it. Sin nailed my beautiful Jesus to that cross. I avoid it like the literal plague it is and fight it when I can’t . When I fall I run into His arms in sorrow for having dishonored Him. He is faithful and just indeed. Worldly amusements (as Spurgeon called them) are a completely NON essential distraction at very best even when NOT sinfully produced. We have exalted them above God Himself and spend one thousand times more time and money on them we do in is word or prayer. I challenge you to honestly deny that. Do you spend more time in your prayer closet with your bible and the pursuit of other means or ministries of grace? Or watching TV? Be honest. We didn’t have electricity until the last hundred years. What DID the church with all that time?

    Like

  116. Erik,

    I’m no officer, nor ever claimed it, so (at least thus far) I don’t worry about that. For the sake of engaging your question, I don’t consider watching a movie like Wolf of Wall Street sin per se (one of my closest friends had quite interesting thoughts on the movie itself) so I’m not calling anybody out here telling them to repent in sackcloth & ashes. Of course “anything that does not proceed from faith is sin” but I’m no discerner of hearts.

    I am saying that as a matter of wisdom I don’t think it’s beneficial to watch movies with these kinds of acts. I also don’t think it’s beneficial to drive 95mph on the freeway but that doesn’t mean I’m going to walk around with Thor’s hammer and smash everyone who violates what I set for my personal conviction (Contra some of the current commentators). I’ll just curse at them as I’m driving down the freeway.

    I think it’s inconsistent for Darryl to affirm eating bread is the same as watching (pretend) sex. It’s a comm box after all (which I must say, the most entertaining one at that).

    I may be the person who says “do not taste, do not touch” in this situation, but I think I have enough grasp on biblical freedom to understand that this is an issue that Christians can and do differ on, and there’s freedom to do so. I don’t look down on my brothers (except for Jed, of course. I wouldn’t smoke or drink today if it weren’t for him. I blame him for all my questionable activities) for their choices on movies. Of course some people can handle content and subjects that others can’t, I’m aware of that. I just don’t think it’s a wise decision personally.

    Like

  117. Kent, ye ill-informed soul, ye. Chortles (with Erik’s approval, supported by DGH’s scholarship) will explain to you that evangelicalism is bad because it’s connected to revivalism. Revivalism is bad because of Geo Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, who created an environment that had a negative impact on church worship. Citing DGH, the “best example of this is the phenomenon of hymns…. written expressly for revivalistic purposes by the likes of Watts and Wesley (Charles, that is).”

    In the context of this particular thread, it’s becoming clearer and clearer why OL’ers have a vested personal interest in attacking revivalism and pietism.

    Yo’ Greg – preach it, brother!

    Like

  118. Petros, I avoid all TV and nearly all vision driven entertainment because it is boring and a total waste of my time and $$$. While I realize I am missing out on a lot of viewing of sinful behaviour, I will never crow or boast about this decision to forsake this benefit.

    And I went through 3 decades of Evangelicalism, so I could argue you back to the Stone Ages about what it consists of.

    Like

  119. Petros; “In the context of this particular thread, it’s becoming clearer and clearer why OL’ers have a vested personal interest in attacking revivalism and pietism.”

    sean: Oh pray, do tell. For me, I just want my porn and witchcraft and gay friends. I don’t know what everyone else has at stake. Though I have my suspicions, just like you. “If she floats burn her” Leave it to Monty Python to connect the dots

    Like

  120. Greg,

    “I don’t believe that moving picture technology is evil in itself, but does it not disturb you just a little that simply NOT watching ANYthing is so unthinkable?”

    Not at all. I barely watch television myself – just some cable series here and there. I do like to read though – and I read fiction that occasionally deals with themes/subject matter you consider a corruption on one’s soul.

    “I do NOT find anything comical about the denigration and debasement of God’s most ancient and foundational human institution of one flesh marriage. Frankly it is heartbreaking that anyone calling themselves by His name should have to be told that.”

    I do not find anything comical about network sitcoms because they’re not really that funny.

    “I would submit to having my eyes gouged out with a hot poker before subjecting them to anything as degenerate and utterly perverse as Game of Thrones.”

    It’s a good show. Sex is a bit gratuitous at times though I’ll grant. I’m down with some wholesome pg shows as well though, don’t get me wrong – they just usually aren’t very good, just like a lot of ma shows aren’t that great either.

    “If there is ANY sin in it’s production I do NOT go near it.”

    Interesting. Do you apply this thinking to products you buy? Do you exhaustively research every company you buy from to make sure they aren’t engaging in sinful practices or supporting sinful organizations/investments in order to make money and produce products for your to consume? What about movies/shows you do end up watching – do you research the studios and every person involved in production to make sure they reach your standards?

    “We didn’t have electricity until the last hundred years. What DID the church with all that time?”

    No, we didn’t. But we did have books. We did have paintings and sculptures. We did have theater. Electricity didn’t change the issue you’re presenting.

    Like

  121. sean: Oh pray, do tell. For me, I just want my porn and witchcraft and gay friends. I don’t know what everyone else has at stake. Though I have my suspicions, just like you. “If she floats burn her” Leave it to Monty Python to connect the dots

    Very good. While I do not participate in those things I know that I am the worst sinner that I have met and need Christ as much as they do. Probably more so because I have been exposed to special revelation and have no excuses.

    Like

  122. Erik Charter says:
    “Greg,
    Expound upon how watching a film with a guy drinking a beer and you drinking a beer are the same thing.”

    Expound upon how I never came so much as within a light year of saying such a thing. Drinking is NOT sinful. I said so on the last page. I have been juggling 4 or 5 of you guys all day. Is it too much to ask that you keep up with just me please.

    Erik Charter says “Expound upon how your friend watching a film with a homosexual character and his committing homosexual acts are the same thing.
    Homosexuality is damnable sin and watching men kiss like is in some of these movies is degrading perversion. However, I have never said that WATCHING is the same as DOING. I have said they are both sin. The financing and support of ANYthing the production of which was sinful, is itself sinful. It is the aiding and abetting of that which God hates. Unless somebody is ready to participate themselves or have their wives or children do so, it is ALSO HYPOCRISY. If, GOD FORBID, they WOULD approve the participation of themselves or their wives or children, then they are direct participants in that sin. Dr. Hart’s not so sure his wife shouldn’t do that. He told us so.

    We haven’t even touched upon the truly idiotic proposition that a man can watch this crap without being sexually affected. You’re lying to yourself and even the secular science reluctantly bears it out. Your sexual self has no idea that this is Game of Thrones and not Deep Throat.

    How does you watching someone drink a beer on film tempt you to drink a beer?
    Nuthin wrong with beer, and I fix computers in restaurants full of it and all kinds of drink. I can smell it. Strong. I thank God both for the blessing of others who are able to enjoy it and His having delivered me so that it is literally NO temptation to me whatsoever. I mean it. None. Though I’ve been saved since 1984, March will be 8 years since I’ve tasted alcohol. I don’t love it or hate it. It’s simply not part of my life anymore.

    Erik Charter says: “How does your friend watching a homosexual character on film tempt him toward homosexual acts?”
    I don’t remember us ever having that specific conversation, but he doesn’t have a TV either and I would be shocked if he went to see homosexual movies if he goes at all. He knows how foolish it is to pray to not to be led into temptation and then walk right into it yourself.

    Erik Charter says: “Two more:

    If the guy drinking a beer on film suffers bad consequences from it, how does it impact your answer?
    If the homosexual character in the film suffers bad consequences from his homosexual acts, how does it impact your answer?”

    This is one the biggest most beguiling lies of all. My conscience is captive to and molded by the living Word of God in my heart bearing witness to the inscipturated written Word of God in my hand. Not some God hating pagan movie maker. The message plays NO part whatsoever in the sinfulness of it’s consumption. Only whether it was sin to produce. Can you imagine Paul saying to Timothy: “Timothy my son, I’ll be by to gather you tonight so we can go watch the prostitution and idol worship at he Temple of Diana. There are some valuable lessons you can learn by calling ALL things lawful and observing these godless heathen. And then we’ll watch some more because it’s just plain entertaining”.

    Or how bout Jeremiah? “Thus says the Lord your God!!!! Say to my people Israel, that they shall go to the high places of the nations and find amusement and learning by watching the whoredoms and revelry of their Gods!!”
    Oh wait, the Jews were already under judgement for doing that and being lured into their sick, seductive debauchery. Just like Hollywood.

    Like

  123. Petros pokes around acting like an inquirer when it was just a lil’ ammo gathering for his 2k target practice. But deception is OK if it’s to find someone else’s sin to play up. Yup, I’ve seen *that* movie before. And you’ve played that role before.

    Like

  124. Hart says: “I’d still like an answer on the museum thing. It would help me know how serious you are. If you do believe that nude art is a problem — and I can imagine a plausible argument for that — shouldn’t you be parading out in front of the Detroit Museum? “
    1st Corinthians 5 tells me that the world is God’s problem. My problem is faithfully proclaiming His truth, and seeing that as many, especially young people as the Lord would be pleased to move upon, are either not taken in or retrieved from pied pipers of perversion like apparently overpopulate this site.

    Hart asks: “And how exactly do you teach Gen. 38? Don’t be like Judah? And what do you say to adolescents who ask, “why is Jesus in the line of Judah?” “Shouldn’t he have come from another tribe?”
    Is this actually a serious question? I could spend six months teaching out of Genesis 38. Would you like me to name some lessons. We have a whole range like, sin, death, immorality disobedience, judgement, selfishness, self will foolish company on and on and on I could go. Even just lessons about sex. And it’s misuse. I am NO prude. The sooner children are taught God’s blessing of covenant, romantic love, sex, reproduction, responsibility in all of these and God’s morality the better. I sure hope I get to em before you do.

    Now, could you actually answer these questions please?
    Erik Charter
    D.G., In the Queue.
    Right now I have “Before Midnight”

    From IMDB for “Before Midnight”
    When a man and a woman first get into their hotel room, they kiss and the woman pulls down the top portion of her dress. We see the man licking her bare breasts and they kiss passionately with the woman straddling the man on a bed. They are interrupted by a phone call; the woman doesn’t put her top back on until about four minutes later, so her bare breasts are visible several times.
    The men here would be ok if this were their wife? How bout their wives attitude if you were the man? That wouldn’t be sin? I’m jist askin. We’re discussing right?

    About 38 F-words and its derivatives, 26 scatological terms, 26 anatomical terms, and 14 religious exclamations.(read blasphemies)
    Please see my comment on WORDS immediately above. We’re saying then that the Lord would not consider it a violation of His standards of speech if we were to speak in this way? OR, again, it’s only sin for them, but not for me to pay them to do it? Blasphemous language? Speech that debases and pollutes his holy one flesh covenant of marriage. What would Machen say Darryl?

    Like

  125. Cletus it appears I wasted my time on you. I doubt I’ll be doing it again. Unless somebody else can benefit. You didn’t even read what I said to you. You will NEVER have this problem with me. I WILL read what somebody says very carefully before responding.

    Like

  126. Nate – I’m no officer, nor ever claimed it, so (at least thus far) I don’t worry about that

    Erik – You & your bro are officer material so you should think about these things. How do your personal convictions relate to how you will deal with others on issues of Christian liberty? Some of these dudes here probably rarely shower or leave mom’s basement so they don’t have to consider these things, but I imagine you & Jed clean up nice.

    Like

  127. Nate, so what is the difference between watching a movie that has sex scenes and eating meat (not bread) offered to idols (except that Paul mentions one and not the other)?

    Like

  128. “Erik Charter
    Greg – but he doesn’t have a TV either

    Erik – So what is leading him back into sin? Where is the temptation coming from?

    Look man. Don’t try n play Socratic games with me. See chapter VI of the confession. Sin predates television by millenia. Modern visual media just make it easier for the enemy to inflame and harden it. You’re a living breathing typing object lesson. Thanks. I’ve had no shortage of reminders today.

    Like

  129. Revived Pete, you have an open mike at the OL karaoke bar to defend pietism and revivalism all you want. So far the best you can do is get huffy that anyone — ANYONE! — would dare raise a voice against a Barely Good Awakening (downgraded for effect).

    Like

  130. Greg,

    Tell me about the circles you move around in. What types of people are your friends? Can you have conversations with people who are different from you in upbringing, income level, education, religion, etc.?

    How forceful are you with someone who is not a Christian about the Law of God when you first meet them? How do they respond?

    I’m not baiting you. These are sincere questions.

    Like

  131. Greg, “The sooner children are taught God’s blessing of covenant, romantic love, sex, reproduction, responsibility in all of these and God’s morality the better. I sure hope I get to em before you do.”

    You may want to rephrase that. Never know who’s reading. OL is not a password protected site.

    Like

  132. Greg,

    The point of some of my questions is to try to ascertain where sin comes from and where it does not.

    I’ve been married to the same woman for over 20 years and have been faithful. I can say with complete honesty that I have sinned far more against people as a result of playing basketball than watching movies. Most people would probably say sports are wholesome.

    I think our sins come from within us — we want things and can’t have them — more than from outside us. I think there’s a common misperception that if we avoid A, B, & C sin will leave us alone. The problem isn’t primarily A, B, & C, though, it’s us, and we’re not going away.

    Several people have asked you about yourself today and you’ve given pretty self-righteous answers. You’ve also appeared to be quite angry, impatient, and sarcastic. Where do those sins come from? You’re not entitled to conduct yourself like that, are you?

    Like

  133. Greg,

    Sorry you feel that way but you’re an interesting chap to say the least. So I am curious as to your reply to what I asked earlier which I’m editing a bit:

    “If there is ANY sin in it’s production I do NOT go near it.”

    Interesting. Do you apply this thinking to products/services you buy? Do you exhaustively research every company you buy from to make sure they aren’t engaging in sinful practices or supporting sinful organizations/investments in order to make money and produce products/services for your to consume? What about movies/shows you do end up watching – do you research the studios and every person involved in production to make sure they reach your standards? You’re a computer repair tech – do you make sure the people you take money from (both your customers as well as your bosses/employer) meet your standards? If not, what if their sinful behavior is helping them make money they can pay your services with? Do you want to be tainted with sin money?

    It just seems if your mentality is taken consistently, it either leads to paralysis or living out in the woods and hunting your own food and making your own shelter and clothes.

    Like

  134. Clete – It just seems if your mentality is taken consistently, it either leads to paralysis or living out in the woods and hunting your own food and making your own shelter and clothes.

    Erik – Actually sounds like Detroit.

    Like

  135. Erik Charter
    Greg,
    Are you married?

    Yes. 23 years in a few weeks.

    ” D. G. Hart
    Nate, so what is the difference between watching a movie that has sex scenes and eating meat (not bread) offered to idols (except that Paul mentions one and not the other)?

    Careful Nate. That’s a trap. There is no way that a man of Dr. Hart’s towering erudition can intend this as a serious question. At least I hope not, but ya never do know for sure nowadays. Boy wadda let down that would be.

    Erik Charter
    Greg – You’re a living breathing typing object lesson
    Erik – What does the Bible say about anger & cursing others?

    HAHA!! Did you just say anger? LOL! I haven’t had this much fun in weeks LOL! I have a sort of research accountability partner whose been watching all day. If anything I need to watch my heart for being too jovial over all this depravity, but it’s been sincerely enjoyable. My walk with the Lord and ministry gifts were improved today. I’m gonna sleep like a baby.

    Like

  136. What does eating Sweetbreads have to do with watching explicit scenes in movies?

    But as for sex on the screen, I won’t watch anything that is too steamy. Last night I watched Blue Jasmine and forwarded through discussions about how “good the sex was” or whatever. It made me uncomfortable because it makes the relationship primarily about sex. I won’t watch gruesome violence either. I was seriously anxious and sick in The Green Mile when the bodies of those children were found. I tried watching “Grimm” and the way that people are destroyed really disturbed me. Any film theme that under values a person, I can’t tolerate. I wasnt always so sensitive, but I’m actually glad that I am now

    Like

  137. Hart quotes me as saying:
    “The sooner children are taught God’s blessing of covenant, romantic love, sex, reproduction, responsibility in all of these and God’s morality the better. I sure hope I get to em before you do.”
    and then responds with:
    You may want to rephrase that. Never know who’s reading. OL is not a password protected site.

    Is this really what I can expect outta you? Clearly, to anybody with Dr, Seuss level reading skills I am saying that somebody (generically represented as myself ) instill a sound biblical morality in children before the modernist libertines (represented generically by you) can infect them.
    I refuse to believe you didn’t know that.
    ===============================================================
    Can we try this again please?
    Hart says: “I’d still like an answer on the museum thing. It would help me know how serious you are. If you do believe that nude art is a problem — and I can imagine a plausible argument for that — shouldn’t you be parading out in front of the Detroit Museum? “
    1st Corinthians 5 tells me that the world is God’s problem. My problem is faithfully proclaiming His truth, and seeing that as many, especially young people as the Lord would be pleased to move upon, are either not taken in or retrieved from pied pipers of perversion like apparently overpopulate this site.

    Hart asks: “And how exactly do you teach Gen. 38? Don’t be like Judah? And what do you say to adolescents who ask, “why is Jesus in the line of Judah?” “Shouldn’t he have come from another tribe?”
    Is this actually a serious question? I could spend six months teaching out of Genesis 38. Would you like me to name some lessons. We have a whole range like, sin, death, immorality disobedience, judgement, selfishness, self will foolish company on and on and on I could go. Even just lessons about sex. And it’s misuse. I am NO prude. The sooner children are taught God’s blessing of covenant, romantic love, sex, reproduction, responsibility in all of these and God’s morality the better. I sure hope I get to em before you do.

    Now, could you actually answer these questions please?
    Erik Charter
    D.G., In the Queue.
    Right now I have “Before Midnight”

    From IMDB for “Before Midnight”
    When a man and a woman first get into their hotel room, they kiss and the woman pulls down the top portion of her dress. We see the man licking her bare breasts and they kiss passionately with the woman straddling the man on a bed. They are interrupted by a phone call; the woman doesn’t put her top back on until about four minutes later, so her bare breasts are visible several times.
    The men here would be ok if this were their wife? How bout their wives attitude if you were the man? That wouldn’t be sin? I’m jist askin. We’re discussing right?

    About 38 F-words and its derivatives, 26 scatological terms, 26 anatomical terms, and 14 religious exclamations.(read blasphemies)
    Please see my comment on WORDS immediately above. We’re saying then that the Lord would not consider it a violation of His standards of speech if we were to speak in this way? OR, again, it’s only sin for them, but not for me to pay them to do it? Blasphemous language? Speech that debases and pollutes his holy one flesh covenant of marriage. What would Machen say Darryl?

    Like

  138. Bub Hess,

    Certainly one genealogy of cinema goes back to nickelodeon type entertainment. But it also has roots in medicine, ethnography, documentary, and very early on serious drama and art. Some of those early silent films are pretty far out and complex.

    Like

  139. Greg – If anything I need to watch my heart for being too jovial over all this depravity, but it’s been sincerely enjoyable.

    Erik – Why would you be jovial over depravity?

    Like

  140. Greg – I have a sort of research accountability partner whose been watching all day

    Erik – What do you need an accountability partner for? What sins are you prone to?

    Like

  141. Greg – When a man and a woman first get into their hotel room, they kiss and the woman pulls down the top portion of her dress. We see the man licking her bare breasts and they kiss passionately with the woman straddling the man on a bed. They are interrupted by a phone call; the woman doesn’t put her top back on until about four minutes later, so her bare breasts are visible several times.

    Erik – So far I’ll I’ve seen is people talking in a car and people sitting around a table eating a meal so I guess the juicy parts are still in front of me.

    If those people kept that behavior up they just might make a baby like apparently billions of other people in the world have done.

    If it’s who I think it is they are playing a married couple. Sounds like that covenantal marriage thing you keep touting.

    Like

  142. Susan,

    I have not seen Blue Jasmine yet, though I hope to soon because I enjoy most of Allen’s output. I cannot understand why dialogue between two characters that makes their relationship “all about sex” requires skipping. The scene is not telling you that all relationships are all about sex or that they should be. Knowing Allen, (and the basic plot of the film), the relationship depicted might be all about sex, which is a problem in the arc of the story or a deficiency of those characters. Or there could be a comment about the inability of the characters to experience their relationships in any terms other than sex. A lot of Allen’s best films do just that…he just doesn’t have a chorus come out and tell you that (well, he did that once in Might Aphrodite).

    I’m not saying this about you directly, but I think that a big part of the problem is that a lot of Christians do not know what to do with drama or film and so they condemn it or skip over it. They don’t know how to read it, nor do they understand its language. They think that the depiction of behavior condones the behavior. Christian filmmakers understand this, so the stuff that they make is totally flat and devoid of complexity or reality. As a result, we miss out on some very rich art.

    Like

  143. From the previous page Cletus
    Cletus van Damme: “Greg,
    Seriously interested. Where do you draw this line.

    If there was any sin committed in it’s production, then it is sin in every case to participate. We’re talkin about visual media entertainment here. Not unsaved farmers or auto manufacturers or other unbelievers who’s life is sin by definition. It is not sin to grow corn or make cars or cut hair or sell Avon.. It IS sin to be naked with somebody of the opposite sex not you spouse save only for such things as medical emergencies or related inescapable life circumstances. Then a higher principle and appropriate grace is granted?

    Erik Charter quotes me as saying:
    If anything I need to watch my heart for being too jovial over all this depravity, but it’s been sincerely enjoyable.
    and then responds with
    Erik – Why would you be jovial over depravity?

    Poor phraseology on my part. I apologize. Nobody’s actually jovial over depravity itself Erik. It’s occasional joviality in the midst of conversation regarding depravity.

    Like

  144. Tiribulus, how many times have you gone to blogs or facebook and talked about nudity or sex? It doesn’t happen much here but it seems like you’ve found a lot of places that do. Who would’ve known? But you did.

    And what do you think about a man on Facebook saying “In the name of the one true and risen Christ who is now seated at the right hand of the Father, I’ll prove it to you?” Would that be a sound vow to take?

    Like

  145. Greg – Poor phraseology on my part. I apologize. Nobody’s actually jovial over depravity itself Erik. It’s occasional joviality in the midst of conversation regarding depravity.

    Erik – Why would you even be jovial in the midst of the conversation? If we’re in error wouldn’t you just be sad for us and pray for us?

    Like

  146. D. G. Hart says:
    Greg, perhaps you’re not as clear a communicator or thinker as you think.

    Certainly possible, but at least I’m tryin. When are you gonna start?

    Erik Charter
    If it’s who I think it is they are playing a married couple. Sounds like that covenantal marriage thing you keep touting.”

    I keep touting? Boy is THAT ever a telling statement. That is the most ancient and foundational human institution of almighty God Erik. If proclaims Jesus Christ’s marriage to His church bride. I keep touting? The sensibilities no this site are really raw. These 2 performers Erik are not married to each other AND millions of people are watching them. When you get to the part where he’s sucking on her nipples ask your self if God would approve of YOUR wife being that woman OR you being that man. Even if you weren’t married. It appears I’m really askin a lot, but can ya do that and let us know please? I’m not too hopeful, but who knows.

    Caleb, not satisfied with defiling himself, says to Susan, whose conscience is still breathing and trying to spread his filth to her as well: “a lot of Christians do not know what to do with drama or film and so they condemn it or skip over it.”
    OR,…. hang on…. they have a conscience actually tuned in the word and prayer and simply hate sin like God does. There are such people ya know? There used to be a lot more.

    Like

  147. Susan,

    What does eating Sweetbreads have to do with watching explicit scenes in movies?

    I think it was me who soiled this thread (keep reading my comments from that link on, at your peril).

    Darryl did bring up wolf in the post, and Clete pressed me on why I should avoid that movie instead of, dunno, my fave hunger games for example.

    But look who we brought out of the woodwork. I say this is a good channel at the OLTSnetwork.

    Like

  148. Susan, which sounds an awful lot like what we hear from eeeevangelicals. And yet, they (and Catholics) were the same ones selling out “The Passion of the Christ,” which I understand was quite gory. So what are we to make of that? Explicit violence is kosher if it’s in service of stoking religious affect, but not kosher in any other instance? Seems odd and not a little convenient for religionists who seem to like condemning the world for the very thing they reserve for themselves as pious.

    But ever notice how the biblical account of such events is remarkably void of the sort of embellishment cinema affords? Could it be that what God abhors is what many religionists embrace and what he is silent on is what makes them so vociferous?

    Like

  149. Greg – When you get to the part where he’s sucking on her nipples ask your self if God would approve of YOUR wife being that woman OR you being that man.

    Erik – I’ve forgiven my kids for what they did to them, so I could probably forgive Ethan.

    Like

  150. Greg,

    Who has/had a higher opinion of themselves:

    (A) Greg
    (B) The Pharisees

    I can accept your criticism of me. It might even be right. What about you? Since you are doing so well at law keeping, what exactly do you need Christ for?

    Like

  151. Triviul, some of us are a little sensitive here. Can you censor the bad words from your sex scenes? You’re like Mike Tyson talkin about non-violence. Hide the wife, hide the kids, Triviul is here.

    Like

  152. EC,

    Our Lord is certainly not less than our perfect law keeper who imputes to us ant righteousness we have. But I don’t flaunt this fact. Its with humility I accept that which is mine which should not be. I coils keep going, given my ruminations personally. If I still blogged, I would find Feskos psalm 22 sermon on sermon audio, given on a good Friday

    https://oldlife.org/2014/02/need-strategy-dining-sweetbreads/comment-page-1/#comment-118510

    If I committed the cardinal sin here by turning on our own, I accept all yalls punishment . Do what you must.

    Like

  153. Greg, I’m pretty sure you’ve been the most foul and/or titillating of anyone in this conversation. Do you call QVC and talk dirty to the girls in the call center too? Maybe ask them about their feet and the shoes they like? Hmmm?

    Oh but of course it’s all been in service of moral indignation. You and Swaggart and Baker and Maciel, and, and ……………………..

    Like

  154. Muddy says:” Tiribulus, how many times have you gone to blogs or facebook and talked about nudity or sex? It doesn’t happen much here but it seems like you’ve found a lot of places that do. Who would’ve known? But you did.
    Long story. It really started HERE
    Now that I’ve seen so many sites like this one where perversion and carnality are celebrated as Christian liberty, I understand why the western world and the United States in particular is gurgling and gasping out her last breaths pickled in sexual obsession. Jesus didn’t command the CHURCH to be salt and light. He said you ARE. When I see the utter absence of moral uprightness and discernment in the children of the reformation, the puritans, the Westminster Assembly, and Hart is supposed to an officer for “Machen’s Warrior Children”. Wadda disgrace.

    When it became clear how deeply compromised Presbyterians, Calvinists, my people had become, I cried. I knelt by my bed and prayed and cried. This onslaught of atheistic filth and debauchery in media entertainment is one of the most crippling and polluting influences in the church today. You people have made my case in spades all day long and ya know what? I pray the Lord will indulge me in a little joviality to lighten my heart a bit. Maybe I’m wrong on that.

    Muddy says: “And what do you think about a man on Facebook saying “In the name of the one true and risen Christ who is now seated at the right hand of the Father, I’ll prove it to you?” Would that be a sound vow to take?
    Absolutely. I was defending the same things there as here and I kept my word. HIS word. That guy ran away too. There’s a LOOOONG backstory there. I try not to open my mouth without the truth of God’s word coming out (1 Peter 4:11) I made that promise for Him and His word and kept it. Don’t get any nutty ideas. The canon is closed and no I am not declaring directly inspired speech like scripture. I’m declaring scripture.

    Erik sure must like me.: Why would you even be jovial in the midst of the conversation? If we’re in error wouldn’t you just be sad for us and pray for us?” You may be right. Sometimes it’s to keep from crying. Seriously. Maybe I shouldn’t. I don’t mean anything by it and if you think I have an ounce of hatred or condescending self righteousness.toward you there is a God in heaven who knows you are dead wrong. I AM sad and several names will go on my prayer whiteboard above my bed tonight to remind me in the weeks to come.

    A heroically persistent Erik asks: What do you think the sin of the Pharisees was?
    Teaching as commandments the traditions of men, exempting themselves from compliance when convenient through ritual trickery and fancying themselves superior because of their authoritative office . Hypocrisy in short. That’s what you guys have right here where you use others for your own pleasure by taking from them what you are forbidden from and refuse to give yourself. Until I see you “performing” like them.

    It’s not your fault, you don’t know me. Arrogance I struggle with. Self righteousness? NEVER. They are not the same. If you had any idea where He has brought me from. Any idea at all. I am ALL of grace my friend. I do what I do because I love Him more than my own life and it tears my heart out seeing His name debased and dishonored by those who are supposed to be His.

    Like

  155. *bzzzzzz* wrong answer Tribunal. I’m guessing Facebook is neverever important enough to make vows on it.

    “This onslaught of atheistic filth and debauchery in media entertainment is one of the most crippling and polluting influences in the church today.” You get all poetic when you talk about sin. Well, when you talk about the sin of others anyway. And you like to write about naughty scenes.

    Like

  156. Erik again: “I can accept your criticism of me.”
    I don’t anybody to accept anything that is not known to be strictly biblical oi the tradition of historic reformed orthodoxy. These are not MY criticisms. There’s an army of men of God who went before me who are my witnesses. Deny that. I dare ya.
    Erik again: “I It might even be right.”
    It is.
    Erik again: ” What about you? Since you are doing so well at law keeping, what exactly do you need Christ for?”
    Oh no sir! I’m not keeping law. I’m showing gratitude. He who knew no sin was made to be sin for me so that I might be made the very righteousness of God in Him.
    In me dwells no good thing. I am all of Romans 3 left to myself. Dead in trespasses and sins, by nature a child of wrath, an enemy of God and worthy of eternal perdition. I am a living T.U.L.I.P. warrior. The thoughts of my heart were once only evil continually.

    He nailed all my sin and shame to that cross and defeated my death in His resurrection. I type this to you tonight as a new creature in Christ for whom to live IS Christ and to die is gain indeed.

    But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

    Ohhhh hallelujah!!!!

    Like

  157. Greg – A heroically persistent Erik asks

    Erik – You don’t know me very well. This is just an ordinary Tuesday.

    I don’t mind your perspective that much, but you would be more effective if you cut back on the bombast. 95% of people will just tune you out not because of your message but your methods. There is speaking the truth and there is being an ass and you can have one without the other. Just chill out and stick around. You’ll burn out at the rate you’re going.

    Like

  158. Greg – That’s what you guys have right here where you use others for your own pleasure by taking from them what you are forbidden from and refuse to give yourself. Until I see you “performing” like them.

    Erik – I don’t follow your logic here. Give an example of how the Pharisees did that.

    Like

  159. Greg – In me dwells no good thing

    Erik – Then why have you made several statements today about the bad things you haven’t done and the good things you have done. If all you are doing is showing thankfulness by doing what you are supposed to do, why tell people about it?

    Like

  160. “D. G. Hart
    Greg, darn. I keep forgetting to put try to be clear on my to do list”

    Sorry, I meant trying to communicate at all. You sad Maybe I wasn’t as clear as I thought. I conceded the possibility and said at least I was trying to communicate and asked you when you would start. That’s what I meant. I take responsibility, but I am at least communicating.

    “D. G. Hart: “Thanks for the reminder. Right after try to tell Greg to pound sand.”
    Ya know, I come in here from Wax’s site all armored up, all prayed up, got my partner prayin, thinkin I’m a peon about to lock horns with a man with 1,2,3,4,5 earned degrees. I have made biblical challenges, logical challenges, personal moral challenges and been generally disrespectful and obstreperous. What does this jailhouse tattooed tenth grade dropout get from the man with 5 earned seminary degrees including 3 masters and a phd?

    POUND SAND

    That’s what I get. It’s embarrassing Darryl.

    Like

  161. Erik says: I don’t mind your perspective that much, but you would be more effective if you cut back on the bombast. 95% of people will just tune you out not because of your message but your methods. There is speaking the truth and there is being an ass and you can have one without the other. Just chill out and stick around. You’ll burn out at the rate you’re going.
    Well Erik, I believe you meant this. It’s also the most useful thing you’ve said day. On this site I don’t think it would have mattered how I said anything though. there is a take home principal here

    You are right in saying I’m getting tired too. Look at the typos. I’m not a kid anymorre. I have a feeling though that Darryl and Chortles and Caleb and a few others would very much prefer I did not stick around. Which reminds me. Dr. Hart you DID put up with me all day long and didn’t remove even one post. I’ll give ya credit for that. Sincerely.

    Like

  162. Greg,

    Go to bed & we can resume tomorrow. The only reason I am still on is I’m taking breaks from work, where I unfortunately still find myself due to some deadlines.

    I doubt anyone will censor you here.

    Like

  163. Caleb,
    “Or there could be a comment about the inability of the characters to experience their relationships in any terms other than sex. A lot of Allen’s best films do just that…he just doesn’t have a chorus come out and tell you that ”

    You’re absolutely right about what W. Allen is doing and I do “get it”( I was watching it with my 26 yr old daugher, so I was prob. in mom mode even so) lol. Perhaps this film isn’t a good example of what I was trying to convey, because I agree with you. Some of the relationships seemed like they were only about sex(and they were immoral), but were about more, others seemed to be about more than sex but were only about that. He still comes out making life be a fixation on the sex. Even our discussing it in a detached way implies a fixation, and this is what I dislike being reeled into. The immorality of extra marital relations is addressed but its more along the lines of “shame on so-and-so for being so gullible”. The characters have such depth even though they are so shallow. It’s really genius; although I think Tennesee Williams wrote these characters in the first place.

    Anyways, in short, I agree with you🙂

    Like

  164. Woody’s most brilliant movies about infidelity (and two of his best overall, if you throw out the screwball comedies) are “Crimes and Misdemeanors” and “Match Point”. They are both meditations on the implications of a world without God. Woody’s an atheist but he gets what being an atheist means (sans a judgment).

    Like

  165. My sensibilities might be a lot like Nate’s, but I’m not altogether settled in this area as a matter of theory. All I know is that if you’re less permissive than me you’re a pinch-faced prude and if you’re more permissive you’re a lax libertine.

    But I have to say that, whatever Regulus is selling, I think I want a different product. Imagine that guy being a door-to-door salesman? Lock the doors, and fast.

    Like

  166. D. G. Hart
    Greg, you respect learning? Curious.

    Please observe the DESKTOP IMAGE of my computer. Murray, McCrae, Stonehouse, Allis, Machen, Wooley and Van Til. Some of my all time heroes of the faith. There’s more than a few letters in there and they helped build quite a few more. Education is a weapon of righteousness in the hands of a godly saint who wields it to the glory of their master. I deeply admire and respect the structured discipline that any man or woman puts forth to earn even one degree of higher learning. I do not have it.

    I have before me an immensely gifted, educated and influential man who lays claim to a transforming, regenerating work of the risen Christ of God. What am I to think when I ask him whether the covenant wife of his youth should appear publicly nude and be handled sexually by other men in the presence of dozens of more men so millions could watch her on a movie screen, and his gut reaction is: “I can’t really say”?? Can you so much as fathom any of the men in that photo giving that answer Darryl? You would have been suspended from THEIR seminary forthwith and probably examined for excommunication in the absence of repentance and recantation. People may think I’m being over dramatic or even lying. I don’t care. I have tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat typing this to you.

    Look what’s happened to you. In some twisted quest for artificial liberty you’ve declined to the place where you’re willing to sexually sacrifice your own wife on the altar of Hollywood. And if not then you are the Presbyterian poster boy of hypocrisy. Willing to morally steal from others that which you will not give yourself. THAT, is the sin of the Pharisees. Yes. I deeply respect learning. I do NOT respect YOU.

    You show me an uneducated man with a 90 IQ that will lay at the feet of Jesus in prayer and learn all his limited capacities can from His word and I’ll show you a man who will thirst after righteousness with a conscience tender to the leading of the Holy Spirit. A man who would be aghast at the very suggestion of violating a fellow human being in the name of Jesus the way you do. Look what God has given you. Intelligence, personal discipline, an enormous command of the language and a mountain of education. What do you use it for? You use it to lead these sycophants into the jaws of morally degenerate hypocrisy, while the enemy has you convinced that’s a service to God.

    You handle scripture in a way that is unworthy of Joel Osteen or Benny Hinn. The same apostle who wrote 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 (and Ephesians 5) would apply the 5th chapter of that epistle to YOU if he knew you really couldn’t say whether the wife of your youth should appear publicly nude and be handled sexually by other men in the presence of dozens of more men so millions could watch her on a movie screen. The common grace in unbelievers is usually even better than that though it’s dropping fast because of a bland and dark church led by men like you. You will NEVER take me up on a biblical challenge on this because you’ve already lost. There is NO WAY this perverse, disgusting antinomian hypocrisy you promote as Christian liberty can be supported from the scriptures and you know it.

    All that learning. All that prestige. All those books. All those conferences, all those speaking engagements, aLLLLL those links up the right border of this page, all do NOTHING except heighten the requirement of a man to whom they’ve all been given. A man who celebrates the denigration and defilement of God’s ancient glorious covenant of marriage, even allowing for the possibility of his own wife actively participating.

    Lemme give you another challenge Daryyl. Everything that’s happened here aside. Take one month. Literally physically unplug the tv’s. No TALK of tv. No movies, no movie TALK. If coming to this site makes that impossible (how telling would that be?) take a hiatus. For this time,(just for now) only listen to worship music AND worship in your home. Sing to Him. Tell Him that you love him. Sing to Him that you love Him. One month. Take all the time you would have spent on TV and movies and talking about them and lock yourself away with your bible. Tell God that you are willing to enthusiastically embrace whatever work He will do in you in that time. Take a significant portion of that time with your wife too. COMMIT to every day, taking her in your arms and leading her to the throne of grace, telling her that she is your number one priority after the Lord. That you will not rest until God has taught you to love her like He loves you. Sing to Him with her. (She may not be able keep her hands off you if she sees you’re serious and that’s not a joke) One month. Trade that time of godless carnality for prayer, word and wife.

    You hand Him your heart like that and a half dozen lessons will become immediately apparent. Ohhhhh how much easier it is to eat popcorn and watch naked pagans on a screen than it is to be still and know that He is God. That will be the first. I challenge you. One man of God to another. One month. Can you imagine the Lord being displeased with this? Can you do it? What if you can’t? What it you won’t?

    Like

  167. Greg, one step at a time on here.

    We haven’t had visitors who actually love the Lord for awhile.

    Mostly pesky agnostics trying to get us to give up any presupps that we hold (that’ll happen…)

    Like

  168. Greg, I like the picture. Two things: Are you familiar with Machen’s positions on liberty? Not to pry (but you did post the picture), are those video files named “Mel Gibson…” and “The Passion…” from the movie? If so, we would have some 2nd commandment issues with you. If they’re for use in your church’s services (and I know you’re the media guy) we’d have some serious problems with that, too. Just curious.

    Like

  169. Caleb,
    “Or there could be a comment about the inability of the characters to experience their relationships in any terms other than sex. A lot of Allen’s best films do just that…he just doesn’t have a chorus come out and tell you that ”

    That’s why my fave of his is Interiors, his homage to Bergman, even more so.

    Like

  170. You see, Greg, Reformed (I’ve seen your FB banner) is more than the five points and sovereignty — it has implications for worship and church order, baptism, etc. We don’t take the 2nd commandment less seriously than the 7th. I gather you’re part of a mostly black inner-city church with maybe some Calvininstic influence at work. Now that’s interesting, that we’d like to hear about. But when you come in like a one-issue Billy Sunday you’re going to cause lots of people to tune out. Being wise is not compromise, it’s just being wise. Crazy we like. Jerky we don’t.

    Like

  171. Greg, you are way outside of yourself. You don’t know who anyone here is or what they do with their time. Nor is it any of your business. We all are accountable to the Lord and He alone gets to ‘Lord over’ our conscience. I understand you’ve been through a lot, but it’s inappropriate and unGodly, to cast judgement from afar and presume upon the liberty Jesus won for all the confessors here. You’re big on accountability, discipline and submission, so receive this as such. I’ve given you the aberrant example of asceticism in Col. 2 and the false judgement of Rom. 14. So, as you’ve asked others, prove to me your earnestness by backing away and spending days working through those texts and the false sanctification of Gal. 3.

    Like

  172. [disclaimer: when you graze, you don’t necessarily join the conversation actually in progress]

    This jumped out at me: preach 6-months of Gen.38. My oh my, the Bible is a Big Book, 1189 chapters. Pick your chapter, and I guess you could preach it for 6 years if you wanted. What about the rest of it? The preacher’s life, and the lives of all the pewsters is short enough. Jn.3 didn’t want some of that? Rom.5? Eph.2? Lk.24? Ps.8?

    I’ve preached Gen.38. One sermon. Title: “Life Without Joseph.” Life without God’s chosen mediator. Life of the prototypical Jew(dah) who tried to dispatch (Act.7:9) the savior of the family (prophesied, Gen.37:7), and of the whole world (Gen.41:57). Wouldn’t it be great to get through the story to the actual revelation of that salvation before we died of old age?

    Like

  173. Posted February 5, 2014 at 11:05 am
    Chortles chortles: “Greg, I like the picture.”
    Me too.

    Chortles chortles: “Are you familiar with Machen’s positions on liberty?”
    Are you saying that Machen would have approved of Christians appearing nude and in sex scenes in photographs or film? Or just that Christians could partake of such things, but not participate themselves? Please show me. I know he was libertarian and a biblically informed libertarianism, which is pretty much how this country started, is also my view. In other words, the one in the exact opposite direction of where we’re moving.

    Chortles chortles: “Not to pry (but you did post the picture), are those video files named “Mel Gibson…” and “The Passion…” from the movie?”
    LOL! Uh, no Chortles. That is an AUDIO FILE of Pastor Albert Martin telling why it’s an abomination. I never saw it. Never cared.

    Chortles chortles: “If so, we would have some 2nd commandment issues with you. If they’re for use in your church’s services (and I know you’re the media guy) we’d have some serious problems with that, too. Just curious.”
    You’re not curious Chortles, you’re trying to bring reproach upon my person as a replacement for an actually biblical argument which will never exit. I invite you to continue. HERE also is my Facebook page for the rest of you who haven’t found it yet. Like these guys lickin their lips thinkin they’re gonna dig up some dirt on me LOL! I’ve been debating a long time Chortles. By the gracious gifting of God who has equipped me for His service, I’m good at it. Tactics like yours are what people do when they’ve already lost and are desperately trying to make themselves feel better by disparaging their opponent. I’m quote accustomed I assure you.

    Like

  174. Kent – Yes, I like Interiors too. I don’t know why it isn’t more widely known.

    Eric – I have Match Point on my shelf but haven’t watched it yet. I’ve heard mixed things. Crimes and Misdemeanors is great though. Manhattan covers similar themes, too.

    Like

  175. Greg (to DH): “…You use it to lead these sycophants into the jaws of morally degenerate hypocrisy…”

    Greg (to Chortles): “By the gracious gifting of God who has equipped me for His service, I’m good at [debating].”

    Caleb: I don’t think that irresponsible exaggeration or mis-characterization of your interlocutor is a good debate strategy.

    Like

  176. Caleb, I’ve had 5 people on 3 occasions walk out on a house showing of Interiors about 30 minutes into it. They missed out on the duct tape scene, a pivotal moment in cinematic history!!!

    A movie that should have been subtitled….

    My personal best is sitting through 5 straight showing of Resnais’s “L’an 01 ” in order to answer questions about things I missed the first few times…

    Like

  177. Caleb, the only noted endorsement of Interiors I have found is John Waters putting it on his 10 faves of all time, at the time I made a beeline to rent Interiors….

    The other films on that list have been enjoyed at various times, Duras’s The Truck being the most trying of them.

    Like

  178. You’re misreading me, Greg. I am glad you don’t have those wacky 2nd amendment problems. I have genuine curiosity about the views of others, especially when they’re an odd mix of calvinistic and evangelical. Your church and cultural experience is vastly different from mine and you certainly might have something to contribute. Re-read my questions — no accusation and certainly no hoping or assuming your views are aberrant. And that arrogance thing is cropping up again.

    Like

  179. Greg – Please observe the DESKTOP IMAGE of my computer. Murray, McCrae, Stonehouse, Allis, Machen, Wooley and Van Til.

    Erik – This raises an interesting question.

    What type of learning do we want our leaders – pastors & elders – to have?

    On one hand there is the option of a more narrow education, say a fundamentalist Christian day school, followed by a Bible college, followed by seminary (for the pastors).

    On the other hand there is a more traditional high school education, followed by a broad liberal arts college or university, followed by seminary (for the pastors).

    Early on the the history of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church there was a split between what became the Bible Presbyterians, led by the fundamentalist Carl McIntyre, and those that remained, led by what I would call the direct descendants of Machen.

    These two groups had an “uneasy alliance” from the start and, if Hart’s account is to be believed, this was largely caused by skepticism on the part of the McIntyre faction of some of the “worldliness” of the Machen faction, especially those of more recent European descent did not agree with McIntyre’s pietism with regards to smoking and drinking.

    As church leaders would you say we are entering into work that exposure to a broad, liberal arts education — including exposure to history, literature, film, the social sciences, etc. can be of assistance, or is Bible study and theology all that that the work requires?

    Another way to ask the same question: As a pastor and elder are you going to deal with situations that are G-rated, PG-rated, PG13-rated or sometimes R-rated?

    In what ways does exposure to the liberal arts — and I would say especially literature and film — give a man perspective and wisdom in understanding and dealing with the primary thing that a pastor and church officer will be challenged with on a day-to-day basis — human sin?

    Like

  180. Caleb: I don’t think that irresponsible exaggeration or mis-characterization of your interlocutor is a good debate strategy.
    I don’t think you have any idea what exaggeration or mis-characterization are in this context Caleb. I don’t think you have any idea what a good debate strategy is either. I certainly haven’t seen it. Ya know what else I haven’t seen? I haven’t seen anything you’ve written about God, Jesus, scripture, a testimony. You know. Christian stuff. Where can I find that? Last time I asked you a question anything like this you demonstrated the amazing debate strategy of disappearance. I can find mountains of stuff on your sickening worship of movies and the world. Where do I find your worship of God? Just a link. I know with all the time you spend online discussing that purifying media entertainment industry that you MUST have spent at least that much time talking about your beloved King and Savior. I ask that you bless me with with a link. Please?

    Sean says: “Greg, I’ve given you the aberrant example of asceticism in Col. 2 and the false judgement of Rom. 14. So, as you’ve asked others, prove to me your earnestness by backing away and spending days working through those texts and the false sanctification of Gal. 3.”
    Sean, you’ve given me nothing but modernist manglings of the scriptures. You also don’t get to tell me when to back down. Dr. Hart can throw me outta here if he so desires. It’s HIS place. Not mine or YOURS. You have ZEEROH credibility with me. None. If there’s gonna be any scriptural swordplay between myself and anybody here it will be Dr.Hart. No offense, but a victory for the Lord with him would represent all the rest of you too. Unless you think you’re more qualified than he is? It’s really not that I’m that brilliant Sean. It’s that the position really is that indefensible. He knows that. Oh yes he does. I could be a wrong, but I have a feeling that after not having done so for a while, he’s peeked back at those passages in context and seen that there is NO way Paul can be made to be advocating what you people say he is. Just no way. I mean it doesn’t even pass the snicker test. The only thing worse than soundly losing a debate, for a guy with an alphabet after his name would be to lose it to a guy who didn’t even graduate high school. Again. It’s not that I’m that good. The argument IS that bad.

    Quite honestly, I’d much prefer he take my challenge. I’d much rather have him as a willing ally than beat him down in a debate. He would be a one special forces unit. Oh my blessed Father God let it be so.

    CHORTLES to the extent that I misread you I do hereby most abjectly beg your forgiveness, but you WERE diggin fer dirt on me, which is fine. However, I am not here to satisfy curiosities about my church. I love my church but that doesn’t belong here. We’re talking about whether sweetbread and our wives fall under the same biblical principals.

    Relentless and largely irrelevant Erik persists: “In what ways does exposure to the liberal arts — and I would say especially literature and film — give a man perspective and wisdom in understanding and dealing with the primary thing that a pastor and church officer will be challenged with on a day-to-day basis — human sin?”
    None. I see absolutely no biblical evidence for the notion God intends to use the world to teach us in this way. Those representing that view, such as you people here, wind up uncertain whether the wife of their youth should appear publicly nude and be handled sexually by other men in the presence of dozens of more men so millions of strangers can watch her on a movie screen.

    Like

  181. One thing I reflect on when I hear “Hollywood” blamed for X that is wrong with our culture is all the stories of sexual immorality that hear from my grandparents’ generation. I have one relative of that generation who was sexually abused by her own grandfather. My grandfather was once propositioned by a man who he picked up hitchhiking. a great uncle was a closeted homosexual who had a hidden relationship with his own-son-in law. A great aunt was impregnated at 15.

    This all happened when Hollywood was under the studio code — it was all G or mild PG.

    Read Sherwood Anderson’s “Winesburg, Ohio”, written in 1919, for a revelation that the good old days weren’t all that good.

    If you lock yourself in a room for a month with your Bible, your sin is right there with you. In fact, some of the most hideous sin seems to happen around the extremely pious.

    There is a man in our community who raised his kids in fundamentalism, sent his son to a fundamentalist high school. We had to call the cops on the grown son because he was frequently flashing two members of our family. Later the patriarch was arrested and is now serving time for molesting his three granddaughters.

    The there’s Doug Phillips shutting down Vision Forum, a ministry that had been selling (quite lucratively) the pietism that Greg in selling. Apparently it didn’t help him.

    If you live by the law and think it’s going to help you avoid the sin that remains in you, you are going to be sorely — perhaps tragically — disappointed.

    Maybe ungrit the teeth, look to Christ, relax a little, and look to the slow, steady, tedious path to sanctification that involves regular (but not all-consuming) Word & sacrament and living life.

    Like

  182. Greg,

    As a “Reformed” man, what is your opinion of Reformed polity?

    Would you say you have a “ministry” that you have appointed yourself to or has anyone ordained you to it?

    If you are unemployed and living on $14,000 per year of unemployment compensation would you say your “ministry” is in keeping or in conflict with Paul’s admonition in 1 Thessalonians 4:11 to “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you.”

    My high school daughter goes to school all day, gets A’s, works 30-35 hours a week, works out twice a day, and runs track and cross-country. Most nights she sleeps about 6 hours. She doesn’t talk much theology, but the way she lives her life makes me optimistic about her Christian testimony.

    Like

  183. Like many Old Lifers, Hart grew up with a fundamentalist mom, so I don’t think he’ll bite.

    Greg – If a famous sculptor or painter wanted to use your wife as a nude model for a piece of art, would you allow it?

    Any difference between that and her posing for Playboy?

    You’re portraying it like D.G. said he would allow his wife to appear in a skin flick. I don’t think that’s what he agreed to. As Bryan Cross would say, you are being uncharitable and perhaps dishonest by exaggerating and attempting to slander him with your exaggeration.

    What is your opinion of the Detroit Art Museum? Have you picketed there against Christians who would try to enter?

    Like

  184. Greg: I don’t think you have any idea what exaggeration or mis-characterization are in this context Caleb. I don’t think you have any idea what a good debate strategy is either. I certainly haven’t seen it. Ya know what else I haven’t seen? I haven’t seen anything you’ve written about God, Jesus, scripture, a testimony. You know. Christian stuff. Where can I find that? Last time I asked you a question anything like this you demonstrated the amazing debate strategy of disappearance. I can find mountains of stuff on your sickening worship of movies and the world. Where do I find your worship of God? Just a link. I know with all the time you spend online discussing that purifying media entertainment industry that you MUST have spent at least that much time talking about your beloved King and Savior. I ask that you bless me with with a link. Please?

    Caleb: You just did it again.

    Like

  185. Greg: Those representing that view, such as you people here, wind up uncertain whether the wife of their youth should appear publicly nude and be handled sexually by other men in the presence of dozens of more men so millions of strangers can watch her on a movie screen.

    Caleb: And again…

    Like

  186. I will say that Greg can preach the hell out of it, though. Seriously. If it weren’t for the Calvinism he could seriously probably get ordained in a Pentecostal, revivalist sect — even without a formal education. Where Richard Smith was annoying and pedantic with his revivalism, Greg at least brings some piss and vinegar to his presentation.

    Like

  187. Erik you’re wastin my time. I said a couple pages back

    “I’ve made less than 14,000 a year as a laid off, self employed (no choice in Detroit) computer repairman the last 3”

    I don’t take ANY public assistance whatsoever. I am dying of diabetes because I need insulin, but I WILL die happily before allowing those nanny state heathen in DC make me one of their nursing dependent zombies. So keep all that filth in front of your eyes, drinking in the God hating world, but you will NEVER escape God’s truth. You will give an account for every second you spent betraying your wife with the nakedness of other women AND all the people you paid to sin for you. For you this is about YOU. Trying to ease YOUR conscience with these ridiculous arguments you people always post. NAH-THING you say will change the fact that you sin against God, your wife, those “performers” and everybody involved EVERY SINGLE TIME you put one of those necrofying pieces of godless deviltry before your eyes. Just keep right on babbling. It changes nothing.

    Hear the divines in the Catechism Q. 99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?

    6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.

    7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.

    8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them;[434] and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.

    It’s not that you’re a failure Eirk. You don’t even try. THIS is reformed orthodoxy. Not only do you not even try, but you rewrite biblical truth to fit YOUR idolatrous self worshiping life of carnality. I have the Westminster assembly behind me. (and a parade of others) Would you like a list of the titanic giants of the faith that were in that group? Before you start calling for my ordination and creds, take a look at your OWN standards and REPENT.

    What’s it gonna be Darryl? Were the Westminster divines extreme pietists? Erik here says it’s a waste of time to turn off the world for a month and seek God because you take your sin with you. God help us. Ya jist havta laugh to keep from cryin. Erik you’re pathetic. Find a different religion without these pesky scriptures and centuries of standards between you and your filth.

    Like

  188. Greg,

    I apologize for assuming you were on unemployment. I read “laid off” as inferring that.

    I’m sorry to hear about your health situation. I would say buy some insurance through the exchange and get the medicine you need. It’s the law now, like it or not, so you have the right to buy insurance regardless of your pre-existing conditions just like anyone else. It’s actually a good feature of the law (although whether or not we can afford it long-term is a legitimate question).

    I don’t think that invalidates my questions about Reformed Polity and ordination, though.

    What parts of “Reformed” do you embrace and what parts do you ignore?

    Turn down the volume and just have a conversation.

    Like

  189. Greg,

    Put the Westminster Divines in the 21st Century. What do they look like? These are men who were in the mainstream of their society.

    If you say they looked like the American Puritans, what became of them? What is their legacy?

    Like

  190. Erik,

    Thanks for the consideration, but (sadly) I don’t think our session will consider “Old Life Commenter” to be mark of an officer. And FYI (though TMI) I don’t shower regularly, my wife complains at me for it but hey, we’re saving on the water bill. Sitting at a desk in A/C all day I don’t work up much of a sweat though (except when I surf and pee in my wetsuit to stay warm).

    I haven’t thought through extensively your question, probably should at some point. If someone is clearly violating something listed in scripture then that’s a time to confront, otherwise, I’d discuss something with someone and find out about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. “Not Smoking” can be just as sinful as being addicted to cigarettes, even more so, or in this case, my reason for not looking at boobs can be more sinful than your reasons for allowing it. Either way, that’s a discussion and not a rebuke – not until you understand someone.

    Thats a few thoughts off the cuff…

    Like

  191. Caleb, it’s one the menu if you are a lifetime fan of French cinemaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…

    I wouldn’t inflict it on those who aren’t….

    Like

  192. Caleb, the local artistic movie house, is putting up a long-term Godard retro, very different seeing it in public on the big screen.

    nice to have this just around the corner from the office when I need it…

    http://tiff.net/

    Like

  193. My work requires a few annual cases where I have to seize and review the contents of laptops and computer and personal devices, guaranteed to be laden with porn and a few with KP.

    then you go through the process of filing the paperwork and having to sit there as a witness and watch it up on the big screen while lawyers argue about what the exact nature of the images and films are, as to whether criminal charges should be filed. they don’t want to make a mistake either way in laying or not laying mandatory charges on found items…

    as i’m not embracing what i’m exposed to, i trust this is not seen as sinful, i understand that the accumulation eventually wears and tears at those who are constantly involved in the process.

    if i don’t see it again for the rest of my career that would be too soon for me

    Like

  194. DG,

    1)
    Human bodies are tied to human persons. A piece of bread (or wine for that matter) is an inanimate object. Paul alludes to this in 1 Cor 6:13 when he discusses the purposes of each of these:

    Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

    Bodies have purposes, just like food. Bodies aren’t bad, but when we use them (or consider them) in ways apart from their intended purposes then it becomes a problem. How this relates to nudity in movies (etc.) is that these persons are using their bodies in ways that are contrary to their intended purposes. Everything else in movies is fake. Punches are fake, stealing is fake, blood is fake, curse words are not directed towards a real person (they’re not directly addressing each other, but a character). But the bodies are real and when “x” actress takes of her clothes it’s her real body that’s being used in a real way (albeit for a fake story). It’s not fake sex (though they might be omitting intercourse), it’s real sex, just acted out in a fake story.

    2)

    My comment here: https://oldlife.org/2014/02/need-strategy-dining-sweetbreads/comment-page-1/#comment-118582

    explains further that honorable ways and dishonorable ways to display the human body. Sexually explicit displays are inappropriate displays of the human body. They are taking what is supposed to be a private function between a husband and a wife and displaying it outside of that context. Sex was intended for a husband and a wife and is not for anyone else to share or view (unless of course you are Luther and you have a committee overseeing your consummation… I digress). The point is, it’s dishonorable to watch someone else have sex.

    I can imagine cases where this can’t be strictly applied – what if you’re a D.A. and you have to investigate a strip club… etc. I think those are exceptions but that’s not the situation under review. The context was enjoyment, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to derive our enjoyment from others displaying their bodies and sexual activities in inappropriate manners.

    Like

  195. Nate – Not Smoking” can be just as sinful as being addicted to cigarettes, even more so, or in this case, my reason for not looking at boobs can be more sinful than your reasons for allowing it

    Erik – To be honest, I mostly look away and when I’m with my wife she covers my eyes.

    The real question is, are the boobs enough to say one has to avoid the work entirely?

    I finished “Before Midnight” and there were some boobs. A middle-aged actress sat around having a conversation with her top off. I was mostly interested in the conversation, though, and the film had plenty of food-for-thought for an old, married guy like me.

    My father-in-law, who is not a Christian, said something poignant about pornography that I will always remember. “If I want a ham sandwich I’ll make a ham sandwich. I don’t want a picture of a ham sandwich”. I’m not sure where this freak-out over boobs even comes from, entirely, unless some people have their own demons they are fighting here in public (I’m not saying you are doing that).

    Like

  196. Nocable – Greg has detected some folks’ idolatries on this site and they don’t like it one bit.

    Erik – Thank goodness you’re avoiding all of those NBA games, college sporting events, and other shows that are pretty much like what is on the networks (only better, in most cases). Jesus is smiling down on you as a result of your heroic sacrifice.

    Like

  197. nocable: Greg has detected some folks’ idolatries on this site and they don’t like it one bit.

    Caleb: Greg, is that you?

    Could you specify what idolatries and your evidence for that accusation?

    Like

  198. There are sins that cause me problems

    There are sins that cause me absolutely zero problems under any presented situation.

    I don’t take great pride in attacking others who have problems with the second set of sins, just because I don’t have any hassle with them.

    I have enough trouble with the first set to not throw rocks.

    Like

  199. Erik Charter
    “Greg,
    Put the Westminster Divines in the 21st Century. What do they look like? These are men who were in the mainstream of their society.”

    (shaking head in hands) Have your own words even sunk in to you Erik?

    Erik Charter “If you say they looked like the American Puritans, what became of them? What is their legacy?”
    LOL!!! This conversation really is happening. I just pinched myself. It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me the incredible spirit of slumber that is upon so much of the church. Their legacy is dead. People like you are making sure it stays that way.

    The topic is whether it is sin to ingest artistry, especially visual media, that was sinfully produced. I’m not goin in circles with you Erik. Say something relevant and new please. You’re filling these pages with snippy little harmless irrelevant deflections about me. Ask me this stuff somewhere else, but there are only so many hours in a day. I’ll do my best to answer.

    Like

  200. Here’s another angle of this discussion to consider:

    Say you gather together pious people from across the religious spectrum who are united on the contention that literature and films are impure filth.

    The pious Reformed people will still think that the pious Lutheran people are all wet on the Lord’s Supper, the Pious Catholic people are all wet on the Pope, the pious Baptist people are all wet on baptism (no pun intended), the pious Pentecostal people are all wet on the Holy Spirit, the pious Mormon people are all wet on the Trinity, the pious Secular people are all wet on the environment, The pious Muslim people are all wet on Mohammed…

    And each group that the Reformed think are all wet will think the same of every other group!

    It’s all a tremendous cluster***k, which is kind of what the literature and films that all the pious people are rejecting is portraying.

    Maybe if we were all a little more humble and less sure of ourselves we could loosen up a little and not take ourselves so seriously.

    Like

  201. I gotta go after this for a while. God has been very good in making time for me these past 2 days.
    Caleb
    Could you specify what idolatries and your evidence for that accusation.

    The wisdom of men is being imposed upon holy scripture in order to falsely legitimatize the practice of ingesting sin that was produced in a sinful manner. And if it wasn’t then why won’t you or yours do it? Except Darryl. It seems he “can’t really say” whether the covenant wife of his youth should appear publicly nude and be handled sexually by other men in the presence of dozens of more men so millions could watch her on a movie screen. That is immorality Caleb. To produce it or consume is in every case and for everybody an abomination in the sight of God. Twisting scripture to support it is to exalt ones own depraved desires over the word of God. This is idolatry.

    Now would you be so gracious as to answer mine from above that I am now asking for the 3rd time?
    Caleb: I don’t think that irresponsible exaggeration or mis-characterization of your interlocutor is a good debate strategy.
    I don’t think you have any idea what exaggeration or mis-characterization are in this context Caleb. I don’t think you have any idea what a good debate strategy is either. I certainly haven’t seen it. Ya know what else I haven’t seen? I haven’t seen anything you’ve written about God, Jesus, scripture, a testimony. You know. Christian stuff. Where can I find that? Last time I asked you a question anything like this you demonstrated the amazing debate strategy of disappearance. I can find mountains of stuff on your sickening worship of movies and the world. Where do I find your worship of God? Just a link. I know with all the time you spend online discussing that purifying media entertainment industry that you MUST have spent at least that much time talking about your beloved King and Savior. I ask that you bless me with with a link. Please?

    Like

  202. Greg,

    Oh, I forgot. The Divines walked on water, didn’t need to wear deodorant, and were born with straight teeth. Just like all of the “Bible Heroes” that I heard about in Sunday School (until I grew up and actually read about them in the Bible).

    Jesus is the only hero.

    Like

  203. Erik says: “Maybe if we were all a little more humble and less sure of ourselves we could loosen up a little and not take ourselves so seriously.”
    Says the post modernist hippie LOL!! You don’t hear real good sometimes. This WAS crystal clear for generations past and very serious. Because they God’s word seriously. Put away your inane soul rotting carnality and read through the standards Erik. When was the last time you did that?
    NOW, I’m outta here.

    Like

  204. Greg, I didn’t know ex-cons got to make determinations on other’s credibility. Of course, the ex-cons I know wouldn’t tell you they were ex-cons unless they were trying to be menacing. Are you trying to be menacing Greg? I don’t know the laws in Michigan Greg, but generally ex-cons can’t get a firearm but where they can, they aren’t allowed to carry. You aren’t carrying are you Greg? Greg are you sure you aren’t being menacing? Greg do you still have a PO? If you do, what were the results of the last piss test? Does he/she know you’re in possession? Greg, are you doing the court mandated follow up and counseling? What would your PO think of your online agressiveness? Is she aware?

    Like

  205. Erik Charter
    Erik – Who put you in charge of picking the topic?

    DG Hart
    ” I am intrigued by the exchange between Trevin Wax and Alissa Wilkinson about Christians watching movies.”

    and
    “That is way more theology than I think is necessary to justify such mundane affairs as food and movies.”

    HE picked the topic. That’s why I’m here. I disagree utterly and am showing why. You are talking about everything but.

    NOW, I MUST go. You can talk about me in my absence for a while. Won’t that be fun?

    Like

  206. Hi Greg,

    I haven’t read through all the comments, but I did happen to see that you are a diabetic without any insulin. Hey, I’m worried for you and hope that you will get some either from a clinic or perhaps from someone in your church community. My husband is diabetic and I see how dangerous this disease is. Please be careful.
    btw, I agree with you over much that you said. Please rest.

    Susan

    Like

  207. Greg, I’ve been away for a bit and just caught up with this thread. I can only echo what Susan said: get some help with your diabetes. I don’t have it, but family members on both sides do, and I have seen how devastating it can be if not treated properly. I will be in prayer for you.

    Like

  208. nate, if what you say is true — and it has merit, though I am not convinced — I don’t see why you stop at bodies. Words are pretty darned important in the whole God spoke and Adam naming aspect of the image of God in man. So if someone curses in a movie, why doesn’t such language count as a dishonorable way for a word-speaking person to act?

    But if you can separate words into the category of fake, why not bodies? It may be my real body but it is not my real context for displaying it. It’s an act.

    Like

  209. Sean “Greg, I didn’t know ex-cons got to make determinations on other’s credibility.”
    You’re a not a good sport Sean. You don’t know how to go down in flames graciously. I strive every second of my life to take every thought captive to obedience to Christ. I’LL determine by that standard for ME who is credible thank you very much.
    Sean assumes: “the ex-cons I know”
    I never said a thing about being an ex con Sean. What I said was:
    =========================================================
    “D. G. Hart: “Thanks for the reminder. Right after try to tell Greg to pound sand.”
    Ya know, I come in here from Wax’s site all armored up, all prayed up, got my partner prayin, thinkin I’m a peon about to lock horns with a man with 1,2,3,4,5 earned degrees. I have made biblical challenges, logical challenges, personal moral challenges and been generally disrespectful and obstreperous. What does this jailhouse tattooed tenth grade dropout get from the man with 5 earned seminary degrees including 3 masters and a phd?

    POUND SAND

    That’s what I get. It’s embarrassing Darryl
    =========================================================
    I said I had jailhouse tattoos which I do. 7 to be exact. But I did them myself, though not in jail. But I spent time in jail, a BUNCH of times but not prison, so I am no ex con and can carry legally though I don’t.
    Sean hilariously asks: “Are you trying to be menacing Greg? I don’t know the laws in Michigan Greg, but generally ex-cons can’t get a firearm but where they can, they aren’t allowed to carry. You aren’t carrying are you Greg? Greg are you sure you aren’t being menacing? Greg do you still have a PO? If you do, what were the results of the last piss test? Does he/she know you’re in possession? Greg, are you doing the court mandated follow up and counseling? What would your PO think of your online aggressiveness? Is she aware?”
    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You are a blast Sean LOL! Do you ever Skype? We just gotta talk so I can “menace” you some more HAHAHAHA!! Unbelievable! I am 6,2 and a pretty lean 240. Big, bald and white with a large bushy white beard. My church is full of tiny little black kids who come runnin when they see me, “BROTHER GREG, BROTHER GREG!!!!” jumpin up and down, huggin my leg HAHAHAHA!!!! I’m menacing alright. LOL!!! You notify whoever you want Sean.😀😀😀

    It WILL not help your case before a holy God who’s precious covenant of marriage you defile every time you watch people sin with each other on a theater, tv or computer screen. I am above reproach before the law, before my family, before my church who I am with 5- 7 days a week and most importantly before my God. Yes, I sin in word thought and deed every day and repent every day and refuse to call good what my Father has called evil like you do.
    You guys can keep up this ad hominem asininity til Jesus comes back and NONE of it is the point.

    All that ultimately matters to a Christian is “what saith the Lord” and we know what the Lord saith, from the SCRIPTURES. And while I am not in a confessional church,(no, this is not the place to talk about that Erik) I DO consider the Westminster standards to be secondarily authoritative. THAT’S what I care about Sean. Not these Christ hating Hollywood whoremongers you have so much in common with. Come on man. Skype? Be a pal. You are PURE entertainment LOL!!!

    And you folks worried about my health? I am touched and appreciate it but don’t. I’ve checked every avenue and there is no way for me to get insulin without taxpayer money that has been legally stolen from them and does not belong to me. I CANNOT tell a man he needs Jesus when He’s payin my bills.

    “Get outta my face pal. It looks like your Jesus needs me”

    No way.

    Like

  210. D.G. – Erik, I wonder if Greg goes to Rabbi Bret’s synagogue.

    Erik – That’s an interesting thought, but I think they have different hot buttons. Recall that Rabbi Bret exalts the notion of the Neocalvinist Superminister, master of all he surveys. Greg would question the broad learning that that requires.

    I would give them five minutes before they fell out over something.

    They would be akin to Babs and Clean Willie:

    Like

  211. Greg – I said I had jailhouse tattoos which I do. 7 to be exact. But I did them myself, though not in jail. But I spent time in jail, a BUNCH of times but not prison, so I am no ex con and can carry legally though I don’t.

    Erik – Poseur

    I had to go to the police station once for questioning but didn’t see the inside of a cell. Summer of ’85 I was minding my own business, recovering from mono. Around 11 p.m. three of my buddies knock on my bedroom window to see if I want to sneak out (common occurrence that summer). I say what the heck and go along. We basically have nothing to do so someone gets the bright idea to get up on top of the shopping mall a few blocks away. We do, walk around awhile, and then get down. We’re walking through the parking lot and three cop cars come screaming up to us and we’re arrested (no handcuffs). We go to the station where they question us, then call our parents. Mine were asleep, thinking I was in bed. Not a pleasant ride home.

    Like

  212. Next Greg’s going to hint that he was a transvestite prostitute in NYC for a decade.

    Later he’ll correct our misunderstanding and say all he did was play with his sister’s barbies for a few days as a kid.

    Like

  213. Greg, It wasn’t the tat reference, but it’s ok, I figured you were false. Like I said, people who were and particularly those who were and turned, don’t trade on it. Really dangerous men don’t generally give you their resume, unless they’re tweaked and you exhibit, so, it was fair to ask. And don’t worry I won’t notify anyone, noteworthy guys don’t hold forth or marshal their own parade.

    Like

  214. Careful Greg. People who have crossed Sean have disappeared, leaving only a greasy spot behind on the pavement.

    He was in Roman Catholic seminary and knows people who know people (if you know what I mean).

    Like

  215. Greg – And you folks worried about my health? I am touched and appreciate it but don’t. I’ve checked every avenue and there is no way for me to get insulin without taxpayer money that has been legally stolen from them and does not belong to me. I CANNOT tell a man he needs Jesus when He’s payin my bills.

    Erik – You’ve paid taxes, haven’t you? Consider those kids who would miss you (seriously). Get some health care. I’m willing to pay more so people like you don’t have to suffer needlessly.

    Sign up for coverage on the exchange. They have to take you without regard to pre-existing conditions. If you can get healthier you can perhaps find better work and you’ll pay “society” back through your increased productivity.

    Maybe consider leaving Detroit for some place with more job opportunities.

    Like

  216. Erik, it’s always good to know people who know other people who know some guys who know some other guys who will do a thing for you.

    Like

  217. Mudster used to have low self esteem. Mudster used to think he was bad guy. Now that Ive heard storys from Tiribil and Chartman I’m choir material. Charter’s a jailbird and he has wonderful recipes. Tribble did his own tatoos. Both upsetting to the Mudster.

    Oh yeah, my church has no choir.

    Like

  218. Sean – Erik, it’s always good to know people who know other people who know some guys who know some other guys who will do a thing for you.

    Erik – Yeah, when you have over a billion people in a church and the bar is low for membership you can find all kinds.

    Like

  219. Darryl: Nate, if what you say is true — and it has merit, though I am not convinced — I don’t see why you stop at bodies. Words are pretty darned important in the whole God spoke and Adam naming aspect of the image of God in man. So if someone curses in a movie, why doesn’t such language count as a dishonorable way for a word-speaking person to act? “
    =============================================================================
    WORDS, and the ability to speak them are precious and sacred. Regardless of the exact theological implications upon the ordo salutis, confession is made with the mouth unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10) God created by the command of His WORD(Genesis 1:3, Hebrews 11:3 and John 1:2). Jesus Christ is the living WORD of almighty God. (John 1:1-14) Spoken communication is a major component of the Imago Dei whereby we bear His very image. (Genesis 1:3 and 1:27) That is why he commands in Ephesians 4:29 “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Should we intentionally pay God’s money to hear unbelievers thoughtlessly and many times blasphemously speak that which we are commanded never to say ourselves?

    And to anyone who may call legalism here, do please hear the incarnate WORD of God: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:33-37)

    Every careless WORD (ESV). If we are not supposed to blaspheme, take the Lord’s name in vain or let ANY corrupting talk come out of our mouths, then why pray tell would we pay sinners to do it for us? This should be the part now where somebody just redefines what is vile and profane and corrupting so as to simply make ok whatever they like.
    ================================================================================
    Darryl thunders forth to Erik: “Erik, I wonder if Greg goes to Rabbi Bret’s synagogue.”
    Quotes me as saying:
    “I disagree utterly.”
    And then responds with:
    duh.
    So let’s see. So far I’ve gotten: “pound sand” and “duh” from Dr. D.G. Hart.
    There’s a few possibilities here.
    The first is that he’s patiently playin possum and actually has a campaign, but he figures the longer he let’s me talk, the better he gets to know me, AND the greater probably I hand Him a vulnerability. (never happen).
    The second is that he really doesn’t care what I say at all and considers me a yapping little pharisee terrier on his pant leg and plans no answer and hopes I go away. (too much ego for that I think though)
    Third is that he senses that I have been over this as many times as I have, and knows that he will not present an argument I have not heard and am fully prepared to rebut. Additionally he may find that he is already pinned by what has been presented so far and figures he has nothing to gain by continuing on to defense of his sophomoric handling of the “liberty” passages. Passages which he knows do not support what he’s said they do and have never been interpreted that way in all of historic reformed orthodoxy. Least of all the larger Catechism.
    I hope it’s the first.

    But hold on, What this?!?!?!?
    Darryl raises my eyebrows by saying: ” It may be my real body but it is not my real context for displaying it. It’s an act.”
    We have a fourth possibility kids. Could it be that Dr. Hart intends this as an actual defense of He and or the covenant wife of his youth appearing publicly nude and being handled sexually by people other than each other in the presence of dozens of more strangers so millions of other strangers could watch them on a movie screen? Could it be that he intends to advance that position on the basis of context and acting? This the absolutely worst case scenario if true and would speak most poorly of him of all the possibilities. Before Father, Son and Holy spirit I pray that this is not the case. Let’s what he says

    Like

  220. Greg,

    The Old Life M.O. is to let guys like you go on, and on, and on, and on, and on…….and on, and on, and then on some more. For days, weeks, months, years if needed.

    Our ministry is to absorb it. If you’re here, you’re not off bothering someone else.

    Our Hall of Fame:

    Richard Smith
    Doug Sowers
    Tom Van Dyke
    Cletus Van Damme
    Greg?

    Like

  221. Van Drunen has an excellent chapter on Kuyper in “Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms”. He shows how Kuyper was kind of two minds by affirming both the antithesis and common grace.

    Greg is the embodiment of the antithesis on steroids.

    Like

  222. Actually Erik, I thought he might be on gear.

    VanDrunnen shows more than a casual, even causal, link between Kuyper’s political ambitions and the rhetoric of antithesis. History has a way of exposing our ‘theoretical’ selfs.

    Like

  223. I’ve checked every avenue and there is no way for me to get insulin without taxpayer money that has been legally stolen from them and does not belong to me. I CANNOT tell a man he needs Jesus when He’s payin my bills.

    This is a martyr complex. You have a responsibility to take care of yourself and preserve your life in reasonable ways. Can your church not help?

    Re: taxpayer money — do you walk on city streets, drive on public roads, or ride public transportation? Receive mail? Are you kidding?

    Like

  224. “I was gonna ask Muddy, but he seems to be having a moment.” Yeah, well things got a little foggy last night. I feel better this morning.

    There once was a man named Tiribulus
    Who thought he was oh so Religiolous
    He came to assure
    Old Lifers are pure
    With the zeal of the former Prot Catholos

    Hope I offended everyone the same. Don’t want anyone to feel worse than others.

    Like

  225. I’ve checked every avenue and there is no way for me to get insulin without taxpayer money that has been legally stolen from them and does not belong to me. I CANNOT tell a man he needs Jesus when He’s payin my bills.

    What’s your verse for that?

    Like

  226. D.G. – Erik, you should see Kings of Summer. It’s a good summertime, boys coming of age movie. And best of all, no nudity or sex.

    Erik – Moved from #438 to #1.

    “The Big Kahuna” still has a long wait.

    Like

  227. DGH- “Dan and Susan, when did OL turn into ask.com?”

    Beats me, first time I looked at this thread a few days ago it was about food and movies. I guess I figured anything was an improvement over the current direction, which seems to be about whether your wife likes to eat kosher food in between scenes of the porn films she stars in.

    Like

  228. Muddy recites:
    There once was a man named Tiribulus
    Who thought he was oh so Religiolous
    He came to assure
    Old Lifers are pure
    With the zeal of the former Prot Catholos

    My turn:

    There once was a dude named Hart.
    Who thought he was smart as Descartes.
    He earned many degrees, but was still just a sleaze,
    Whose delusions were state of the art.

    HAHA!! Mines better.😀

    Ren… uhh I mean Darryl says: “Greg, I don’t assess you to be either a serious or playful interlocutor. Why waste words?”
    Au contraire my fine fibbing freshman. LOL! You are a liar and a coward as WELL as a degenerate. You find me both serious AND playful. You’re just pouting😦 because you didn’t have to pry anybody’s lips off your feet to make room for mine LOL! You also KNOW that on this set of topics you are wrong enough to where an unknown, uneducated nobody will kick you up and down your own website like a squealing Yorkie HAHA!! You DO know that don’t you? Come on Mr. Old Lifer. Get some testosterone replacement therapy and step up. It’s only cuz I CARE😀

    Like

  229. which seems to be about whether your wife likes to eat kosher food in between scenes of the porn films she stars in.

    Tell me about it, turned into a De Sade treatise.

    Hurts my ear to listen, Shannon
    Burns my eyes to see

    Like

  230. Some of the best films/shows dealing with addiction:

    “The Lost Weekend” – alcohol

    “Leaving Las Vegas” – alcohol

    “The Wire” (Bubbles, especially) – heroin

    “One Man’s Seduction” (cheesy TV movie with Dennis Weaver — on Netflix, or at least it was) – cocaine

    “Shame” – sex

    “Don Jon” – online pornography

    “Owning Mahowny” – gambling

    “Men of a Certain Age” – gambling

    “Love Liza” – grief and gasoline sniffing

    “Goodfellas” and “Boogie Nights” also show some of the consequences of cocaine addiction.

    Malcolm Lowry’s “Under the Volcano” is supposed to be one of the best books written about alcohol addiction, but I haven’t read it.

    Like

  231. Dan- I guess I figured anything was an improvement over the current direction, which seems to be about whether your wife likes to eat kosher food in between scenes of the porn films she stars in.

    Erik – Reminds me of an interview with Ron Jeremy where he remarked that porn stars seem to come from all religious backgrounds. He’s Jewish but he also knows Methodists, Catholics, etc.

    Paul Thomas Anderson has a remark on the “Boogie Nights” commentary that porn stars either stay in the industry or meet Jesus and get out. He wasn’t being sarcastic, either.

    Like

  232. “Mudman, you’re no Anne Bradstreet”

    Hartman, her muse had big pupils but it was sober. I have to give coffee and a cold shower to mine. Besides, a lot of people like poetry who have bad taste. So there’s my peeps. They like this:

    Snorting and puffing
    Crashing through thickets
    Capping, boldfacing
    Denouncing the “wicked”
    *Cut*
    Fatigued and confused
    Thoughts get occluded
    Is it actors or thinking
    So vilely denuded?

    Maybe I should check to see if he’s around. He’s a svelte 240 so he’s built for the long haul.

    Like

  233. Is it just me, or does Greg getting meaner and meaner undermine his case, which is based on sanctification, more and more?

    If the way of life someone chooses makes them really mean is it a way of life you want to emulate?

    Like

  234. Erik Charter
    Is it just me, or does Greg getting meaner and meaner undermine his case, which is based on sanctification, more and more?

    If the way of life someone chooses makes them really mean is it a way of life you want to emulate?”
    Mean? You’re too gullible Erik.🙂

    Lemme ask again. Would you be ok with your wife performing in the movies you list on the previous page? Would she she be ok with you doing it? How bout instead of some more of your incoherent, irrelevant ramblings, you actually answer THAT question. Directly with a yes or no? Are you capable of that? Don Jon. Shame. YOUR wife, NC-17 rated scenes? All good? Yes or no hypocrite.

    Like

  235. Erik, the guy who cornered the market on meanness, cares about someone being “mean”? The world is upside-down. Those who dish it out apparently cannot take it.

    Like

  236. Greg,

    You’ll get no talk of my wife with you. Generally dragging people’s wives into a conversation is an act of desperation on par with invoking Hitler. That’s probably what’s next.

    Follow my logic here:

    (1) A man comes to you invoking the Law of God and holiness.

    (2) It quickly becomes apparent he is very angry and insulting towards people he doesn’t even know.

    (3) Why would I believe anything he says about the Law of God and holiness since it has obviously had little impact on his life as far as he treats other people.

    (4) If anything it would be rational to do the direct opposite of what he says.

    Like

  237. Just to be extra “mean” (shakes head in disbelief) as a homage to Erik, I’m gonna post this at the top of this page too.
    Muddy recites:
    There once was a man named Tiribulus
    Who thought he was oh so Religiolous
    He came to assure
    Old Lifers are pure
    With the zeal of the former Prot Catholos

    My turn:

    There once was a dude named Hart.
    Who thought he was smart as Descartes.
    He earned many degrees, but was still just a sleaze,
    Whose delusions were state of the art.

    HAHA!! Mines better.😀

    Ren… uhh I mean Darryl says: “Greg, I don’t assess you to be either a serious or playful interlocutor. Why waste words?”
    Au contraire my fine fibbing freshman. LOL! You are a liar and a coward as WELL as a degenerate. You find me both serious AND playful. You’re just pouting😦 because you didn’t have to pry anybody’s lips off your feet to make room for mine LOL! You also KNOW that on this set of topics you are wrong enough to where an unknown, uneducated nobody will kick you up and down your own website like a squealing Yorkie HAHA!! You DO know that don’t you? Come on Mr. Old Lifer. Get some testosterone replacement therapy and step up. It’s only cuz I CARE😀

    kent is “not really sure what anything has to do with asking people if they want their wives to appear in Restricted movies”
    They’re willing to watch other women sin by debasing themselves and God’s covenant of marriage. They’re willing to watch other men grope and fondle and defile these women. Why aren’t they willing to say it would be pleasing to God if they did it themselves? This is called “HYPOCRISY”. I quoted the larger catechism a little while back CLEARLY and unassailably condemning ANYthing wherein sin was committed in it’s production. ONLY D.G. Hart himself has so much as even made a half hearted attempt to be consistent. When I asked him “whether the covenant wife of his youth should appear publicly nude and be handled sexually by other men in the presence of dozens of more men so millions could watch her on a movie screen, and his gut reaction was: “I can’t really say”.

    Then he says to Nate “But if you can separate words into the category of fake, why not bodies? It may be my real body but it is not my real context for displaying it. It’s an act.”
    Sounds like maybe he thinks it’s ok for him and or the covenant wife of his youth to appear publicly nude and be handled sexually by others in the presence of dozens of more strangers so millions more strangers could watch on a movie screen. That’s consistent. It is a rank abomination, but consistent. He doesn’t wanna talk too much about that lest he be exposed for the fraud that he is.

    Like

  238. Greg: They’re willing to watch other women sin by debasing themselves and God’s covenant of marriage.

    I don’t really believe that they feel that way, it’s not the kind of argument that should appeal to someone older than 7 years.

    At least not to waste 15,000 words on it…

    Like

  239. The way this thread has gone down hill it should probably be retitled “Do I Need a Strategy For Dining on Lamb Fries?”

    The irony is that there is no sex or nudity in “Inside Llewyn Davis”.

    Like

  240. Erik – thank you for explaining, as follows, why the OPC and its crabby variants are so TINY.

    Follow my logic here:

    (1) A man comes to you invoking the Law of God and holiness.

    (2) It quickly becomes apparent he is very angry and insulting towards people he doesn’t even know.

    (3) Why would I believe anything he says about the Law of God and holiness since it has obviously had little impact on his life as far as he treats other people.

    (4) If anything it would be rational to do the direct opposite of what he says.

    Like

  241. (3) Why would I believe anything he says about the Law of God and holiness since it has obviously had little impact on his life as far as he treats other people.

    There are screw ups in everything that man tries to do.

    Dont’ let that get in your wawy.

    He’s outnumbered 100 to 1 on here…

    Like

  242. Erik Charter
    Greg,
    You’ll get no talk of my wife with you.

    No? Hypocrite.
    How bout your daughter hypocrite? You told me all about her a page or two ago. Would Daddy be proud if he went to the theater with his church and there was his little girl in “Don Jon” or Shame” publicly nude and be handled sexually by strange men in the presence of dozens of more strangers so millions more strangers could watch on a movie screen? It’s ok for other men’s daughters though right? You are anathema Erik. A hypocrite of the first and foremost textbook order.

    Like

  243. Greg,

    I’d like to go back to what you said earlier:
    “If there was any sin committed in it’s production, then it is sin in every case to participate. We’re talkin about visual media entertainment here. Not unsaved farmers or auto manufacturers or other unbelievers who’s life is sin by definition. It is not sin to grow corn or make cars or cut hair or sell Avon.. It IS sin to be naked with somebody of the opposite sex not you spouse save only for such things as medical emergencies or related inescapable life circumstances.”

    Is it a sin to lie? Are actors lying when they act or emote? Is it a sin to inflict violence on others or to curse? Are actors sinning when their characters do such things? What about characters that are doing drugs or neglect their kids or don’t believe in God? So basically any actor who plays a villain or some jerk or just some troubled secular dude is sinning in his work and anyone who watches such work is also sinning?

    You also say “if there was any sin commited in its production” but you seem by this not to mean behind-the-scenes processes leading up to and involved with its production (hence your objection to me using your logic to your acts of buying and selling products/services) but rather only sin that is detectable in the final finished product? Is that correct? So if somehow a nice family cartoon was released by a porno company or financed in part by investments in companies that used child labor or something, you would have no problem supporting (or with others supporting) such a cartoon with your money?

    Erik,
    If talking about films dealing with addiction, you left out Requiem for a Dream (drugs). Parts might be a bit too explicit for some. Trainspotting as well. And of course the whole Intervention reality tv series if you want to be super depressed.

    Like

  244. Those in my life rescued from a recklessly sinful life usually shut up about it.

    There is something very weird about those who scream about holiness and then let their talk get littered with the concept of filth.

    Kind of like those who rail against the gays, repressing their true nature…

    Like

  245. Greg,

    If you would have quit after your impassioned plea yesterday morning you would have been better off. That was actually kind of impressive and was food for thought.

    Your anger, vindictiveness, personal insults, and desire to “win” at all costs have overshadowed that at this point, though, which is kind of sad.

    Know when to let your foot off the gas and give the Holy Spirit time to work. Greg isn’t going to convince anybody.

    Like

  246. Erik,

    Ohhhhh the irony!

    Follow my logic here:

    (1) A man comes to you invoking the Law of God and holiness.

    (2) It quickly becomes apparent he is very angry and insulting towards people he doesn’t even know.

    (3) Why would I believe anything he says about the Law of God and holiness since it has obviously had little impact on his life as far as he treats other people.

    (4) If anything it would be rational to do the direct opposite of what he says.

    You just described the calvinist witness to the world! lol!

    Like

  247. Cletus van Damme
    Posted February 6, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Cletus asks: “Is it a sin to lie? Are actors lying when they act or emote? Is it a sin to inflict violence on others or to curse? Are actors sinning when their characters do such things? What about characters that are doing drugs or neglect their kids or don’t believe in God? So basically any actor who plays a villain or some jerk or just some troubled secular dude is sinning in his work and anyone who watches such work is also sinning?
    None of those things are real. A lie is any designed deception. Everybody KNOWS they’re acting Cletus. There is NO real violence, nobody is REALLY using drugs and so on. In the sex scenes they are REALLY naked and REALLY handling and kissing each other. THAT is sin. Period. When someone blasphemously abuses the name of God AND JESUS CHRIST? They REALLY did that. God will not hold them guiltless. I want you to tell me that God does not consider these acts sinful. Again. If YOU would not want your wife or daughter to do it then WHY pray tell is it ok for you to watch others?

    Cletus asks: “You also say “if there was any sin committed in its production” but you seem by this not to mean behind-the-scenes processes leading up to and involved with its production (hence your objection to me using your logic to your acts of buying and selling products/services) but rather only sin that is detectable in the final finished product? Is that correct? So if somehow a nice family cartoon was released by a porno company or financed in part by investments in companies that used child labor or something, you would have no problem supporting (or with others supporting) such a cartoon with your money?
    Paul tells me in 1 Cor 5 that it is NOT possible for me to dissociate from all sinners without leaving the world. Though the context is dealing with “so called” brethren, the principle stands. I cannot function without food, clothing, a vehicle and shelter. God’s broader commands necessitate that I do business with those who do not know him and as such are sinners. It is not possible for me to research EVERY product I put my hands to so as to insure that no sin was committed in it’s production. When it comes to my attention in the reasonable godly living of my life that sin WAS DIRECTLY committed in it’s production OR that company publicly supports godless causes then I either do without that product or find another company. I don’t mean, is the CEO sleeping with his secretary. I mean DOES sleeping with his secretary produce the product.

    It is a loud public universally and comprehensively known fact that the visual media entertainment industry is a reprehensible, morally decomposing filth factory. I can go to IMDB without ANY “so called” brother or sister taking that bullet for me, and find all I’ll ever need to know about whether sin was committed in it’s production. Almost always yes. Neither YOU or DG Hart or Erik or Sean or Chortles or anybody else will EH-VER overcome this argument. It is right out of the larger Catechism. Make no mistake. Your honcho here knows I will beat him like a dog in debate about this. Not because I’m brilliant. But because God’s looooong held truth is what I’m defending. Because I love Him and will live and die spending His gifts and whatever life he chooses to continue to sustain in me in adoring worshiping service to His great name.

    Like

  248. and correct me if Im wrong Erik….. but didnt you call out TvDs wife just a month or so ago?!? yup… pretty sure you did……

    Like

  249. See, you have to link to the comment Kenny.

    I can link to CtC and GB comboxxes. Just like I can use a hoverboard.

    I ain’t no chicken, Biff, if you are reading.

    Biff is CvD s drunk uncle of the youtube boob toob verse.

    Back to LC 137-139

    Back to my geeetar.

    That’s the power of love!

    Like

  250. Greg,

    “When someone blasphemously abuses the name of God AND JESUS CHRIST? They REALLY did that.”

    So now I’m confused. You were saying they were just acting and so everyone knew they weren’t really doing drugs, neglecting kids, hitting people, etc. But I guess in this case an actor who curses God in his performance is sinning just like the people who show nudity? Was Pacino sinning when playing the devil and mocking God?

    “I want you to tell me that God does not consider these acts sinful. ”

    Sin can be determined in part by context. Now I have no problem with people who eschew those acts in their performances – I respect actors like Neal McDonough who has given up parts based on his faith, but I wouldn’t condemn actors who don’t.

    “I don’t mean, is the CEO sleeping with his secretary. I mean DOES sleeping with his secretary produce the product.”

    I understand, which is why I brought up the example of financing via investments in or partnerships with unsavory entities – such means of obtaining money is essential to producing the product. What if an actor can’t perform unless he does drugs off-stage beforehand? The performance helps produce the product. You see how this can get into a crazy maze. It seems your approach is just “i can’t know everything, I just need to use common-sense with what I can see” which is reasonable, but to impose your threshold on others seems unwarranted when you can’t follow it consistently yourself.
    I mean I could easily see someone who was digging your style and saying “Hey Greg, buddy, you gotta research everything you buy – there’s no excuse man – you got internet access – you’re just being lazy – what would God think? I mean what are you doing compromising by saying you can’t live without a car? I take the bus buddy! And why are you working with computers – don’t you know some of those companies exploit child labor – you need to quit brother and find other work” And so on.

    “It is a loud public universally and comprehensively known fact that the visual media entertainment industry is a reprehensible, morally decomposing filth factory. ”

    A lot of it is for sure, no doubt. But there is still great work being churned out, even work that is not tainted by sin from your perspective (Coen brothers which kicked off this thread being one such creative force). Art explores not just one aspect of the human condition, but all of it.

    Like

  251. Zrim,

    Although Greg thinks that I am an OL “sycophant” who spends a lot of time in comboxes on the internet, I don’t know what “GB” refers to.

    Like

  252. Biff’s nephew is jealous,

    Because my dad kicked your uncle’s ass

    Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

    Like

  253. Cletus asks: “So now I’m confused. You were saying they were just acting and so everyone knew they weren’t really doing drugs, neglecting kids, hitting people, etc. But I guess in this case an actor who curses God in his performance is sinning just like the people who show nudity?”
    Yes, he REALLY did that. I’m probably in the wrong crowd to ask this, but does God approve of His saints talking this way? One more time. If YOU are forbidden, then it is rank hypocrisy AND the support of sin for you to pay people you are supposed to be salt and light to, to do it for you.

    Cletus asks: “You see how this can get into a crazy maze.”
    No. I do NOT see that at all in the realm of visual media entertainment which is the topic here. If it would be sin for me do it, and or those I love to do it, then it is sin for the “performers” and any participation by consumption is hypocrisy. Simple, biblical and according to the Catechism.

    Like

  254. Greg,

    “Yes, he REALLY did that. I’m probably in the wrong crowd to ask this, but does God approve of His saints talking this way? One more time. If YOU are forbidden, then it is rank hypocrisy AND the support of sin for you to pay people you are supposed to be salt and light to, to do it for you.”

    He was ACTING Greg. Pacino wasn’t really the devil. An author who writes characters in novels is WRITING CHARACTERS. The cast of Last Temptation of Christ were ACTING.

    “No. I do NOT see that at all in the realm of visual media entertainment which is the topic here.”

    See that’s the issue – your limiting to visual media entertainment but that is not really the topic. The larger topic is the brand of legalism you’re brandishing here – you can’t just say “let’s keep it on movies please” if you are to be consistent with your mentality and not just ad hoc. Further, even if we are to limit it to just visual media – you run into the same issues I was pointing out with studio financing and actors behaviors and so on. You can’t escape this maze you’re creating, and you’d have no leg to stand on if Greg 2.0 came in like I created and started wailing on you.

    Like

  255. Greg, Cletus is a figment. He thinks he is a tv character from the show The Shield.

    At least I know I don’t exist. Cletus changes his name depending on the website.

    I like your comments. I would reveal my true identity. But this is a 2k blog. So you shall call me Marty if you want to talk.

    Thanks again, I just don’t want you to feel silly when you realize Cletus is just a silly moniker.

    Like

  256. Kenneth – and correct me if Im wrong Erik….. but didnt you call out TvDs wife just a month or so ago?!? yup… pretty sure you did……

    Erik – I don’t think so. Tom is sensitive about me mentioning anything about his wife because I know who she is. I don’t think I said anything bad about her. Why would I do that? She is a sharp lady.

    Stop acting 20.

    Like

  257. We also know van dammit’s real name (unless he lies about that too). He’s a chicken. But I’m told I need to throttle back. 2k blogs have a conscience, I may be one of the only out here who have seen it.

    Everyone plays each other the fool out here. Think of it like a game of

    http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Wild_Gunman_kids

    you have to use your hands? That’s like a baby’s toy

    I’m going back to the future. Lates.

    Like

  258. If you either can’t be decent enough to actually read my posts or comprehend my points yer wastin my time Cletus. I don’t even know what you’re talking about with Pacino. I was talking about blasphemous language which is where I edited your comment to include. The catechism must be pretty legalistic then. Do what you want. It’s between you n God.

    Like

  259. Greg,

    I’m reading your posts and trying to understand your thought here. I thought by your reference to blaspheming God/using name in vain you were referencing my example of Pacino playing the devil and mocking God – of course that can be extended to any actor playing a role where he curses God based on his tragic circumstances or is playing a devil-worshipping villain or is just a secular guy who uses Lord’s name in vain without any thought or any countless number of scenarios. Actors are performing Greg, they aren’t really at the moment of acting suddenly becoming their character in real life (no matter how good they are). A writer isn’t actually turning into the character when he writes them, nor is the reader somehow becoming the character they are reading about.

    Actually the catechism must not be legalistic enough for you, as I said above. You just try to limit to visual media, but that’s not warranted (and as I said even when you do just limit to visual media, you still don’t go far enough and are lazy and hypocritical according to your own criteria) – you better go big or go home if you’re gonna use this mentality and condemn others with it. Not this picking and choosing stuff.

    Like

  260. Greg, that’s a bailout. I disagree with Clete about things RC he gets wrong, but, he’s being fair with you, and actually bothering to engage with you substantively. You should give it more consideration.

    Like

  261. I just thought this was a conversation, not a ministry. Where anyone gets off asking a stranger a question like that is something I dont get. Call it generational.

    Got nothing against 2k. But when Cletus van Damme, James Young with Stallman, and Clete at Bryans fantasy land, wants me to explain to him, Mr. Chicken himself, why I prefer movies without masturbation scenes, then I am not of this kind.

    Enjoy clete. This website is yours, you own it.

    Yee haw cowboys

    Like

  262. Marty, it’s how we roll on here.

    If you want to show up and start swinging baseball bats at everyone’s heads, you will get the tough questions.

    Not much of a price to pay….

    Like

  263. Andrew,

    I really don’t care that much what you watch or don’t watch – I’m not you or Greg. I only start caring when people start condemning others for what they do watch – that calls for discussion.

    Like

  264. Hole in one, kent.

    I’d be one of your kind if I could be.

    You’ve been great. Parting is sweet sorrow..

    Lates.

    Like

  265. Dame young, got nothing for you. Go reform your unreformable church. Heck, you are even welcome here, and post whatever dumb name you chose. Makes you look like a teenage dream. This is where I’m told I get incoherent.

    Enjoy peeps.

    Like

  266. When producers shoot porn they have the actors to softcore and hardcore, because they know that certain viewers want a harder level of fix and others can only tolerate a milder level of fix. If all they gave the customer was an R rated level of fix they wouldn’t buy the product.

    It’s worth noting that the heyday for porn being “mainstream” in theaters was the early 70s. Normal people went to see “Deep Throat” because it was the cool thing to do. People got over that pretty quickly, though. The main problem with porn is that it’s boring to anyone that doesn’t need the psychological fix it brings. It’s more like a drug than a film.

    Like

  267. Greg: No? Hypocrite.
    How bout your daughter hypocrite? You told me all about her a page or two ago. Would Daddy be proud if he went to the theater with his church and there was his little girl in “Don Jon” or Shame” publicly nude and be handled sexually by strange men in the presence of dozens of more strangers so millions more strangers could watch on a movie screen? It’s ok for other men’s daughters though right? You are anathema Erik. A hypocrite of the first and foremost textbook order.

    Caleb: That’s pretty aggressive language, Greg.

    Like

  268. Greg,

    Say every man on here made a pledge to not watch any more movies that contained nudity. Would we be good with you? No more anathemas?

    What would be the next item on your list?

    Like

  269. Erik Charter
    Greg,
    I’ll ask you straight out: Did you have or do you have a porn addiction? Is that what is fueling this fire?

    And I’ll tell you straight out no. My passion is for my holy Father and His covenant of marriage hypocrite. What the world does is not my problem. I’m concerned about the next generation inside the visible church. My problem is faithfully proclaiming His truth, and seeing that as many, especially young people as the Lord would be pleased to move upon, are either not taken in or retrieved from pied pipers of perversion like overpopulate this site. Hart is a high profile juicy big name representative of this moral heresy. HE is my goal here. Not his low hanging fruit like you. The fact that I have to spell this out is a bit comical. Trust me. He gets it. A successful exposure of this devilish degeneracy with him IS far more useful to the Lord than to keep swatting all these annoying flies one at a time. Exposing HIM goes a very long way toward exposing the error itself due to his stature. The rest of you will go down with him, though it’s the heresy I’m after. Not the people who I very much care for and would love to have as brethren. I will NEVER get one of those pagan critics like Alissa Wilkinson or Jeff Overstreet to engage on this EVER, though one of them would be my first choice. They are totally laughable incompetents in the scriptures and are far too beloved by the whoring apostate church to risk exposure in an unnecessary debate.

    Evil and debauched visual media entertainment is one the most spectacularly successful deceptions perpetrated upon the church in several generations at least. It is a defiling and crippling flood of all that God hates being welcomed with open arms into the hearts of those claiming His name. The death and overt hypocrisy on this site is overwhelming. The slobbering sensual love affair with the most overt and unmistakable corruptions of the world is absolutely heartbreaking. I want to be able to look my Lord in the eye and know that I obeyed His Word and His will by denouncing and fighting this pollution of His name with everything I am and everything I have. THAT is what drives me Erik. My most fervent prayer is that something I say here be used of Him to deliver somebody out of the most hideous and pervasive addiction in human history. Most will laugh. I’ve come to expect that. And if nobody listens I will have done His will nonetheless.

    Erik Charter asks: How do you know so much about these movies that you are supposed to be avoiding?”
    IMDB

    Cletus van Damme: “I really don’t care that much what you watch or don’t watch – I’m not you or Greg. I only start caring when people start condemning others for what they do watch – that calls for discuss”
    I am doing just that Cletus. These principles are universal and apply to EVERYBODY for ALL time. just like they always used to before the church married the world. Darryl knows I’ll make that case too. I call the principles of the word of God and ESPECIALLY for these apostate Presbyterians, their OWN historically orthodox tradition to witness against them. Their spiritual and theological progenitors are crying out in betrayal of the standards of purity and holiness they left for us. Darryl especially knows this. Don’t ya you hypocritical coward. I may be his very first ban before he debates me on this, but I must try. He’s an idolator who, as I said before, is willing to sacrifice the virtue of his own covenant wife on the altar of Hollywood. If that’s a Christian testimony I’ll throw my bible away because it has no meaning.

    Caleb says: “That’s pretty aggressive language, Greg”
    HAHAHA!! It’s called passion Caleb. Something you have none of unless it’s for some Satanic movie. I’m asking you now for the 4th time. WHERE, I beg of thee. I haven’t seen anything you’ve written about God, Jesus, scripture, a testimony. You know. Christian stuff. Where can I find that? Last time I asked you a question anything like this you demonstrated the amazing debate strategy of disappearance. I can find mountains of stuff on your sickening worship of movies and the world. Where do I find your worship of God? Just a link. I know with all the time you spend online discussing that purifying media entertainment industry that you MUST have spent at least that much time talking about your beloved King and Savior. I ask that you bless me with with a link. Please?

    Like

  270. Erik – How do you know so much about these movies that you are supposed to be avoiding?

    The only way he would know is if he:

    (A) Saw them
    (B) Is reading something someone wrote who saw them

    If (A) shame on Greg.

    If (B) then shame on that person that Greg is relying on.

    Greg might reply, “The person who saw the movie and is reporting on it did it as a service to inform people about the dangers of the movie.”

    O.K. So I as a Christian can’t watch movies so that I am prepared to have a conversation with others about the dangers of a movie, and, more importantly, the themes considered in a movie they might see?

    Greg?

    Like

  271. Greg – WHERE, I beg of thee. I haven’t seen anything you’ve written about God, Jesus, scripture, a testimony. You know. Christian stuff.

    Erik – Where’s Old Bob when we need him?

    Like

  272. It seems to me the greater issue is one of liberty of conscience and lordship. As God doesn’t providentially move us as He would inanimate objects, he also doesn’t sanctify us generically, without regard to the person. There seem to be issues both unique to personhood and even seasons within the same person that Paul accommodates within his ethic. Thus, qualification as to weaker and stronger brethren, distinctions of profitability and lawfulness, and admonition that ANYTHING done apart from faith is sin. IOW, Paul resists a one size fits all ethic of sanctification/mortification. There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly scandalous or inappropriate about this latitude. Paul acknowledges that one may view one day above another, and another, all days alike. What is prohibited, however, is the passing of judgement upon those who move within regard to the liberty of their conscience in accountability to the Lord. This isn’t antinomian, where the libertine is pursuing vice that grace may abound or presuming upon God’s mercy to satiate his sinful desires, but instead is an active regard for the noble or ignoble value of a matter engaged or pursued or enjoyed. The unwillingness or inability to engage categories of wisdom, maturity and discretion, is itself an Imago Dei denying act and unbecoming a creature with capacity for discernment. To flatten distinctions and prescribe ‘one size fits all’ solutions or worse, grab the mantle of religious authority and proclaim ; ‘thus sayeth the Lord’ as regards matters charitable, is to do worse than encourage another in a sinful pursuit, but, in fact, overreach and supplant the very Lord Himself in His rightful and earned station as Lord of the conscience. The very idea of maturity and moving on from childhood is one of being freed from the schoolmaster and set out upon a course that is informed by an expectation of adult interaction with adult matters and receiving requisite consequence as to choices made well or poorly. So, even if Greg were correct in his assessment, his manner of engagement requires resistance as unsuitable, sinful and deleterious to the manner of maturity that is to be pursued.

    Like

  273. Erik Charter
    Greg,
    Say every man on here made a pledge to not watch any more movies that contained nudity. Would we be good with you? No more anathemas?

    Why Lord!! WHY am I doin this to myself? Erik, I challenged Dr. Hart to put this stuff away for one month ans spend that time in prayer, the word and worshiping with his wife. Guess why? Because all this filth is a symptom of a heart deadened and apathetic to the Spirit and things of God. I never told him to permanently do anything. Go back and read that comment again if you’re really interested though yer not. I have to go. I KNOW, that if he or ANY of you were to take that challenge and continue on the path it starts you down? All this garbage will take care of itself. It’s a weapon of the of the enemy. And only Gods’s armor and weaponry will defeat it.

    Well shoot. Here’s what I said:
    “Lemme give you another challenge Daryyl. Everything that’s happened here aside. Take one month. Literally physically unplug the tv’s. No TALK of tv. No movies, no movie TALK. If coming to this site makes that impossible (how telling would that be?) take a hiatus. For this time,(just for now) only listen to worship music AND worship in your home. Sing to Him. Tell Him that you love him. Sing to Him that you love Him. One month. Take all the time you would have spent on TV and movies and talking about them and lock yourself away with your bible. Tell God that you are willing to enthusiastically embrace whatever work He will do in you in that time. Take a significant portion of that time with your wife too. COMMIT to every day, taking her in your arms and leading her to the throne of grace, telling her that she is your number one priority after the Lord. That you will not rest until God has taught you to love her like He loves you. Sing to Him with her. (She may not be able keep her hands off you if she sees you’re serious and that’s not a joke) One month. Trade that time of godless carnality for prayer, word and wife.”

    Like

  274. Sean says: “it seems to me”
    See now there’s your problem. God doesn’t care what it seems to you. He doesn’t care what it seems to me either btw. That’s why he so graciously left us such a rich historical witness. ESPECIALLY for Presbyterians for God’s sake (literally)
    Sean, if you guys can coax your fearless leader out of hiding, I will destroy your last long post as he feebly tries to defend it. That is pure post modern uncertainty wrapped in the pseudo spiritual language of license disguised as liberty. I MUST go now for a while

    Like

  275. Greg, it’s a manner of speech. Try to be less toolish. Maybe a smoke and an aperitif to take the edge of the greenies, before you reengage. If you get lost between rushing off and returning to your keyboard, that would work too.

    Like

  276. Erik Charter snidely asks:
    Erik – How do you know so much about these movies that you are supposed to be avoiding?

    Which I already answered ABOVE

    Erik Charter asks: How do you know so much about these movies that you are supposed to be avoiding?”
    IMDB

    Erik Charter snidely goes on: “The only way he would know is if he:
    (A) Saw them”

    I promise you nay.
    Erik Charter snidely goes on: “(B) Is reading something someone wrote who saw them.
    Yep
    If (A) shame on Greg.
    Erik Charter snidely goes on: “If (B) then shame on that person that Greg is relying on.”,
    yep.
    Erik Charter snidely goes on: “Greg might reply, “The person who saw the movie and is reporting on it did it as a service to inform people about the dangers of the movie.”
    SIGH! I addressed THAT already too.
    I disagree that there is ANY legitimate need whatsoever for the oxymoron of “Christan” movie critic. I consider them as enemies of the cross too. They ARE useful though. The devil meant them for evil, but God can use them for good and he does. However, IMDB is my primary source. The pagans are God’s unwitting allies as even their sin is made to serve him. They are my research assistants even though they don’t know it. Hey that sounds like WCF V.

    Erik Charter snidely goes on: “O.K. So I as a Christian can’t watch movies so that I am prepared to have a conversation with others about the dangers of a movie, and, more importantly, the themes considered in a movie they might see?
    Greg?

    One more time dearest Erik
    The unbelievers at IMDB tell me everything I’ll ever need to know without ANY Christians EVER needing to defile and pollute themselves with the world’s debauchery. I don’t need to crawl around in a dumpster to know it’s diseased and rotting inside. I can smell it from all the way over here thank you very much.

    Like

  277. Greg: HAHAHA!! It’s called passion Caleb.

    Caleb: Your passion manifests itself as aggression, Greg.

    Greg: …Something you have none of unless it’s for some Satanic movie.

    Caleb: Greg, you are the master of the unwarranted generalization.

    Greg: I’m asking you now for the 4th time. WHERE, I beg of thee. I haven’t seen anything you’ve written about God, Jesus, scripture, a testimony. You know. Christian stuff. Where can I find that? Last time I asked you a question anything like this you demonstrated the amazing debate strategy of disappearance. I can find mountains of stuff on your sickening worship of movies and the world. Where do I find your worship of God? Just a link. I know with all the time you spend online discussing that purifying media entertainment industry that you MUST have spent at least that much time talking about your beloved King and Savior. I ask that you bless me with with a link. Please?

    Caleb: This is a bizarre request. I don’t have my own blog and I don’t spend much time commenting on other blogs. There is no one place where I go where I agree with everything that is said. Prior to this thread, I had left maybe 3-4 comments on OL. I didn’t see your request in the comments on the Trevin Wax article because, well, work/life get in the way and I didn’t go back after my last comment there until today. Both of your requests are very presumptive.

    Like

  278. Greg,

    What if after the 30 day retreat we did something that hit another one of your hot buttons? What then? Would the anathemas continue? There are a lot of other sinful activities besides watching movies, no?

    How do you justify reading about those movies on IMDB? Someone had to subject themselves to those movies to write anything about them. By clicking on that website you’re only making it more successful by increasing their hits.

    You say you aren’t a porn addict now. Did you used to be?

    Like

  279. ERIK. Please click my name next to my picture above this comment. It links to my comment to you that probably went into moderation because it has several links. Yer missin it huge man and wastin both our time. That’s not even sarcastic anymore. I’m reposting I don’t know how many things to you that I already addressed. Read what I say BEFORE you ask me for answers to stuff I already said please.

    Also. I shoulda thoughta this. Has Dr. Hart written a scholarly exegetical/expositional piece where the oft butchered “liberty” passages of 1st Corinthians, Romans and Colossians are actually attempted to be shown to support what it is on this site alleged that they support? That’s honest question.

    Like

  280. U-R-K, and how big is your church? Actually, how big is your name? If you want to get huffy here, fine. But show a little courage and go by the name your parents gave you.

    Like

  281. D. G. Hart
    This has Doug Sowers written all over it.

    These guys already found my FACEBOOK page Darryl. HAHAHA! Send a request. We can be buds. Feel free to contact my pastor, Chris Brooks or any one of the people there from my church so you can feel stupid(which yer not) when they, to a man, vouch for my character. I have no idea who Doug Sowers is.😀 Come on Doc. Knock it off already. Step up like ya got yer big boy pants on and engage. OR, tell these folks the truth which is that you know that you cannot win. You have my word before all these hostile witnesses that if ever you were to do that, there would be rejoicing and ZERO gloating on my part. NONE. That’s not the point.

    Like

  282. The Doug Sowers rule hits Greg. Any comments directed at Greg from now on will be deleted. He is free to comment, but he won’t receive any responses, unless he changes his manner.

    Like

  283. “Mudman, and I was hoping to generate some discussion of calves’ brains.”

    Calf brains in jars refract in the light
    Constellations, fascinations,
    My idle time fright.
    Curvy gray rows the source of spry kicks
    Gray putty in liquid
    Never-burning wicks.

    Gross, is that the best my muse can do? Muses just don’t want to move to the Midwest, what can I say?

    Like

  284. Darryl says: Greg… is free to comment, but he won’t receive any responses, unless he changes his manner.
    Dr Hart informs us that it is his conviction that the production and public showing of motion pictures featuring true to life cinematic nudity and sexual conduct by actual persons is a “mundane” activity requiring relatively little theological or biblically moral reflection, going so far as to equate such a practice with the eating of sweet bread. ALL things are lawful says Hart and enjoyment is it’s own justification.

    Romans 14,1st Corinthians 6:12ff, 9:19-23, and Colossians 2:16-22 are the passages used by those who believe that the viewing and consumption of true to life cinematic nudity and sexual conduct by actual persons is sanctioned by the ancient Christian Scriptures and historic reformed orthodoxy.

    I am asking Dr. Hart if he would be so kind as to point me to where he has demonstrated this principle from those passages and the standards of reformed orthodoxy since he makes use of them to support this article. I am compelled to honestly confess that I find this to be an alarming lack of discernment without the biblical or historical support that Hart claims. I am genuinely interested in the process of study and prayer by which these passages have been marshaled to the support of this view.

    Further, it is manifestly just in all of life to inquire of the professing Christian whether that which he receives of others for his amusement may be itself unlawful to him and or those over which he has been given divine charge. I am therefore strongly induced to ask whether Dr. Hart would consider “acting” that entails nudity and sexual contact to be sinful on the part of the performers and producers of such works? If not then Dr. Hart and or his family members are at liberty to themselves engage in such performances partnered by opposite gendered individuals not each other. I must ask Dr. Hart to state plainly whether himself, his wife or his children have his blessing in this endeavor. If it is sin then Christians are at liberty neither to promote nor finance the sinful activities of those to which they are called to be ambassadors and witnesses of Christ.

    Clear biblical injunctions concerning the spoken word are also famously known and my hope is to eventually address those as well at such time as the opportunity would present itself. I would in the meantime however be most gratified if Dr. Hart (only please) were at his leisure to be so gracious as to lend me his considerable erudition in the understanding of biblical and historic reformed truth as touches these issues.
    Thank you.

    Like

  285. “It’s worth noting that the heyday for porn being “mainstream” in theaters was the early 70s. Normal people went to see “Deep Throat” because it was the cool thing to do. People got over that pretty quickly, though. The main problem with porn is that it’s boring to anyone that doesn’t need the psychological fix it brings. It’s more like a drug than a film.”

    Is that true or did VHS and then the internet displace theaters? It looks like about 25% of every man woman and child in the US is looking at internet porn monthly. I suspect that if we were to break that down by sex and age, we would find that this includes a majority of sexually mature men (say 15-65 year old males). I don’t think Deep Throat was anywhere near that popular in the 70’s, but I could be wrong.

    I’m not suggesting that it is inherently sinful to watch R-rated movies, but I think it is dangerous to underestimate the hold lust has on a lot of men. It is a powerful appetite. Unlike watching actors pretend to commit other sins, looking lustfully at a naked woman is a sin in and of itself (though I do think rage porn – the way that our sensationalist news media plays on sense of outrage – falls into the same category). Now there may be guys that can watch sexually explicit movies without lusting in their heart, but I’m not one of them and I don’t think I’m unusual in that regard. Nor is it the same as looking at naked statues in a museum, an anatomy book, or National Geographic. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there have been guys who struggled with those things, but generally speaking, context matters in terms of its power to entice. I could say the same about watching endless stories about the “war on Christmas” or “threat of terrorism” without hating one’s neighbor in one’s heart. There is a difference between one’s emotional reaction to hearing about the atrocities committed by the Assyrians and the “atrocities” committed by the ACLU.

    So while I think Greg is over the top, I see where he is coming from. Wisdom would say that most men should avoid sexually explicit material. But Greg’s tone, blanket condemnation, crass expression, etc… are really unhelpful. His myopic focus on sex is also disturbing.

    Like

  286. SDB,

    Good thoughts by you.

    SDB – It looks like about 25% of every man woman and child in the US is looking at internet porn monthly.

    Erik – Percentage of women & children is likely less, so percentage of men may be higher. This may be why if you bring the topic up in Christian circles you get mostly awkward silence and people staring at the floor. Skeletons in closets.

    Setting aside Greg’s arguments, which may have some validity based on love of neighbor (I wouldn’t want my wife/daughter doing this so why should I watch someone else’s daughter), I agree that there is danger in R rated sexuality as a “trigger”. The recovering porn addict may view it and fall off the wagon and return to the hard stuff.

    On the other hand, if a “love scene” is done tastefully and beautifully it might be not such a bad thing for the addict. The main thing porn does is objectify women (the movie “Don Jon” makes that point really well) and for a man to see sex in the context of love (and ideally marital faithfulness) may be part of the cure. Now too often R rated sexuality pushes the envelope to be a lot like porn. Note how often the sex scenes in an R rated movie are done by a no-name “actress” (probably a stripper hoping to make the big time) vs. a star. This is gratuitous in my opinion and a cheap trick by the director. I could name specific films, but won’t. Other times the whole movie itself is just titillation — maybe the best example in modern times being “Basic Instinct”. Verhoeven & Eszterhas are taking men on a ride they don’t need to be on from beginning to end in that film.

    In the whole area of sexuality & lust, however, I’m not convinced the cure is hardcore (no pun intended) gritting of the teeth avoidance. If there is lust in your heart, the opportunity to sin will find you. The answer is Christ and the gospel. When you understand what Christ has done and the wonderful thing God did in creating women, you ungrit your teeth a bit and begin to see them rightly — especially our own wives.

    Like

  287. at times this thread felt better than waiting on hold for an hour hearing an endless loop of…

    Once more you open the door
    And you’re here in my heart
    And my heart will go on and on

    Like

  288. sbd: but generally speaking, context matters in terms of its power to entice.

    Caleb: Exactly. I think this is what most people here are saying. Its what I’ve been saying.

    There is a vast gulf between the kinds of films that I (and I think others) are trying to defend and pornography or “smut,” “filth” or whatever other loaded terms that some people like to use. I don’t think that anyone here is trying to defend a desire to go out and see excessively sexually explicit material that is such for its own sake, though you might think so if you listen to some of the apparent outrage. Sometimes it feels like we’re not even talking about the same material. For example, I finally got my wife to agree to watch “The Wire” with me. We just watched the third episode of the first season. There is a 10 second sex scene with brief nudity. It very effectively and efficiently reveals character. Should I condemn the entire series, despite its serious artistic merit and social commentary? I think that to do so is a sign of immaturity. Should the only “artistic” engagement with race in America come from Kirk Cameron films and Lecrae (or Disney if you’re really progressive)? Nope.

    If someone really can’t take that kind material, that’s fine. Don’t watch it. I generally could care less what other people’s boundaries are. Though it is kind of annoying when most of your church is culturally illiterate and fearful and can only talk about Pixar films, as long as they don’t secretly promote homosexuality. Yes, that is currently a caricature but it won’t be for long if certain people get their way. Veggie Tales and A Walk to Remember were about the only things you could watch in my youth group in the early 2000s. One girl walked out on youth group screening of Chariots of Fire (!) because she was raised to despise “the movies.”

    What bothers me is when the evangelical “how Christians should respond to this and that” and “what every Christian needs to know about this or that” or “why Christians can’t watch this or that” crusaders and their minions over at the Gospel Coalition question my spirituality because I disagree with their universal standard on films or other cultural things that they haven’t seen. So I push back a bit. I’m particularly concerned these days because I sense a movement back to complete cultural separatism in a lot of evangelicalism, mostly I think because their experiment with the GOP has failed.They’re going too far and missing out on great art in the process and creating more fear and power for their leaders…Oh, and alienating as many people as they keep.

    Like

  289. SDB has some good points. Nate as well. I think I Cor. 12:23 informs us that natural law generally impresses upon people the impropriety of public nudity. Though I do not seek out films with nudity, there are times when the wife and I watch where a quick scene of nudity, maybe one second, appears without warning. There is rarely an artistic reason for such a scene, it is obviously for ratings and word of mouth that lust would draw more movie goers. Schindler’s List is one example I can think of where the nudity was necessary to make the film, but it certainly was not done to provoke lust. I’m sure there are others I am not aware of (Maybe Fight Club, which I don’t remember if it had nudity, but the brief fuzzy sex scene, which was so blurry you could barely see anything, seemed to add to the film, a film I did appreciate.) When it comes to what Christians watch, we must trust avoid lust, but allow the Holy Spirit to guide and convict his people in that area without enforcing a list of man-made rules. That seemed to be the M.O of the Apostle Paul – I Thess 4:3-7. Each of us are tempted differently.

    Speaking of porn, Carl Trueman at a conference was asked what the greatest danger facing the church in America was, and he responded – on-line pornography. I remember back in the 80’s most argued that the increase in pornography will result in the increase in sexual crimes such as rape. One sociologist argued the opposite. She argued rape would decrease with more porn because the media presents unreal, photoshopped and overly made-up images – thus people would be let down when they saw the real human body. Turns out she was right. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html
    Rape generally decreases as porn consumption increases. But one of the disastrous effects of porn is the disappointment among married people with the bodies of their spouses as they do not measure up to the screen image, which leads to all sorts or other issues.

    Like

  290. It’s too bad this conversation got hijacked. Maybe it’s too late to find a conversation here, but I’ll throw in a couple observations. Whoever you are, your conscience is triggered at a different place than mine. I’m a certain age, I’ve had experiences different than yours, I have different weaknesses, etc. I don’t know how one can produce absolute rules (for movies done outside the porn industry) when conscience has to be such a central consideration.

    The second observation goes to content. I’ve seen a movie with a couple shots of the naughty parts but the setting was not in the least erotic. Then I’ve seen – of all things – a black & white silent movie where there was never anything less than ordinary street clothes on the actors but a particular scene was more erotic than anything in the other film. So one-size-fits-all rules seem hard to come by. This makes us uncomfortable because the first things we reach for to eliminate gray areas are rules.

    Like

  291. Todd – Schindler’s List is one example I can think of where the nudity was necessary to make the film, but it certainly was not done to provoke lust.

    Erik – There’s actually a sex scene early on in the film between Oscar and a woman. Part of establishing his character. I assume you are saying the “necessary” nudity was the Jewish victims.

    So should a Christian throw out the entire film for the sake of the early “unnecessary” sex scene?

    A similar film is “Twelve Years a Slave”. I would hate for any Christian to miss that one for the sake of some nudity. The lessons learned are too important.

    Caleb,

    I too have experienced the “annoyance” you speak of. Surely there is a place for Christians who take literature, film, and art seriously outside of the lame Mainline or nominal Catholicism?

    Like

  292. Spielberg’s “Munich” likewise has some sexual themes that are important to the story — Eric Bana’s character & his wife before and after his mission and the honey trap that almost does him in.

    Scorcese going bonkers in “The Wolf of Wall Street” is odd in light of his being pretty restrained in this area throughout his career. He must have thrown off what lingering Catholic guilt remained in him.

    Like

  293. “So should a Christian throw out the entire film for the sake of the early “unnecessary” sex scene?”

    Erik, I was only relating my own observations. It is not for me to tell other Christians to throw out the entire film or not. Sometimes I turn off a television show because of the lurid subject matter, other times I endure it. Convictions are subjective – one of the beauties of the new covenant – God treats us as adults, allows us to come to our own convictions via our own consciences.

    Like

  294. sdb says: “So while I think Greg is over the top, I see where he is coming from. Wisdom would say that most men should avoid sexually explicit material. But Greg’s tone, blanket condemnation, crass expression, etc… are really unhelpful.”
    While your level headed, reasoned and substantive thoughts are greatly appreciated, AND taken to heart, you have largely missed the central points I have been heretofore advancing. I have said NOTHING about lust induced in the viewer. When taken in the light of my actual points, my “blanket condemnations” are from a biblical and historical standpoint more than justified. Dr. Hart knows that.

    Additionally, and rather ironically, though I DO have a rather, shall we say… “extroverted” and sometimes caustic personality, a significant portion and level of my “tone” and “crass expression” was what amounts to “acting”. Dr. Hart got that too. Nobody else did. Nobody. Not even after I practically told them.

    sdb says: “His myopic focus on sex is also disturbing.”
    You sir could certainly be forgiven for drawing that conclusion from this conversation alone which is the only one you’ve ever really seen me in. The pervasive nature and level of permissiveness with regard to sinfully produced entertainment media within the otherwise theologically sound reformed world, is a recent discovery for me. I just never really looked, naively assuming that the spiritual and theological descendants of Westminster and the scholastics could not possibly be promoting what you see in this discussion thread. I suspect you have not fully grasped the level of NC-17 rated defilement of fellow children of father Adam that is being declared righteous here. It tears my heart out. I mean as in like seeing photographs of homeless weeping victims of natural disasters holding each other as they gaze upon the rubble that was once their home. This specie of moral decline among those I least would have expected it from is painful in ways I am at a loss to express.

    That said, I am far from a one note Johnny my friend. Please see HERE and allow me to humbly ask that you judge for yourself my competence in Van Tillian epistemology. I have spent thousands of hours battling atheists and arminians. No they are not the same, but they have the same epistemology though atheists are more consistent (another discussion) For a fuller view of my thoughts on Sex, family and marriage please see the first two posts HERE. I thank you for providing me the opportunity for these clarifications. Any further questions would be welcomed. I DO though ask please that you look over this thread first as I have been asked or accused REPEATEDLY of the same things already.

    I want to thank Dr. Hart as well. He intended his “Doug Sowers” tactic of shunning isolation as a means of getting me to leave. Ignore somebody and they go away right? I however receive it as a golden opportunity to catch up on all the comments I was not able to address due to the shock and awe campaign that was being waged upon my person. By silencing my opponents he has provided me cover and breathing room to do so in a freely unhindered and unhurried way. I’m gonna shoot for one good one a day.

    Like

  295. The principle I’ve been emphasizing here has NOTHING to do with whether YOU lust. Nothing. It has everything to do with whether there is anything in the movie it would be sin for you or your family to perform. WLC 99 IF there is, it is sinful for you to watch and thereby promote and finance the sin of others. Let’s take Schindler’s List and 12 Years a Slave. I’ve seen neither and have no desire to. Are there scenes that you would not wish your wife (or children) to perform? Or that your wife (or children) would not wish you to perform? Reread the 99th question of the larger catechism for whether previous generations would have considered even one scene or word to be damning of the whole. Of course they would have.

    Where in the scriptures do we find God telling His covenant people to learn moral lessons from the unregenerate? Where? From the above 2 mentioned films, Schindler’s List and 12 Years a Slave, can somebody please set forth for me an essential truth of God that they gained from those movies that I am lacking in never having seen them? As for films like “Shame” and Don Jon” which from my reading were non stop sex and nudity, let’s try those too. What was lacking in the Word and church from Genesis 12 to the 20th century that is now added by unbelieving filmmakers in Hollywood?

    Like

  296. The American troops who came across the concentration camps could have told the neighboring Germans to go home and read their Bibles to know that what had happened was wrong. Instead they took them to the camps and made them deal with dead bodies. It drove the lesson home.

    Like

  297. The God who ordered Hosea to marry a harlot may not be as tame and blushing as many of us seem to think.

    If God was G-rated why even invent sex and the intimacy it entails? It’s pretty intense and raw when you think about it. Should we all be sleeping in separate beds like Lucy and Desi and only be visiting our wives when absolutely necessary, and that with the lights off and pajamas still mostly on?

    Like

  298. The God who ordered Hosea to marry a harlot may not be as tame and blushing as many of us seem to think.

    If God was G-rated why even invent sex and the intimacy it entails? It’s pretty intense and raw when you think about it. Should we all be sleeping in separate beds like Lucy and Desi and only be visiting our wives when absolutely necessary, and that with the lights off and pajamas still mostly on?

    When “you think about it”?
    Or watch it acted out in live living color on the hi def TV screen?
    Maybe there’s a reason it is mediated to us by the way of the printed word rather than seeing it in the raw flesh. As in since when did Scripture becomes a movie script?
    IOW can we say non sequitur?

    Which maybe pretty much sums up the whole shebang.
    The argument starts out talking about eating sweetbread, seems to morph into consuming just about anything with our eyes, but then somebody wants to barbecue The Sacred Cow and Great God of Entertainment and that’s one bridge to far to let any trolls camp under and boil water. Go figure.

    Would it be OK for former URC pastor Edouard to become a Hollywood actor in movies with staged acts of real or pretend sex, rape, fornication and adultery sin, but he only sins if he really acts it out in private and off camera?
    And we’re not peeping toms if we watch it on Blockbuster, but we are, if we watch through the parsonage window?
    The movie, the documentary or the reality show? Really?

    Hmmm.
    Yeah, mens rea and all that.
    IOW intent. Of entertainment?

    Then how do we spin the unlawfulness of “lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others” of LC Q&A 139?
    Q&A 100?


    6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.
    7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.
    8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.

    Ps. 101:3 “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes”?

    While humility is appropriate in victory and the hysterical self righteousness is sinfully over the top, the background picture of the stuffy uptight dead white prudes pietists pharisees presbyterians guys on Greg’s computer has still got to go.

    Meanwhile, as Heckle and Jeckle instruct us, let us to eat, drink and watch movies, for tomorrow the Netflix subscription runs out and our Christian license liberty expires.

    Indeed.

    cheers

    [Thanks in advance for all the up votes to stay on the show.]

    Like

  299. Bob,

    Edouard was acquitted of rape.

    Not to pick on him too much but he, like Doug Phillips, was a guy who appeared to have all his ducks in a row. Everything looked neat & tidy, children were well behaved. As far as I know he didn’t watch many movies. Huge classical music fan from what I’ve heard. But…

    I know of three men who have been picked up in prostitution stings in Central Iowa in recent years who attended fundamentalist Baptist churches. One was an officer at Faith Baptist Bible College, one was a father of nine that I used to work for, one was another guy who no one suspected. None of the three were much into worldly entertainment. But…

    No one says you have to watch anything, but if you think your not watching it somehow protects you, think again.

    Like

  300. Bob – Maybe there’s a reason it is mediated to us by the way of the printed word rather than seeing it in the raw flesh.

    Erik – What of Jesus hanging out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners? He was in the flesh. The disciples saw it. What did those women dress and look like?

    Like

  301. Did i miss the announcement that Obama has declared an extra hour of internet use a week in noted public facilities?

    Like

  302. Jesus could have kept the disciples far away from such bad people, lest they be corrupted by them. They could have gone off and lived together like monks in order to be really holy. Jesus seemed to like to mix it up in the culture within he found Himself, however, and the disciples (soon to be apostles) did likewise.

    Viva Pope Francis!

    O.K., maybe that’s a bit too far…

    Like

  303. Bob,

    Do you think the OPC and PCA are in need of an Index of Prohibited Books, Songs, Musical Groups, Plays, Movies, and Dances to flesh out 139? The Catholics suppressed theirs, but maybe it’s time for the Presbyterians to revive the concept?

    Or is it an unwritten list that pastors and officers are subject to discipline over should they run afoul of a pietist in a bad mood?

    Like

  304. The principle I’ve been emphasizing here has NOTHING to do with whether YOU lust. Nothing. It has everything to do with whether there is anything in the movie it would be sin for you or your family to perform. WLC 99 IF there is, it is sinful for you to watch and thereby promote and finance the sin of others. Let’s take Schindler’s List and 12 Years a Slave. I’ve seen neither and have no desire to. Are there scenes that you would not wish your wife (or children) to perform? Or that your wife (or children) would not wish you to perform? Reread the 99th question of the larger catechism for whether previous generations would have considered even one scene or word to be damning of the whole. Of course they would have.

    Where in the scriptures do we find God telling His covenant people to learn moral lessons from the unregenerate? Where? From the above 2 mentioned films, Schindler’s List and 12 Years a Slave, can somebody please set forth for me an essential truth of God that they gained from those movies that I am lacking in never having seen them? As for films like “Shame” and Don Jon” which from my reading were non stop sex and nudity, let’s try those too. What was lacking in the Word and church from Genesis 12 to the 20th century that is now added by unbelieving filmmakers in Hollywood?

    Erik Charter
    “The American troops who came across the concentration camps could have told the neighboring Germans to go home and read their Bibles to know that what had happened was wrong. Instead they took them to the camps and made them deal with dead bodies. It drove the lesson home.”

    This is neither SCRIPTURE nor historic reformed orthodoxy. If I get up the ambition I MAY copy and paste a whole page of NOTHING but the collected wisdom of men like Erik has here brought us. I have links to EVERY conceivable particle of human rationalization like this. I mean literally. It would take 20 minutes or a half hour to read. ZERO scripture or historic reformed precedent though. Just like EVERYBODY in this thread defending the media entertainment industry. Everybody. Every time.

    Context, intent of producers, willingness of performers, majesty of message, profundity of thought, responsible engagement of culture, artistic awesomeness, not meant to be sexy, only for a second, on and on and on and on. NO substantive engagement of scripture OR the historic witness of reformed orthodoxy EVER. Even once. After months now. Lots and lots of the quotation of modern like minded men and arguments based in human wisdom which seems right unto man, but the ways thereof are death.

    Erik Charter
    The God who ordered Hosea to marry a harlot may not be as tame and blushing as many of us seem to think.

    If God was G-rated why even invent sex and the intimacy it entails? It’s pretty intense and raw when you think about it. Should we all be sleeping in separate beds like Lucy and Desi and only be visiting our wives when absolutely necessary, and that with the lights off and pajamas still mostly on?
    Erik this is beneath you. Could I have been wrong all along and YOU are the one with the aching conscience? That would be beautiful man. I mean that. There is NO way that any reasonable person fails to see the difference between “Onan spilled his seed on the ground or Adam knew his wife or David went in to Bathsheba and paying God’s money to unbelievers to depict those things in full color cinematic realism right in your face on a 3 story movie screen. No way.

    I say again. If YOU or your family could not do or say what is required in the production of ANY ANY ANY film, regardless of how profound or otherwise seemingly beneficial, then it is sinful hypocrisy for you to pay others to do it for you. This includes Schindler’s List, 12 Years a Slave and ABSOLUTELY ANY other film ANYbody can EVER name. There has not been, nor can there EVER be an argument from scripture or the reformed standards to overcome that principle. Full stop. Game over. Right now Dr. D.G. Hart, the very legitimately esteemed scholar of church history, KNOWS what I am saying would have been unanimously held in the Westminster Assembly were we to go back in time and give them the IMDB content reports. He will NEVER EVER deny that. Watch.

    Like

  305. Todd says: “one of the beauties of the new covenant – God treats us as adults, allows us to come to our own convictions via our own consciences.”
    This is simply not true Todd. Not the way it is often preached today. New covenant morality is very accurately portrayed in the Westminster Standards and is at least as exacting in many ways and even more so in some than the old. There are SOME areas that are in themselves morally neutral that are individual, but the idea of extending that to include sinfully produced media entertainment is utterly unsupported by the text and would never have been taken to mean that in previous generations. That is just not debatable.

    I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with Justification. Obedience to God’s commands neither saves us nor keeps us that way. It does however, contrary to popular modern opinion, tell us a lot about the credibility of one’s testimony. 1st John 3 is unmistakably clear.

    Like

  306. Erik continues to rationalize:: “What of Jesus hanging out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners? He was in the flesh. The disciples saw it. What did those women dress and look like?”
    How many onscreen performers have you preached the gospel to Erik? That’s what Jesus and the disciples were doing and there is NO evidence they shamed women by viewing their nakedness in the process. If they paid these women to undress and act out sex scenes you might have an analogous point.

    Erik continues to rationalize:: “Do you think the OPC and PCA are in need of an Index of Prohibited Books, Songs, Musical Groups, Plays, Movies, and Dances to flesh out 139? The Catholics suppressed theirs, but maybe it’s time for the Presbyterians to revive the concept?

    Or is it an unwritten list that pastors and officers are subject to discipline over should they run afoul of a pietist in a bad mood?
    If it would be sinful for you to produce it, it is sinful for you to consume it. This is only tough for those who want it to be. The divines knew nothing of this kind of lax rationalized morality Erik. You simply must see this.

    Erik gives me hope I MAY finally get an answer by saying this: “Setting aside Greg’s arguments, which may have some validity based on love of neighbor (I wouldn’t want my wife/daughter doing this so why should I watch someone else’s daughter),
    And then mysteriously says he agrees by stating this?
    Erik says: “I agree that there is danger in R rated sexuality as a “trigger”. The recovering porn addict may view it and fall off the wagon and return to the hard stuff.”
    What does my still unanswered question about your willingness to see your wife or daughter in the movies you watch have to with recovering porn addicts? Serious question. You simply jump from one topic to the next with no indication of how your agreeing with the former is an any way related to the latter.

    Like

  307. Off to work for the day soon.

    On the horizon:

    Season Two of “Homeland”

    “In a World”

    Next up in the queue: “2001: A Space Odyssey”, which I’ve never seen. Looking forward to seeing Bryan Cross’s muse first hand.

    Like

  308. Homeland is very good. If it had more characters, it could rival The Wire. It is so much better than Breaking Bad — which I cannot wait to be over (via dvd on Netflix). In The Wire you have so many likeable characters. In Breaking Bad, one, Saul, and he is a cartoon character.

    Like

  309. Saw The Apostle last night. Duvall brings a charismatic physicality to his roles, so I guess he thought he’d throw in being charismatic/Pentecostal. It was a realistic if overstated depiction of the Pentecostal as being substantially passionate and, as a Greek philosopher might put it, “accidentally” religious.

    Still don’t have much for movie night. Looking for thought-provoking treatment of religious themes.

    Like

  310. mikelmann,

    Have you seen Babette’s Feast? It is a beautiful treatment of religious themes, though if it is a men’s movie night you’ll need men who are open to something a little different. You can get it on criterion with a gorgeous transfer. I would highly recommend it.

    The Mission is one that you’ve probably seen, but its pretty good for a church movie night.

    Like

  311. Or Bergman’s Winter Light, Pasolini’s The Gospel According to St. Matthew or Rosselini’s The Flowers of St Francis, or anything by Bresson (esp. Diary of a Country Priest). Lots of subtitles though.

    Like

  312. I’m an hour into The Mission. Amazing. Bergman on religion? Sounds far-fetched, like ministers doing constitutional law. But I’m intrigued nonetheless.

    Like

  313. Caleb,

    Saw it as a kid. Need to see it again. There’s a program on Netflix called “Room 237” in which a bunch of critics give their interpretations of “The Shining”. Haven’t seen it, but my father-in-law recommends it.

    MM,

    Best line in “The Apostle” is something like, “You’re going to heaven and I’m going to prison”.

    After the last week my recommendation on church movie night is — don’t. Too many people can’t handle it and it’s not worth the hassle in any kind of a church setting.

    If you decide to go forward I recommend “A Thief in the Night”. I’ll loan you my VHS tape.

    Like

  314. Erik, the church doesn’t watch movies. Some guys from church might. It’s a variation of a back deck beer & stogie discussion. Heck we’d even let a guy from the local URC join us.

    But interest is blah so far so the “problem” might resolve itself.

    Like

  315. Finished The Mission. Church/state, submission/resistance, missionary strategy, capitalism/socialism, works righteousness – is there any theme it doesn’t suggest? I get wimpy when it comes to endings like that.

    PS I’ve decided to become a liberation theologian.

    Like

  316. MM,
    Not uber religious focused film or of same caliber like ones mentioned above but I always thought Signs was a great treatment on providence and can be viewed in a compatibilistic light. And it has good family themes. Last good film Shymalan made.

    2001 is great for sure. No love for breaking bad from Darryl? What season are you on?

    Like