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.
Old Life 
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.
LikeLike
There aren’t many googles for “confessional sweetbread sex.” No one’s ever going to see this thread.
LikeLike
Nate,
What if marijuana was legal in your state?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Nate, what about watching people pretend to gorge themselves on food (or gossip, divorce, steal)?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Erik,
Abortions are legal.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Nate, not to the PETA folks.
LikeLike
MG, too bad, sweetbreads is great.
LikeLike
Nate, the Coens don’t have sex.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
The sex may be simulated but the boobies are real. Well, as real as boobies get these days, anyway.
LikeLike
Gonna be that guy..
If I saw wolf, I wouldn’t tell anyone.
Just me, Baptist boy ..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Mad,
What’s your favorite Hungarian film?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
This is the point where my wife usually tells me I’m an elitist and puts me in my place.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Except, only more so. Infinitely so..
LikeLike
And James wants my thoughts on wolf
What I joke. My guess – 19 years old. Nothing wrong with that. Just come on people..
LikeLike
Whoops, James is right. Cuz dg blogged on wolf.
My bad. In my little hole. Tears yo..
Lates homes.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
It there wasn’t something in the OT about not eating pancreas I’m thinking there shoulda been.
LikeLike
“Mom, can I have extra cancer on my pancreas — please?” Should we eat organs that are only discussed when something goes terribly wrong?
LikeLike
Mad – but I find liberal humanities profs just as dull and preachy
Erik – Certainly the PC ones are. The ones that aren’t PC have at least read some books.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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):
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?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
DG,
But if they made a movie of it, would you watch it?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Did I feel guilty for a flub against a tv character?
Two wrongs make a right..
LikeLike
Mm, that movie rocks
LikeLike
Soul surfer, eminem
LikeLike
Nate, I’d see anything the Coens made (pretty much). So, yes.
LikeLike
Hunger games if they can take it..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Mikelmann,
David Mamet’s “The Spanish Prisoner”. If I remember right it’s pretty clean. PG.
LikeLike
Noah? Might as well rent The Passion, right?
Types and shadows, yo.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Caleb,
There’s also an excellent documentary about the making of Fitzcarraldo called “Burden of Dreams”.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Bottom line: follow the money. Hollywood makes what will sell.
Clete, your a hero. Be you.
LikeLike
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
Couldnt resist
LikeLike
Amazing how only one guy posts and won’t attach his person.
A joke, this is, Cletus.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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..
LikeLike
*want me to let it all
LikeLike
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/podcast/sex-what-is-the-meaning
Its all been done
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/11/denny-burk-mortifies-spin.php
You can read that link,and the book trueman gives a thumbs up to.
Answer me this: do you have children? If so, what ages? It’s ok if you don’t, but if you won’t share we are done.
My daughters are 7 and 4, son 2.
Peace.
And yes, we keep talking. Just I don’t get you. Never have. Van Miley
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
” It can be used intelligently and artistically and with purpose,”
We may be on opposite sides here
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Sorry guys, if I go to the movies I’m taking Caleb & Clete.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madeline-walsh/catholic-church-birth-control_b_1268688.html
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Dial it down. Clete’s causing no problems on this thread. Be civil to him.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
*done posting
LikeLike
Erik; “Sorry guys, if I go to the movies I’m taking Caleb & Clete.”
Gay
LikeLike
Bob S. – But if films are the lingua franca of the day/prerequisite for evangelism
Erik – Where did I say anything about evangelism?
LikeLike
Sean,
Don’t tell Mikkelmann.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
AB, you’re not sounding well. Idle back for a while.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Of like mind, MM
Thanks for that, bro. Peace out.
LikeLike
Bob S.,
Not crazy about the cataloguing of sins in the Westminster Larger.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
DG,
Not sure if that’s weird, gross, or if I admire you more for your consistency. Probably the first.
LikeLike
[third
secondtime 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.
LikeLike
Bob, you call these things conversations?
?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Jed, exactly what I was thinking.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
There is a healthy perspective on female beauty
once a bible thumper, always a ..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Erik, well for something completely different, check out all the skin you see of Fred Melamed in In a World — a pretty good little pic.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
D.G.,
In the Queue.
Right now I have “Before Midnight”, the third in Richard Linklater’s Hawke/Delpy trilogy.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg,
Any difference between window peeping, looking at someone in public, or watching a film that someone has made of their own volition?
LikeLike
Erik,
Re: subtitles – Pretty much everything that Herzog has done since 2000 is in English. That helps.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Caleb – Pretty much everything that Herzog has done since 2000 is in English.
Erik – Sell out (ha, ha).
LikeLike
Erik – Sell out (ha, ha)
Caleb – You should see what he did to Nicholas Cage in Bad Lieutenant.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Jed,
I hear they have an unrated version of Ducks 2, if you’re into that kind of thing.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
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. 😀
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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”.
LikeLike
Wow, Greg’s on record that seeing an R rated movie is worse than window peeping. Pull the shades.
LikeLike
Greg,
Is your version of the Bible “G” rated? How much did you have to cut out?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg,
What do you think Hollywood has to do with your friend’s problem?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Cletus – Nicely said.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Unbelievable. Here’s the exchange Chortles:
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.
LikeLike
Wiggle your ears like good Mousketeers
We’re gonna present a guest today
‘Cause “Tuesday is Guest Star Day”
LikeLike
Capslock-Terriblus, the assertion of personal sinlessness in ANY AREA is a RED FLAG to most serious Xians. Maybe they roll differently in Detroit.
LikeLike
Greg – Where in SCRIPTURE do we find a warrant for a such a thing as watching others people’s sin as a past time LOL!!!.
Erik – Greg Sowers?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Cletus, talk to the pope or your bishop about drafting Capslock Terriblus. I mean you can’t fault the ENTHUSIASM and we wouldn’t miss him.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Cletus,
This is not my war. If I said something off, yeah, clean it up, TV boy.
Peace.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Petros, glad to see the gloves are coming off. A pietist pugilist.
LikeLike
[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)?
LikeLike
Awright have mercy guys. I’m one man here. Please gimme a little while. I’m ignoring you Chortles cuz it looks like you’re out. Well you never fired actually.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Erik, the same way voting for someone who advocates for abortion rights is the same as having or providing an abortion. Duh.
LikeLike
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?”
LikeLike
Nate,
But how do your personal convictions impact your work as a church officer?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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……..
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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]
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
All are welcome
Come for the freak
Stay for the food
arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr….
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
It took Petros a matter of days to transform from Gizmo to Stripe. Did someone feed him after midnight?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – but he doesn’t have a TV either
Erik – So what is leading him back into sin? Where is the temptation coming from?
LikeLike
Pious Pete, you’re really wondering if another Presbyterian world exists? And you’re a fan of Keller?
LikeLike
sean, those crosses wouldn’t have scantily clad women nailed to them, would they?
LikeLike
Greg,
Are you married?
LikeLike
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)?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
clete van young, isn’t it fun to be on the same team for once?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – You’re a living breathing typing object lesson
Erik – What does the Bible say about anger & cursing others?
LikeLike
Mudman, exactly. But we should have seen it coming. This was Petros’ first comment.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“Petros” could be Richard Smith. Not quite the same style, though. Richard was a pain, but wrote quite well.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg, perhaps you’re not as clear a communicator or thinker as you think.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Greg,
What do you think the sin of the Pharisees was?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
But Greg, she watched Blue Jasmine, not me!
LikeLike
Susan,
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Greg, darn. I keep forgetting to put try to be clear on my to do list. Thanks for the reminder. Right after try to tell Greg to pound sand.
LikeLike
Link didnt work above. Here
https://oldlife.org/2014/02/need-strategy-dining-sweetbreads/comment-page-2/#comment-118618
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Erik..
LikeLike
Clete,
Do you have guys like Greg in your church?
I might just accept that conversion offer yet.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 ……………………..
LikeLike
Who has/had a higher opinion of themselves:
(A) Greg
(B) The Pharisees
Dunno, but for my money, somebody left out:
(C) Antinomian
cheers
LikeLike
*any
I like ant righteousness too.
Back in my weetle hole..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Can’t leave a good sermon like that hanging, yo..
LikeLike
Like I said
http://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=MP3s%20Chapter%20sermons&format=All&page=20&order=asc
Someone revoked my linking privelages. Smart man behind the curtain here.
LikeLike
*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.
LikeLike
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.
Ohhhh hallelujah!!!!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – Arrogance I struggle with
Erik – So blog commenting is a good activity for you because…
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
“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?
That’s what I get. It’s embarrassing Darryl.
LikeLike
Greg,
What did you serve time for?
LikeLike
Greg – and been generally disrespectful and obstreperous (noisy and difficult to control)
Erik – You’re boasting about that?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 🙂
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
Greg, you respect learning? Curious.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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…)
LikeLike
Whoaaaa……. I think somebody is about to flame-out.
LikeLike
Greg, let me think it over.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
[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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Susan,
Agreement. On the internet. How about that!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – If there’s gonna be any scriptural swordplay between myself and anybody here it will be Dr.Hart
Erik – Ahhh, the Bryan Cross approach.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Greg – handled sexually
Erik – Define that. If your wife gets a massage from a male or female massage therapist has she been “handled sexually”?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
Kent,
I’ve never seen “L’an 01”. Is it worthwhile?
LikeLike
Greg might want to consider an “either/or” policy in regards to Red Bull and Coffee.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Erik you’re wastin my time. I said a couple pages back
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.
LikeLike
If you go to Greg’s house make sure to shut the refrigerator door so the locusts and wild honey don’t get out.
Dude is an Old Life original!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
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/
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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:
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.
LikeLike
Greg has detected some folks’ idolatries on this site and they don’t like it one bit.
LikeLike
And when I point my finger at others I am pointing 3 back at myself…
LikeLike
Kent,
As it turns out, the lightbox is one of my local cinemas, too. I’ll have to head down to check it out.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I didn’t expect to run across another Torontonian.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – Their legacy is dead
Erik – Why? Not only why is their legacy dead, but why is there no trace of their churches outside of liberal congregationalism?
LikeLike
Greg – The topic is whether it is sin to ingest artistry, especially visual media, that was sinfully produced.
Erik – Who put you in charge of picking the topic?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – When was the last time you did that?
Erik – Sunday night.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
nocable, no high-fiving at OL. Very disagreeable Tom says so.
LikeLike
Caleb, no some Dutch person from Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Erik, I wonder if Greg goes to Rabbi Bret’s synagogue.
LikeLike
Greg, “I disagree utterly.”
duh.
LikeLike
Dan and Susan, when did OL turn into ask.com?
LikeLike
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?
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.
LikeLike
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:
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
While I don’t claim to have jailhouse tattoos, I did spend the night in a Motel Six recently and came home with some pilfered soaps.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Erik, you qualify to Skype with Greg, for me, then. I was gonna ask Muddy, but he seems to be having a moment.
LikeLike
Before Greg’s done he’s going to be portraying Hart is the latest incarnation of Chuck Traynor:
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
I haven’t done in any time in over 30 years. Darryl knows what I’m doin. Don’t ya Darryl? 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – I haven’t done in any time in over 30 years.
Erik – ???
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg, I don’t assess you to be either a serious or playful interlocutor. Why waste words?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Mudman, you’re no Anne Bradstreet.
LikeLike
Caleb, we Torontonians are around; found a good URC here as well.
Free Rob Ford.
LikeLike
sometimes the bear breaks free and it’s no fun any more…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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:
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 😀
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Pay him no mind Erik, he just started on his Clomid.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
not really sure what anything has to do with asking people if they want their wives to appear in Restricted movies
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg doing battle with Old Lifers:
LikeLike
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:
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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”.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
(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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg likes his salacious talk.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
Cletus,
He seems only to be interested in sex/nudity.
LikeLike
Clete,
Haven’t seen “Requiem”. I thought about “Trainspotting” but didn’t like it enough to include it.
LikeLike
The movie that reminds me of Greg is “The Apostle”. He has ordained himself a minister for the specific cause of combatting movies with sex scenes.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Loved, the Apostle. Duvall is a fav. The difference with Greg, is that Sonny managed to invoke empathy from me.
LikeLike
Erik,
Ohhhhh the irony!
You just described the calvinist witness to the world! lol!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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……
LikeLike
Kenny is out of his element. Methinks..
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
LikeLike
What is the record for comments on a single post on OL?
LikeLike
Caleb, where were you on the 2k threads at GB (four digits)?
LikeLike
speaking of potentially inappropriate movies:
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/students-rally-around-teacher-ousted-for-showing-rating-r-film-191458471.html
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Caleb, Green Baggins. The goodle days, those.
LikeLike
Greg, I think I hate you. I’m forced to now read Clete AND agree with him. Greg the great ecumenator
LikeLike
Caleb, 2K threads bring the nutcakes out from under their rocks.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Kenneth – You just described the calvinist witness to the world! lol!
Erik – If that were completely true wouldn’t you have to be a Calvinist?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg,
I’ll ask you straight out: Did you have or do you have a porn addiction? Is that what is fueling this fire?
LikeLike
Andrew,
You’re not making much sense again.
Anything to add to the discussion at hand?
LikeLike
http://greatideas.people.com/2014/02/06/chocolate-pope-francis-statue/
LikeLike
Erik, does Cletus post under a dumb moniker to mock honest questioners here?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Or you could answer me whether you have a porn addiction.
I mean, really. Wow, Erik.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Hole in one, kent.
I’d be one of your kind if I could be.
You’ve been great. Parting is sweet sorrow..
Lates.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Marty,
No porn addiction here. It’s gross.
The MPAA ratings system exists for a reason.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Greg – You are anathema Erik
Erik – Pope Greg.
How do you know so much about these movies that you are supposed to be avoiding?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Dan, how much insulin do you need when you keep kosher?
LikeLike
This has Doug Sowers written all over it.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Mudman, and I was hoping to generate some discussion of calves’ brains.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Erik, I am about to invoke the Doug Sowers rule. Let me see where the conversation went after 2:30pm.
LikeLike
Paul the Apostle as U-R-Kidding me will no longer be posting unless he uses his real name.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
D.G. – Erik, I am about to invoke the Doug Sowers rule. Let me see where the conversation went after 2:30pm.
Erik – Somewhere south of Tierra del Fuego.
LikeLike
Greg makes Doug look like Hello Kitty.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 6, 2014 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
Dan, how much insulin do you need when you keep kosher?
Not sure, but apparently there is an answer.
http://www.diabeticgourmet.com/articles/670.shtml
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
No-name, Paul the apostle, URKidding, you are kidding?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
If we do indeed have an epidemic of porn addiction in the church, maybe the way we’ve been fighting it needs to change.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Let’s just agree that TMI is a sin. And it can take many forms — like certain OL regulars and their chafing/sports clothing issues. There I just did it – sorry.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Chorts, there is an absolute in cycling: if Mr Johnson ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Liberals are having a version of the same argument over the films of Woody Allen:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20140206/BASU/302060163/Basu-To-Woody-Allen-fans-daughter-s-letter-is-wake-up-call
And they have been arguing over Roman Polanski on similar grounds for decades.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Sorry Todd, it’s still in effect.
LikeLike
Same to you Erik.
LikeLike
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 adulterysin, 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 presbyteriansguys 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
licenseliberty expires.Indeed.
cheers
[Thanks in advance for all the up votes to stay on the show.]
LikeLike
D.G.,
Dang! I didn’t copy those comments to save them for posterity.
Probably just as well, though. I agree with your decision here.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Did i miss the announcement that Obama has declared an extra hour of internet use a week in noted public facilities?
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
meet .
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Moth, meet flame.
Yow do you do Mr. Moth?
When Dr. Hart wakes up you are going to be in trouble Erik. You’re not supposed to be talking to me remember? 🙂
LikeLike
Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp…..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
2001 is brilliant. Enjoy, Erik.
Have you seen The Shining?
LikeLike
MM,
Seen A man for all seasons yet? It’s and oldie..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I’m an hour into The Mission. Amazing. Bergman on religion? Sounds far-fetched, like ministers doing constitutional law. But I’m intrigued nonetheless.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Attempting a church movie night is kind of like this:
Church movie night does not make the church better, it only makes appreciation of movies worse.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
M&M, how about I Confess with Montgomery Cliff — a good Hitchcock movie filmed in Quebec City.
LikeLike
young James, I am in the home stretch – the second half (what a gimmick) of season 5.
Which character do you like?
The Wire has at least 25 characters that you want to see again and again. Homeland has maybe 5.
LikeLike
In what is surely not one of his finest moments, Herzog is in the jungle doing an impression of SNL doing an impression of an artsy Euro. If you don’t have 4 minutes, watch the first 70 seconds.
LikeLike
Cletus, oh my, I hope you’re kidding on “Signs.” Didn’t Shyamalan know you’re never (never!) supposed to make the alien visible? Fear is best stoked with invisibility. (Though there was something to be said for Gibson’s man in crisis of faith mode.) Then again, for Shyamalan everything went progressively down hill after “Sixth Sense.”
And now off to view “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” at the cheaps. I hope it’s not there so soon for a reason.
LikeLike
MM – Erik, the church doesn’t watch movies. Some guys from church might.
Erik – Same problem. My experience this week has taught me that you probably need a church of at least 1,000 members to come up with 10 who will come to a movie night and appreciate a film of any artistic merit whatsoever. Since no conservative P&R church is near this size (until the city is transformed, anyway), it is a lost cause. Just have a hymn sing and be done with it.
I’m not becoming at all cynical on this topic, though…
LikeLike
MM – It’s a variation of a back deck beer & stogie discussion.
Erik – Don’t let that get out or we’ll have someone who has made eliminating those from the church their life’s work appear and set you straight. Extreme discretion, my friend. Extreme discretion.
LikeLike
MM,
That Herzog clip is from “Burden of Dreams” about the making of Fitzcarraldo, a very good movie.
“Aguirre – The Wrath of God” is even better. Loaned it to my pastor never to see it again. I need another copy desperately. It’s great.
LikeLike
Zrim,
We saw the alien in “Alien”, too. It was downhill from there. I just saw that for the first time within the last year.
LikeLike
Best to view Bergman’s Winter Light as though it’s a very subtle but hilarious comedy…
LikeLike
mikelmann,
He’s got a few on religious themes. Seventh Seal is the most obvious one. Good luck with the movie night. It can be tough going. American westerns often go over well….you could say that Unforgiven has religious themes.
LikeLike
Erik,
You absolutely need to see The Shining again. Room 231 can be frustrating but is ultimately pretty interesting. But don’t watch it until you’ve re-watched the actual film.
LikeLike
Thanks, Caleb.
If Old Life has to go underground I’m taking you with me. I can see it now – a cranky, Reformed, version of Skull & Bones complete with stogies, good beer, fine films, classic rock music, and highbrow literature. We still won’t roll on Shabbat, though.
Finding a minister to accompany us could be a challenge. Todd may be our only hope.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yeah the split last season was gimmicky but I blame AMC execs for that. Yes I like Saul of course (I’m sure you’ll be all over his prequel spinoff series) but even though Jesse is annoying I still like him, same with Mike and Hank even though they obviously have big faults. And Walt and Gus are far from “likeable” but both are compelling for sure.
Wire is of course good but the only characters I’d really like to see again from that were Bunk, Lester, the john goodman-looking detective dude, McNulty, Stringer, Omar, and Perzberowski or whatever his name was. The rest were all good characters as well of course, but not really compelling in my view. But yes, wire is more grounded and realistic than BB I’ll grant – BB’s going for more dramatic single-character stuff.
Kind of a cross between Wire and BB sensibilities is The Shield. But first season is a chore to get through, then it starts getting interesting. Seasons 5 and 7 are doozies.
Zrim,
Signs is not a perfect movie for sure, but has enough going for it that I still enjoy it – good actors/music/direction and I like the faith/predestination angle it plays up. I actually like Unbreakable the best from his output.
LikeLike
Yo Erik,
Index? Why give somebody a club when they already think the LC is toilet paper?
Which is to say your comments are irrelevant, if not illiterate.
But hey, maybe the History Channel is educational and not really a conduit for propaganda.
For one, Edouard was acquitted of not only the charge of rape, but also his pastoral charge.
(But not perhaps, the charge of adultery. More on that later.) Me thinks he will never darken another URC pulpit again, but again, that is just our PJ/WAG.
Dos, that Jesus ate and drank with publicans and sinners did not mean he necessarily approved or condoned. FTM why would the pharisees wonder if ‘he knew this woman’s past’ when she washed his feet, if her apparel did not give her away?
Tres, the tyranny of the present always lurks/resembles an angel of light. Yet not all Christians bought into manstealing or the occult pagan nationalization of the German church. The presbyterian minister Geo. Bourne for one, preceded the abolitionism of both Garrison and Douglass.
Quatro, the world is awash, if not drowning in entertainment. And if it is one of the prevailing sacred cows of the day, 1 Jn. 5:21 then comes into play:
Little children, keep yourselves from idols.
Cinco, that we may eat shortbread and sweetmeats, does not give a pass to gluttony.
Nor is the argument that we can eat anything set before us – except if it be cat or cannibal – an argument that we can devour as entertainment anything our eyes can see.
That’s the point.
Don’t miss it.
Capiche?
ciao.
[And keep those Schmacebook votes coming folks, we’ll get an Oscar yet.]
LikeLike
MM.
Here’s 10 pretty clean movies for your movie night:
(1) The Prize Fighter (Tim Conway & Don Knotts)
(2) The Karate Kid
(3) Groundhog Day
(4) Murphy’s Romance – (one unnecessary “F” word, but one of my favorites)
(5) The Great Escape
(6) What About Bob? (some language, but blame Tourettes)
(7) Heaven Can Wait (Beatty version)
(8) The Pursuit of Happyness
(9) A River Runs Through It (my favorite movie)
(10) Bullitt
That’s just off the top of my head. If I’m looking at my shelves I could give you more.
LikeLike
Also, if anyone’s looking for an “artistic” movie dealing with religious themes, you could try Malick’s Tree of Life – it opens with a citation from Job and goes on dealing with grace/nature and suffering. Although you very well might fall asleep. And the voiceovers can come off as pretentious. Quite beautifully filmed though – just go in thinking more meditative poetry than narrative.
LikeLike
Anonymous Bob,
Good to see you’ve picked up as much kindness and tolerance as your fellow non-arts enthusiasts around here.
Do I blame Covenanters or is it just you?
Good to see you don’t reserve all your vitriol for the Catholics.
LikeLike
Clete,
I liked his “Badlands” quite a bit. Didn’t like “The Thin Red Line” when I saw it, but might if I saw it again.
LikeLike
FROM HERE
Dr Hart says: “Homeland is very good. If it had more characters, it could rival The Wire. “
I must respectfully and calmly again ask Dr. Hart to state plainly whether himself, his wife or his children have God’s blessing in performing the nude sex scenes in these 2 shows that he is praising? Honest simple question.
LikeLike
“(1) The Prize Fighter (Tim Conway & Don Knotts)”
Mudster has the entire Don Knotts collection. Seen the Incredible Mr. Limpett 38 times. The Shakiest Gun in the West is classic Knotts. Better Knotty than naughty. I also have all the Friday the 13th films. All a man really needs is Knotts and Friday the 13th.
I guess Bob ess pretty much talks the same way whether you’re a Catholic or Erik.
LikeLike
Muddy,
I love both Conway and Knotts. There are some pretty long interviews with Knotts on Tou Tube that he did before he died. They were done by some kind of Television archive. They’re worth listening to. He seemed like a really nice man. He was hesitant to say anything bad about anyone in the interviews.
I have the “Shakiest Gun in the West” and “The Ghost and Mr. Chicken” as well as “The Apple Dumpling Gang” downstairs in addition to “The Prize Fighter”.
Two more for your movie night: “Support Your Local Gunfighter” and “Support Your Local Sheriff”, both starring James Garner.
I have the first season of “Maverick” on DVD but haven’t watched it yet.
LikeLike
Erik says: “(9) A River Runs Through It (my favorite movie)”
From IMDB for “A River Runs Through IT”.
The third commandment from the 20th of exodus verse 7 and the larger catechism:
Q. 111. Which is the third commandment?
A. The third commandment is, Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings,…”
I am required as an act of earnest love and concern for my friend Erik that I ask him to earnestly consider whether the Lord’s earnest words and the divine’s earnest application of them present a conflict with his choice of “favorite movie”? Unless Erik intends to earnestly advance the notion that this movie is earnestly proclaiming our Lord in righteousness.
LikeLike
Interestingly, Norman Maclean’s dad was a Presbyterian minister.
This is one of the best scenes ever captured on film:
LikeLike
Since this thread is about to die, if my prayers to the Holy Theotokos are answered (that one’s for DG and Erik), then I should like to submit this chapter, for reflection, on pietism as heresy: http://silouanthompson.net/2008/08/pietism-as-heresy/
Please note that the original writing can be found in Chapter 8 of Chirstos Yannaras’ _Freedom of Morality_.
Here’s a nugget: “Work acquires an autonomy: it is divorced from actual needs and becomes a religious obligation, finding its visible justification and “just deserts” in the accumulation of wealth. The management of wealth similarly becomes autonomous: it is divorced from social need and becomes part of the individual’s relationship with God, a relationship of quantitative deserts and rewards.”
***So the ugly twin of the prosperity gospel would be like someone rejecting life-saving help from a gub’nint entity when one’s well-being is at stake.
LikeLike
Thanks, Justin. I’ll check that out.
LikeLike
Justin J.
Since this thread is about to die
If this thread is about to die, it’s because Dr. Hart is removing my respectful, substantive and well mannered comments contrary to what he said which was this :” Greg… is free to comment, but he won’t receive any responses, unless he changes his manner.
Erik, you told me nobody gets censored here. Apparently I had to start being nice for it to happen to me.
I have changed my manner, even referring to him as Dr. Hart in every case except a single oversight where I called him by his first name. I have scrupulously abided by his wishes and he is now showing that this was never about my “manner”. It is about the substance of my arguments whch are unassailable. Erik you did not answer my question. Let’s try this for now. For my full deleted comment please click my name above this post. Here is just the part to Erik:
==================================================
If I could prevail upon my friend. I don’t know who Norman Maclean nor his dad was and also have no interest in this movie as it is gravely dishonoring and blasphemous to my Lord. This is what I actually asked:
Erik says: “(9) A River Runs Through It (my favorite movie)”
From IMDB for “A River Runs Through IT”.
The third commandment from the 20th of exodus verse 7 and the larger catechism:
Q. 111. Which is the third commandment?
A. The third commandment is, Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings,…”
I am required as an act of earnest love and concern for my friend Erik that I ask him to earnestly consider whether the Lord’s earnest words and the divine’s earnest application of them present a conflict with his choice of “favorite movie”? Unless Erik intends to earnestly advance the notion that this movie is earnestly proclaiming our Lord in righteousness.
LikeLike
It appears that there may have been either a database glitch or a caching error on either the client or server end here. The comment I thought had been deleted is actually still in moderation. It reappeared. Assuming Dr. Hart did not actually delete that comment then I do very sincerely apologize though it WAS, I promise you, an honest mistake. If that’s the case then I humbly request that Dr. Hart remove both this comment and this one: https://oldlife.org/2014/02/need-strategy-dining-sweetbreads/comment-page-11/#comment-119544 to clean up his thread. Or not. Up to him. I am NOT trying be unnecessarily high maintenance here. I again apologize.
LikeLike
Erik, do you think the cigarettes stayed dry?
LikeLike
Erik, as much as it pains me, yes.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Not only did the cigarettes stay dry, but the hooch remained undisturbed in the flask.
This is the rare case where the film adaptation is even better than the literary work on which it’s based.
Another great scene:
The movie’s about a lot of things, but the main thing it is about is unconditional love for our families, even when they do unlovable things and our love can’t save them from themselves.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
The movie’s about a lot of things, but the main thing it is about is unconditional love for our families, even when they do unlovable things and our love can’t save them from themselves.
Are we then to conclude that the Lord WILL hold the makers of this film guiltless for taking His name AND Jesus name in vain because you like it? Are we then to conclude that he will hold YOU guiltless for promoting the abuse of His holy name? Am I to follow the standard of the esteemed divines who anathematized any and all such practices and codified their thought in the catechism that you are required to affirm, but apparently do not? This is my problem gentlemen. Previous generations would be horrified at the slipshod dismissive views on holiness that you men are displaying. It’s one thing to struggle with sin. Everyone does. It’s quite another to simply embrace it and call it “liberty”. It is NOT liberty. It is wrong AND your own tradition tells you it is, but you don’t care. I’m honestly asking what one is to think? Is there nothing off limits as long as someone puts it on movie screen? Not even the Lords name? Your favorite movie has “frequent” blasphemies “throughout”? This is even worse than the shaming defilement of people by unlawfully partaking of their nakedness. This is an attack upon God Himself. So you can watch some movies? You are in very serious danger Erik.
LikeLike
And Dr. Hart, these people look up to you. You influence them. You are their elder and as such are commissioned to be jealous for their spiritual safety and well being. You especially ARE your brother’s keeper. Have you thought about what God is going to say to you when you have to explain why stated that you weren’t sure whether your wife should participate in these racy movie scenes? And why you didn’t reprove and rebuke them for publicly advocating the abuse and blasphemy of His name because you apparently felt Hollywood entertainment was more important? I am not the least bit angry nor am I being the least bit sarcastic. I am grieved by the fact that a man of your learning and stature does not seem the grasp the nature of what is happening here.
LikeLike
“This is the rare case where the film adaptation is even better than the literary work on which it’s based.”
Really. I thought Pitt was terrible. Craig Sheffer was pretty good as Norman, though.
I’ll bet you saw the movie before you read the novella.
LikeLike
d,
I did.
I like Craig Sheffer. If you ever see the series “One Tree Hill”, he is the heart of that show. Once he’s gone it’s not nearly as good (and it wasn’t great while he was there).
Tom Skerritt, Brenda Brethyn, and Emily Lloyd are also good. Brad is a bit wooden, but you can’t deny he’s beautiful — a world-class movie star.
Stephen Shellen as Neal Burns is also intriguing. The scene where Norman & Paul have to take him fishing is hilarious.
LikeLike
Erik,
Have you read the novella (A River Runs Through It)? Beautiful language in that one.
LikeLike
Nevermind that question. I should read all of the comments first..
LikeLike
Caleb,
I’ve listened to it on tape.
Maclean taught English at the University of Chicago for decades and the book kind of came out of nowhere. He hadn’t written anything to that point to indicate that he was capable of something like it. About the only other thing he wrote of note was “Young Men and Fire” about the Mann Gulch fire that killed a bunch of firefighters.
“A River Runs Through It” is akin to Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone With the Wind”, Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Charles Frazier’s “Cold Mountain”, Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man”, John Kennedy Toole’s “Confederacy of Dunces”, or J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” — an example of a writer who has one great book in them .
LikeLike
Erick, as Bryan would say, “That’s ad hom/handwaving” and for once I would agree.
cheers
LikeLike
Bob – Erick, as Bryan would say, “That’s ad hom/handwaving” and for once I would agree.
Erik – Then we’re even, I guess.
Good day.
LikeLike
Erik – Then we’re even, I guess.
Nope. Not if we think our liberty to eat anything set before us is a carte blanche to watch anything Hollywood sets before us for entertainment, if – let’s say – something like A River Runs Through It? is full of blasphemy as alleged.
IOW mebbe there’s a reason the Greek word for actor is “hypocrite”.
But hey, I could be wrong.
Must be watching the wrong movies.
cheers
[The envelope, please.
And the winner for the Best All Around Performance as A Pain in the Ass is . . . . ]
LikeLike
What films do you watch Bob?
LikeLike
Bob, Erik has been wide open about his viewing. Do you watch movies? If so, what are your criteria for acceptable viewing?
LikeLike
Bob,
Nice allies.
LikeLike
Bob,
If not hearing blasphemy is the criteria you set for your activities, do you stay home vs. going to any public setting where you might hear it? Attend any sporting events? Ever play any sports? I played basketball for 20 years after college and if I refused to play with anyone who swore I wouldn’t have played much. People sin in real life. Good films take real life seriously. People sin in good films.
You’re very righteous in your entertainment choices but very unrighteous in the way you communicate with people. They cancel each other out. You’re not credible as a moral critic.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted June 25, 2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink
Nobody for 1500 years?
One, truth is not decided by a majority vote.
Two, the guy JJS should have talked to before buying into romanism, DTKing put out a 3 volume set on Scripture with Webster, one volume of which is devoted to the early church fathers on the doctrine of Scripture.
Three, I further prophecy that you will never see a substantive review of it at CtC.
If you did, heads would be exploding like a Dave Chappele skit.
From IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353049/reviews-43
“This man has the formula for funny. He contains the right mix of edginess, profanity, grotesque features, and sexual situations to have a hit TV show. The profanity makes it even funnier, in my point. He has such personality and could be as big as Jerry Seinfeld if he could get off of cable and appeal to the mainstream by hosting Saturday Night Live. His humor is hilarious and should be revered by everybody. Kudos, Dave Chappelle , you have such brilliant sense of humor, if not a little bit coarse. Plus, he just got nominated for an Emmy. I really hope he wins, because he is hilarious. This is the perfect show for people who laugh easily. Believe me, I do.”
Some people would call this hypocrisy.
LikeLike
You’re very righteous in your entertainment choices but very unrighteous in the way you communicate with people. They cancel each other out. You’re not credible as a moral critic.
Whatever Erik. You are entitled to your blah blah blah/opinion.
The real question of how much do we put up with in order to be “entertained” has not really been dealt with and probably won’t be if the caliber of discernment and engagement we’ve seen so far, continues.
The thesis of the OP is flawed (however that may shock the epigones); license to eat whatever is not a license to watch whatever full stop period. Call it an immediate inference.
OK so where do we go from there? What criteria do we use to determine what we should view for entertainment? The LC has been brought up more than a couple of times and there has been no substantive engagement, alternative nor rebuttal offered.
Other than “I don’t like it/I disagree”.
Well, thanks for sharing.
Yeah, it’s a combox, but you would think people could hold up their end of the conversation.
Mention is made of the church’s compromise on slavery or the Nazis. Cool, but what about today? Is it possible that like Augustine’s friend Alypius at the games, the modern church has been overcome by the spectacle of modern entertainment?
That’s what I like to see addressed and since it hasn’t, we keep piping up on occasion.
Just in time for the beatdown.
Mikelman, that’s just it. I am not sure what Erik’s criteria is – other than ignore the real question. Greg said River is rife with violations of the 3rd. Erik’s latest might seem to confirm it. So who do you believe?
cheers
LikeLike
Some people would call this hypocrisy.
And I would call it incoherent, Erik.
Your point is?
I watched enough of a Dave Chappelle skit on the KKK to be . . . . a racist?
Inconsistent, because it wasn’t R rated?
Whatever/it’s irrelevant.
But what else is new?
(Which is for the newbs, a rhetorical question; one yah don’t need to answer.)
cheers
LikeLike
Bob I see you criticizing while hiding your own criteria. You’re doing a TVD. But this thread has been a parade of horribles so I’m checking out.
LikeLike
I’m speaking only for myself. Not trying to intercept Erik’s question and speak for you Bob.
Erik Charter asks: “If not hearing blasphemy is the criteria you set for your activities,”
You make it sound like that’s a ridiculous thing to do Erik. Actually I make having nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness insofar as it depends upon me my criteria. Of course that doesn’t mean avoiding sinners because that’s how evangelism is done. Like we did on Saturday. I heard plenty of cursing and blasphemy. I was preaching the gospel though. Not hanging out. I do not make close friends with sinners. Bad company corrupts good morals. We have nothing in common. However I will treat them with respect and love and be helpful in any way I can.
Erik Charter asks: “do you stay home vs. going to any public setting where you might hear it?”
What I DON’T do is go to IMBD and see BEFOREHAND that there is “frequent blasphemies throughout” and then go anyway and call it my favorite movie. I have this very strong feeling that the divines would agree with me.
Erik Charter asks: “Attend any sporting events?”
It’s been several years, but I’ve been to a few Red Wings games. Maybe 5 in 12 years. Don’t remember really hearing any blasphemy. Or cursing for that matter. Seriously. There certainly isn’t any website that can predict the future behavior of the people at a sporting event and tell me what will happen if I go like there is for movies and television. Praise God for IMDB. The devil meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.
Erik Charter asks: “I played basketball for 20 years after college and if I refused to play with anyone who swore I wouldn’t have played much.”
Do you feel that when you stand before the Lord He will have been more grieved that you hadn’t played basketball or that you participated in the blasphemy of His name by willfully fellowshipping with people who do so? Serious question.
Erik Charter asks: “People sin in real life. Good films take real life seriously. People sin in good films.”
This is an Erikism with no basis either in scripture OR reformed tradition. If it was sinful to produce it is sinful to consume. I think Dr. Hart will let you address that though he has thus far himself refused.
Erik Charter asks: “You’re very righteous in your entertainment choices but very unrighteous in the way you communicate with people. They cancel each other out. You’re not credible as a moral critic.”
Another Erikism. Not to mention ad-hominem non sequitur. Regardless of HOW unrighteous his communication may be, it has no bearing whatsoever on the substance of his statements. His communication is not unrighteous anyway. Do not EVER read Paul to the Galatians or Jesus to the Pharisees. Whatever you do, NEVER read Calvin or Luther. WoohooHOOOOO!! Those boys had no problem putting a beat down on guys like Servitus, Pighius and Erasmus.
LikeLike
Bob I see you criticizing while hiding your own criteria. You’re doing a TVD. But this thread has been a parade of horribles so I’m checking out.
Come on Mick.
Play fair. I offered the LC for starters. Ain’t been no takers on that.
And not asking what the basis is in Scripture for watching somebody paw over your . . . . mama, wifey, sister, daughter in live and livid color when it comes to entertainment is hiding my own criteria.
Sorry, my bad. I would have thought it self evident.
But TVD (The Voyeuristically Disposed)?
How low can we go?
My feeling are hurt.
ciao
LikeLike
Bob S, “What criteria do we use to determine what we should view for entertainment?”
How about one’s own calling — which includes a host of factors, from family relations, education, upbringing, church duties, personal taste, the list goes on.
LikeLike
Bob S., please explain the LC and The Sound of Music.
LikeLike
Bob – The real question of how much do we put up with in order to be “entertained” has not really been dealt with and probably won’t be if the caliber of discernment and engagement we’ve seen so far, continues.
Erik – Apparently the standard must involve Dave Chappelle being o.k. but “A River Runs Through It” not.
If you saw Chappelle’s show you must have cable. Lots of junk on cable.
The moral high horse game is a bitch, huh?
LikeLike
Bob,
Make that the anonymous guy moral high horse. Also, courageous stand by you against the Callers hiding behind anonymity and hurling personal insults. I use my real name. People can call me if they want. People have.
There are people whose moral critiques I take very seriously and those I don’t.
LikeLike
I’ve read a book. It talks about win-win, and that sounds like a good deal. Then I thought. Darryl needs to do another Catholic post. Bob talks to Clete, no Protestant casualties and Bob could be like Clete’s penance debit card or however that deal works.
LikeLike
Appreciating the arts is a lot like learning to drink.
When you drink in high school you’re immature so the only reason you drink is to get drunk. It’s a problem. When you’re an adult you learn to drink and not get drunk. It’s not a problem.
Before I learned to appreciate the arts they were very titillating. Now that I can separate artistic merit from mere titillation the titillation isn’t very tempting.
Just yesterday I was at the library where someone had donated a huge box of Maxim, FHM, Stuff, etc. — “near porn”. In the old days this would have been a problem. Now I just take them to the recycling truck next door and throw them where no one will find them.
I would bet a fair amount of money that the majority of Christian online porn addicts would tell people they are very restrictive in the movies they watch — and very vociferous in telling others about their standards. Inside they have a problem, though.
LikeLike
“I can tell you all I know, the where to go, the what to do
You can try to run but you can’t hide from what’s inside of you”
LikeLike
One more thing – I don’t think we should fall into the trap of calling everything addiction. “Porn addiction” may just be someone who likes porn. They could stop (and ought to) but they don’t want to. With the addiction label comes a certain lack of personal responsibility. Are certain people “addicted” to being jerks? Were the Nazis “addicted” to persecuting Jews? I don’t think so. They were doing wrong and they didn’t stop. Fallen human nature (and remaining tendency to sin in believers) runs a variety of courses. It ain’t all addiction.
LikeLike
Why do I get the feeling Bumper-sticker Bubba S. (and Greg) are with Gracy Olmstead on Woody Allen?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/defending-the-case-against-woody-allen/
LikeLike
C-dubs, right, it gives real addicts a black eye:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/of-vice-and-men/
LikeLike
Erik: I would bet a fair amount of money that the majority of Christian online porn addicts would tell people they are very restrictive in the movies they watch — and very vociferous in telling others about their standards. Inside they have a problem, though.
Caleb: Not accusing Bob or anyone else here of this, but I would agree. Some people doth protest too much.
I am honestly curious about what Bob watches. I don’t understand what he’s afraid of. Bob, I’ll tell you my favorite movies if you tell me yours.
LikeLike
Z, great minds and all. Or EQUALLY DEMONICALLY DECEIVED — depending on your point of view.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart quoting the question to Bob S: “What criteria do we use to determine what we should view for entertainment?”
Dr. Hart then answers with:
“How about one’s own calling — which includes a host of factors, from family relations, education, upbringing, church duties, personal taste, the list goes on.”
Please keep in mind this list (which doesn’t directly include scripture or reformed orthodoxy, though they should be first) when reading the IMDB content report for THE WIRE, a television show regarding which I now quote Dr. Hart from this very site: ” nothing will ever reach the heights or plumb the depths of The Wire”
Clicking on the link I have here provided will take one to a description of sexual debauchery on such a graphic and explicit level that were I to copy and paste it here, Dr. Hart would quite rightly remove the post, not wanting that kind of unspeakable immorality on his website.
One is left then to wonder how Dr. Hart justifies the viewing of real, divine image bearing people performing it before his eyes? Does his wife watch it with him? One simply MUST see the content report of this show to actually grasp the level of explicit male and female nudity and full variety of degrading and debased sexual portrayal by these “artists” onscreen. I must now ask Dr. Hart how his “calling…family relations, education, upbringing, church duties, personal taste, etc. are served and defined by the true to life cinematic pornography on the other end of that link.
I am also quite literally compelled to once again respectfully and calmly ask Dr. Hart to state plainly whether himself, his wife or his children would have God’s blessing in performing what one will find by clicking that link to a show that receives from him such high praise? On the actually mild side there is frequent mention of nudity in “strip clubs” in this show. Does this mean that Dr. Hart goes to strip clubs? What’s the difference between viewing a strip club and it’s activities onscreen and attending one? These are completely proper questions to be asked of a church elder, theologian and scholar. Not to mention simple man of God, husband and father. Does Dr. Hart actually maintain that it was not sinful to produce this entertainment media? Please sir. Are these not reasonable questions to ask?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: “Appreciating the arts is a lot like learning to drink.”
Where do we find “art” in scripture? Alcohol I see there as a blessing that if misused is sin.
Erik Charter: “Before I learned to appreciate the arts they were very titillating. Now that I can separate artistic merit from mere titillation the titillation isn’t very tempting.”
Where do we find a principle like this either in scripture or historic reformed orthodoxy? Where do we find sexual “titillation” transformed into righteous appreciation for the artistic merit of the same material?
Erik Charter: “I would bet a fair amount of money that the majority of Christian online porn addicts would tell people they are very restrictive in the movies they watch — and very vociferous in telling others about their standards. Inside they have a problem, though.”
The ad hominem campaign continues. I do not watch porn. Ever or anywhere. Your continued personally accusing attacks in the absence of a single actually biblical or reformed argument is becoming sin Erik. You too Chortles. Caleb as well. As I read Revelation 12:10 I do so very sincerely pray (I really do) that you cease and desist your following of the accuser of the brethren. This is what people do when they have NO substantive argument. Being an extraordinarily gifted and intelligent man, Dr. Hart draws the same type of men to him. It doesn’t have to be like this. ALL of you are being forced to operate on an intellectual level far beneath your giftings. All in the name of a pagan industry that spends every second of it’s life opposing the God and His Christ you claim to love. Crippled morality dictating crippled thinking. You just cannot know how non sarcastic and sincere for you people in this regard has always been for me. God KNOWS my heart and in that I rest in His grace.
Must get some work done.
LikeLike
Bob asks how we set standards for evaluating art.
Ideally you identify a work of art and discuss it in depth as adults. The problem is, if you can’t even allow yourself to view the art because you are relying on a canned list of bad words and body parts you can can’t even be a part of the discussion.
If I ask you to evaluate a human being and you respond with, “The adult human body is approximately 57% water, and water is 11% hydrogen by mass but 67% hydrogen by atomic percent. Thus, most of the mass of the human body is oxygen, but most of the atoms in the human body are hydrogen atoms”, you’ve shown you have no clue what a human being is. The same applies to a work of art.
The first requirement of having an adult discussion is that both parties are adults. The second requirement is that they have the requisite knowledge to have the discussion.
This is old hat. What percentage of book banners throughout history have even read the books they ban?
LikeLike
CW,
I would put “addiction” and “compulsion” on the same level. I think people are as responsible for their addictions and compulsions as anything else they engage in.
LikeLike
Notice I never used the word “disease”. Hell, a lot of people are even responsible for their diseases. Visit prostitutes, have unprotected anal sex, or smoke for 40 years and you’ll get a well-deserved disease.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure I’m more at ease about the guy who talks about getting ‘baked’ and watching porn, than the guy who wants to be part of a ‘men’s accountability group’ or worse, vociferously defends his innocence about viewing porn. And no, I’m not interested in getting an computer generated email detailing your whereabouts on the computer that day. Get a life, get a wife and grow up. In whichever order that needs to work for you.
LikeLike
Yes, and another failure to grasp the difference between Paterno and Sandusky.
LikeLike
Bad enough people cannot tell the diff between primary and secondary causes, some on here want to attribute quaternary levels of sin.
And it’s not funny any more about Paterno, even for Michigan fans…
LikeLike
About a year ago I sat down for a fascinating conversation with a prominent scholar of religion who happens to be an atheist. It took place in his home and he showed me considerable hospitality, showing me his extensive library, making coffee, and even serving brownies. He was a frequent contributor of letters to the editor as well as columns in the local paper, often dueling with a local fundamentalist Baptist pastor. Interestingly, the Baptist church that the pastor led was literally about two doors down from the scholar’s house — in a town of 50,000 people. I assumed that the scholar and the pastor had met personally, probably sat down for a conversation as he and I were doing. “No, the scholar said, we’ve never met.”
When I ask myself why this is the case, I speculate that the pastor probably feels that he has nothing to say to the scholar in person that the scholar will accept. After meeting with the scholar I can attest that he is a warm, highly intelligent person who can converse on all kind of subjects. Being a fundamentalist, however, the pastor presumably has little to offer because he has not allowed himself to be exposed to these subjects for fear of being corrupted or being a “bad witness”. This is a shame.
In a sense what fundamentalists are doing is the same thing that the Callers frequently do in our debates here — insist that in order to have fruitful dialogue we must first adopt their “paradigm”. There is no allowance for any neutral ground on which we can interact and just get to know each other as decent human beings. Perhaps we are correct in labeling the Callers as “Catholic fundamentalists”.
If someone wants to view the world and people that disagree with them in this way, it’s a free country. Take note, however, that not all Christians share these beliefs and a lot of us want to be able to converse with all kinds of people on all kinds of topics — not just for their benefit but for our own.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Wasn’t aware that the LC condemned the Sound of Music per se, nor that I ever insinuated it. So what’s the beef?
Erik, you’re a newb to all this. I still sign off as Bob Suden over at Clark’s HBlog and was Bob or Bsuden over at the Green Baggins since at least ’09. So where have you been?
But whether I’m anonymous and you’re not or I’m a little green man from Mars or you’re a little purple man from Pluto in all this is immaterial. IOW like I told Catholicus Von Devious, stuff it.
Oh yeah, art. Way back when this started I brought up Veith’s comment in his Reading Between the Lines about the original etymology of “obscene”. The Greeks had the violence and sex stuff take place offstage because they didn’t want the visceral effect to ruin the aesthetic. Nowadays though the whole thing is about keepin it real or realism or whatever. Well, I’m all about real too and so is the Bible, but as real as Scripture is we don’t get our noses rubbed in the the prurient details of all the sins of the fathers.
In short, I don’t see the discernment and distinctions made that somebody like Veith treats when he talks about the arts, Christians and the portrayal of sin.
Chappelle? Way back when I clicked the link to the blind black Klan Kleagon skit off some secular site where it was assumed that it was a well known routine. Well, it was funny. So what? In general, he seems to be the comedian of choice of the Puffington Host crowd, but I wouldn’t know beyond what the infallible Wikpedia says.
But hey, Pryor’s funny too. And pretty profane from what I’ve seen, so I probably could tell you (not much) more about Bill Cosby or Jonathan Winters.
Oh yeah. Don’t let me forget.
When is my next beatdown/self hate session supposed to start? I don’t want to be late.
And because it is so fun/edifying, I’m hesitant to deprive any of you of the privilege if I just happened to be late, generous and thoughtful soul that we am.
IOW first come, first served.
Step right up, gentlemen.
cheers my dears
LikeLike
Oops, my bad.
Caleb got left out.
And the truth be told, besides porn addict, he left out wife beater, child molester, heroin addict and bank robber. It all started when I turned three.
But to my credit, I didn’t start torturing cats or eating chocolate covered bugs till I was 12.
OK?
LikeLike
Bob,
I pretty clearly said that I was making no claim about your private habits.
LikeLike
Fair enough Caleb, missed that in the beatdown.
Let me try to catch up with this later.
thanks
LikeLike
Bob,
As soon as you back off, I back off.
You seem to be backing off, so I will too.
LikeLike
Veith is on the faculty at Patrick Henry College, which seems to be a solid school, setting aside some concerns with the whole Christian Worldviewery endeavor.
As part of their “Student Covenant” students affirm:
“I will not judge others who believe differently from me, realizing that they have freedom in Christ in matters of conscience. (Romans 14:13; Colossians 2:16-17)”
This is a mark that separates hardcore fundamentalists from thinking fundamentalists who are at least willing to have a discussion.
http://www.phc.edu/student_1.php
LikeLike
Dr. Hart quoting the question to Bob S: “What criteria do we use to determine what we should view for entertainment?”
Dr. Hart then answers with:
“How about one’s own calling — which includes a host of factors, from family relations, education, upbringing, church duties, personal taste, the list goes on.”
Please keep in mind this list (which doesn’t directly include scripture or reformed orthodoxy, though they should be first) when reading the IMDB content report for THE WIRE, a television show regarding which I now quote Dr. Hart from this very site: ” nothing will ever reach the heights or plumb the depths of The Wire”
Clicking on the link I have here provided will take one to a description of sexual debauchery on such a graphic and explicit level that were I to copy and paste it here, Dr. Hart would quite rightly remove the post, not wanting that kind of unspeakable immorality on his website.
One is left then to wonder how Dr. Hart justifies the viewing of real, divine image bearing people performing it before his eyes? Does his wife watch it with him? One simply MUST see the content report of this show to actually grasp the level of explicit male and female nudity and full variety of degrading and debased sexual portrayal by these “artists” onscreen. I must now ask Dr. Hart how his “calling…family relations, education, upbringing, church duties, personal taste, etc. are served and defined by the true to life cinematic pornography on the other end of that link.
I am also quite literally compelled to once again respectfully and calmly ask Dr. Hart to state plainly whether himself, his wife or his children would have God’s blessing in performing what one will find by clicking that link to a show that receives from him such high praise? On the actually mild side there is frequent mention of nudity in “strip clubs” in this show. Does this mean that Dr. Hart goes to strip clubs? What’s the difference between viewing a strip club and it’s activities onscreen and attending one? These are completely proper questions to be asked of a church elder, theologian and scholar. Not to mention simple man of God, husband and father. Does Dr. Hart actually maintain that it was not sinful to produce this entertainment media? Please sir. Are these not reasonable questions to ask? Were the divines pietists? What would they have said to a display like you have so highly praised in “The Wire”? Would they call it liberty and tell their people that ALL things being lawful includes this? It’s like eating sweetbread?
I’m asking before Father, Son and Holy Ghost for you to tell us that you believe that.
LikeLike
Erik says: “(9) A River Runs Through It (my favorite movie)”
From IMDB for “A River Runs Through IT”.
The third commandment from the 20th of exodus verse 7 and the larger catechism:
Q. 111. Which is the third commandment?
A. The third commandment is, Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings,…”
I once again ask my friend Erik to actually address an issue of substance and long reaching consequence like how he reconciles a film which even the unbelieving reviewer says frequently abuses the name of our God and his Christ, with the third commandment and the catechism? I would be honored if he would spare me the time to edify me in this regard. I am very concerned for my brother’s spiritual well being when he refers to the name of the LORD as “a canned list of bad words” .
I am frankly stunned by the lack of reverence for and fear of the God who is a consuming fire and visited the most horrific judgments upon His own covenant people in the defense of His exalted name. 71 times in the book of Jeremiah He says after promising gruesome, blood curdling consequences for their sin: “THEN you will KNOW that I am the LORD”. “Then the nations will KNOW that I am the LORD”. “Then my people will remember that I am the LORD” and so on in various constructions. Over and over. EVERYbody is going to know that I am the LORD (tetragrammaton).
Erik, you do NOT know that He is the LORD or there is NO way you could so flagrantly join his enemies in blaspheming and vainly taking His name in your “favorite” movie. He HAS promised though. He will NOT hold them guiltless who abuse his name and if not now? You WILL KNOW that He is the LORD. Oh yes you will. Or He is a liar. Guess who I believe?
Look what decades of this carnality has done to you. Now you have a fully developed taste for it and you don’t even know the difference. You make me sad man. You really do.
LikeLike
Erik quotes Patrick Henry College: “I will not judge others who believe differently from me, realizing that they have freedom in Christ in matters of conscience. (Romans 14:13; Colossians 2:16-17)”
**************************************************************
Romans 14,1st Corinthians 6:12ff, 9:19-23, 10:23-30 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. (along with blasphemous language it appears now too)
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 Dr. 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.
Erik says “This is a mark that separates hardcore fundamentalists from thinking fundamentalists who are at least willing to have a discussion.”
That’s what the serpent told Eve Erik. In the face of God’s established word. “Hath God said?” I don’t have discussions about the crystal clear truths of God as proclaimed in His Word and universally recognized as such by the towering giants of historic reformed orthodoxy. That is a wicked and beguiling trick of the enemy? There is nothing to discuss for those who take God at his word and actually believe the theological, moral and spiritual work that he did in the 16th and 17th centuries. A work that continued (ups and downs) until the 1960’s when the hippies started throwing off their clothes and Hollywood began wrenching itself free from a weakening ever more liberal church that was marrying the world. You are now that marriage. Repent and return to the faith of your fathers. You are a lover of the world and the things of the world and judging by your treatment of His holy name, the love of the Father is not in you.
LikeLike
Come on, Erik. In that very same Patrick Henry College student conduct page you link, the students are further expected to “shun sexually explicit material.” You knew that, right? Looks like somebody at that school is making judgments after all. Behavior in line with Christian norms is presumed.
LikeLike
I mentioned-that we go out street witnessing in the city here. Our leader (whose name is also Greg) survived these streets with barely his life. He saw an updated list of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the United States in one of the national news magazines. The first three are in Detroit. They became our mission field. Last Saturday morning in 4 degree weather we took our tents and barbeque and music box and setup at the corner of Mack and Beewick. Deep east side war zone where there are children who will beat you to death with a piece of pipe because they’re bored.
My turn to cook, though we all preach and minister. 5 men, 3 women. It does not matter how cold or how early it is when you set up next to a liquor store in east Detroit. The walking dead for 4 hours. I met a tiny little slip of a woman. She was between … say.. 40 and 60 (30 and 50?). You can’t really tell when they’ve been out here that long. Shriveled up black face, 2 teeth, an obviously once broken nose and scarred up face and lips. If she’s like most of them, raised her self, got in a gang and started turning tricks in her teens to pay the guys and get drugs. (this is how it usually goes)
Now past her “prime” who knows what she’s doing, but the high east side mileage was all over her face and in her eyes.
I said: “Are you hungry sweetie?”
She nods shyly.
“What’s yer name?”
Sylvia
“Do you live around here?”
Kinda shrugs
She was so pathetic and ruined and empty and dirty.
“I’m gonna give ya sumthin to eat, but first I wanna pray for you. Can I do that?”
I put out my arms to offer her a hug. She steps forward and puts hers around my waist and I hugged her across the back of her shoulders with my left arm. I raised my right and begged Jesus to do a work of mercy and might in delivering this woman from the bondage of sin and death. She clung to me and didn’t wanna let go. I laid the side of my face on top of her head with that ratty hat on it. Wondering when was the last time this pitiful creature had experienced any kind of love or affection from ANYbody.
I couldn’t help thinking about you people believing that you’re imitating Jesus eating with sinners by watching them defile God, themselves and you on a movie screen for money. You really are sick. You WILL find that out one day.
LikeLike
Mudster has a seen a movie that started off bad so he walked away. I walked away and came back, and the movie was still on only more interesting. But mostly more scary. Six, seven times go by. Every time I came back it’s still going on and scarier and I wondered if it would go on and on or maybe the scarey guy would come right through the computer while I’m typing in a combox. Did I say that? I meant to say through the tv. The TV, I meant.
LikeLike
nocable,
I saw that. You reconcile the two for me. What are the “matters of conscience” they have in mind.
Any evidence that someone watching an R rated movie would be punished by Patrick Henry College?
LikeLike
CBS Sunday Morning had two great stories this Sunday – An interview with Matthew McConaughey and a David Edelstein (always smart) monologue on Philp Seymour Hoffman. Not sure if they will be available online or not.
LikeLike
Edelstein on Hoffman:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/philip-seymour-hoffman-a-master-craftsman/
LikeLike
Mudster: Mudster has a seen a movie that started off bad so he walked away. I walked away and came back, and the movie was still on only more interesting. But mostly more scary. Six, seven times go by. Every time I came back it’s still going on and scarier and I wondered if it would go on and on or maybe the scarey guy would come right through the computer while I’m typing in a combox. Did I say that? I meant to say through the tv. The TV, I meant.
You mean like sitting at a Pistons game and the next thing you know Artest is coming at you with full intent of tearing your head off?
LikeLike
On another string, someone commented on Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Magnolia”. One of the most ambitious films I’ve ever seen, and perhaps Philip Seymour Hoffman’s most winsome role. The Aimee Mann/Supertramp soundtrack for the film is amazing.
LikeLike
Hoffman as Phil Parma:
LikeLike
From THIS PAGE
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.
Would the men here 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?
Here is the profane and blasphemous language that also permeates this film.
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 . 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 Dr. Hart?
I DID NOT SEE ERIK’S RESPONSE IN THE FOLLOWING PART OF OUR EXCHANGE UNTIL LAST NIGHT
It is on page 5 of these comments. If I tag too many links this comment will go into moderation. Just go to page 5 please.
Erik, in discussing the above movie quotes me as asking:
When you get to the part where he’s sucking on her nipples ask yourself if God would approve of YOUR wife being that woman OR you being that man.
Erik then answers with the following UNbelievable statement:
“I’ve forgiven my kids for what they did to them, so I could probably forgive Ethan.”
No mention of God though.
Erik says on that same page: “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.
Erik I cannot help but say that from a biblical standpoint you have no idea what marriage, woman, faithfulness OR sin are. I wish you could know the heart rending grief I have for your wife and children. 😦 My God how you are going to pay. Does your covenant wife, whom you are commanded to love as Christ loves His church know that you would approve of a (married) Ethan Hawke “licking her bare breasts and kissing her passionately” in front of a film crew so God and the world can watch her? Does she know that Erik? Does your daughter know that her Daddy holds this kind of necrotic morality? Do your permissive views apply to her too? Would they be good for her as well? How would your wife and daughter feel about you “acting” Hawke’s part in that film with what’s her name? (I don’t know her name) Or the many other works of filth you have promoted here? Ask them how seriously they take you as an alleged man of God after you tell them that.
Once again the Westminster Larger Catechism from the OPC website which your apparently short lived denomination says it affirms.
Q. 137. Which is the seventh commandment?
A. The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
kent Posted February 6, 2014 at 1:55 pm
He’s outnumbered 100 to 1 on here…
No sir. YOU are outnumbered. God to none. I am standing FIRMLY on His revealed word AND the purest interpretation of that word that He has ever been so merciful as to oversee. Long before I was born the OPC was claiming the Westminster Standards as authoritative. My quotes from those works are from YOUR website. I am calling you all duplicitous liars and ongoing practitioners of the most overt and blatant moral degradation that has EVER been committed in the name of the Reformation. That is not anger. It is heartbroken gut wrenching fact.
Dr. Hart, as both a prestigious and celebrated OPC elder and scholar as well as shepherd of this site, the blood of every one of these people that you have failed will be required at your hand (Ezekiel 3:18) According to YOUR catechism from YOUR website, YOUR people are practitioners of blasphemy and adultery. Not only do you NOT grieve and seek God for His wisdom and power in retrieving your erring brethren from their sin, you instead, by both word and example, lead them into it. I say yet again. You DO KNOW that that is what YOUR chosen tradition tells you. Don’t you? This isn’t some loud mouthed fundie jackass from them crackpot corners of the web D. Hart. No sir. This is YOUR people crying out from the grave against your corruption of their faithfulness.
You do not know me. Make no mistake. I will be here 5 years hence doing just what I’m doing right now unless you ban me or stop my mouth with actual substantive engagement. That’s number one. Number 2? I do NOT want you or anyone else here as enemies. My goal is NOT to win a debate. I promise you. My goal is to be unwaveringly faithful to the word and the will of the holy God who dwells in unapproachable light. If along the way a man of your influence is returned to the narrow path that leads to the narrow gate, knowing that “everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure? (1 Jn 3:3) Then that would be a glorious and joyful bonus. If not then YOUR blood will NOT be required at my hand. Before you go off with yourself about how I have no authority over you, that’s’ true. But I have been incessantly presently you with the words of your own SELF PROFESSED authorities. Your defiance is of them. Not me.
At this point I would respectfully ask that you allow Erik at least to answer me. I have made some gravely serious charges and while playing QB with no opposing defense is a luxury that I’ve enjoyed, it is only fair that he be allowed to respond in my view. (of course your view is the one that matters. I’m only asking) As always I would consider it a high honor to have an actual dialog with you especially Dr. Hart. No yelling, no more snark (well, maybe just a little), but a substantive exchange. Convince me you’re right. Better yet, convince YOU you’re right. If you could do that I would throw my humble gifts and callings in with you and tell the world and the church I was wrong. How bout you? Take your time. A few minutes a day. It could be an actual post here. Everybody raise their hand who would like to see Dr. Hart open the scriptures and the OPC standards to refute the points I’ve been making in this discussion thread. LOOK at all those hands.
Prayer continues.
LikeLike
Caleb,
Been busy, not just writing this.
Which means I backed off.
According to the same who proved by insinuation and smear that anybody who disagrees with them or questions the protected status of the Sacred Cow of
EntertainmentArt watches so much porn/Dave Chappelle that they don’t have time for the commercials.(Never mind Darryl’s all time fav, Sound of
the Muses booingMusic.)So QED, to ask what i watch is
redundantreformed.We protest too much?
Forgot. Not down with Michelle O’s Moral Obesity program.
Eating sweetmeats all the time is verboten.
Some x-rated morsels seasoning the art house flick washed down in communion with the wine and cheese critic set is cool.
But the highly nuanced
notdiscussion of liberty, license, legalism, antinomianism, art, amusement, entertainment and recreation as well the Christian’s calling vis a vis has been eye opening.Oh yeah. A heads up. The self administered lie detector test will be coming via email soon so that we know you, Chort, Muddy, sean et al are not anonymous NSA puppets trolling for transformational terrurists.
Be swell, don’t lie and return promptly to our self appointed you know who.
But hey, gotta run. The usual suspects are rounding up a posse for the next self criticism lynch mob.
Just like in the movies.
Only this time it’s for real
ciao.
LikeLike
strikerBob S, remind me to figure out how to message you, or drop a line on my blog or something.I appreciate your handiwork, a missive would be most welcome.
Cheers
LikeLike
Lets’ try THIS
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 4, 2014 at 9:08 pm – Page 5
Erik quotes me as saying:
“I have a sort of research accountability partner whose been watching all day”
and then responds with”
Erik – What do you need an accountability partner for? What sins are you prone to?
And then there’s SEAN
sean
Posted February 11, 2014 at 10:25 am on page 5:
“I’m pretty sure I’m more at ease about the guy who talks about getting ‘baked’ and watching porn, than the guy who wants to be part of a men’s accountability group…”
A drug fueled porn addict would be more your bird of a feather Sean than someone who seeks to obey numerous scriptural injunctions such as:
—————————————————————–
Proverbs 27:17
Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.
or
James 5:16 and 19-20
16-Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. …19-My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20-let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
or
Hebrews 3:12-13
12-Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. 13-But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
—————————————————————-
Men of God committing to one another in the Lord to uphold these principles puts you ill at ease while a dope smoking pornographer does not Sean? You people really should hear yourselves.
From my looking around it appears that the devil has figured out that at least for now he isn’t going to tempt conservative Presbyterians with bad theology. Instead, he’s quite wisely turning great theology into an idol of pride and crippling the purest and greatest work of the Lord since Orange with tragic hardening by the deceitfulness of sin. The flagrant in your face abandonment and denial of centuries old reformed moral sensibilities is at least as dangerous as the Arminian, KJV only, dispensational, fundamentalist Baptists or barking, jabbering charismatic nutcases of the world.
He is getting very good at his game. One group looks at the other as a theologically weak and limping shell of the gospel at very best and they are right. The other group looks at them as worldly, snooty, nostril flared, dead hearted theologs with no actually Christian moral compass and they’re right too. Oh my glorious Lord, please do raise up that holy remnant that is seen as your invisible church from Genesis to Revelation. Your winnowing fork is coming to the western world. Prepare your 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal I pray.
My research/accountability partner helps me keep my arrogant easily over sarcastic heart in check. NOTHING whatsoever to do with porn or sex. I live for (under Jesus) and would kill or die for my wife.I would cheerfully submit to being slowly boiled in oil before I would pimp her or my children out to Hollywood whoremongers like some of you have said you were willing to do 😦 I almost can’t even type that. August will be thirty years since I received Christ. Even in my short time I could NOT have seen this coming.
LikeLike
Last night we watched “A Thief in the Night” (1972). I had purchased it on VHS awhile back. At the end they had previews of all kinds of Christian films from the 70s & 80s. It must have been a regular occasion in certain churches back in the day to show 16mm films as special events. I saw “Thief” in around 6th grade in the Methodist Church.
The founder of Mark IV films was from Central Iowa & died last year. I posted on him on my blog.
http://literatecomments.com/?s=russell+doughten&submit=Search
Another company whose films were previewed was called “Heartland Films” or something like that. Some of their films actually included some semi-stars like Grant Goodeve (“David” on “Eight is Enough”), Dee Wallace (“E.T.”), and Peter Scolari (“Newhart”).
These are all pretty low-budget & cheesy, but it would be fun to go back and watch some of them. Most are probably not on DVD, though.
LikeLike
I did a blog post on the topic above:
http://literatecomments.com/2014/02/15/christian-films-of-the-1970s-1980s/
LikeLike
Watched the sequel to “A Thief in the Night”, “A Distant Thunder” tonight. It’s on You Tube:
Now get this: The church that they show the exterior of at the beginning, and later at the end when people are waiting to be martyred, is the church building that my church meets in! The movie was made there about 40 years ago. Darryl spoke in the same sanctuary a few months ago.
As my 13-year-old son said tonight, how surreal.
Note that none of what I am writing is advocacy of dispensational premillennialism. As my pastor said, amillennialism would make a really boring movie.
LikeLike
We’ll be in the same parking lot in 12 hours that they had a (fake) guillotine set up in back in 1977.
I would love to meet the actresses today who were in the movie. I wonder if they (still) live in Iowa?
Russell Doughton, Jr. (the producer and actor who plays the liberal minister who sees the error of his ways) was born and died in Carlisle, Iowa, about 10 minutes from Des Moines.
LikeLike
This is from a new discussion of the Disney Movie “Frozen” that has also broken out on Trevin Wax’s site. Ironically, I may actually be closer to Dr, Hart’s view when it comes to movies like this than Trevin’s. (maybe)
Rachael Starke says: it gets the gospel so right.
Without Jesus. We have a Gospel that’s “so right” without Jesus now? Can somebody please demonstrate from the bible, either by precept or example, where God tells his people to learn lessons in “redemption” minus His son from unbelievers? I’ve been a Christian for almost 30 years and must humbly assert that I find it tough to believe that in all the time I’ve spent in the scriptures that I missed that. Maybe I did though. I’m honestly asking somebody to show me.
God teaches His church His theological or moral truths through unbelievers. Where? Just one example that’s not a bad one will do. There’s plenty of bad sinful examples in the bible that God teaches us through, but where do we find what is being espoused in this article and in these comments? Chapter and verse/s please. I’m not interested in lots of words with no scripture.
In the meantime, why can’t we just enjoy a clean fun movie full of unchristian supernatural elements and redemption without Jesus? That may sound sarcastic, but I’m being serious. I can think of a half dozen excellent lessons off the top of my head for children taken from how very wrong this movie is.
Not the least of which would be that a person even sacrificing their very life for another, has performed an unrighteous work of condemnation unto themselves be it not in conscious worship to the glory of the only true and living God in Christ.
=====================================================
See now THAT would be a biblical lesson:
Did ya have fun kiddies?
Yeah, yay, yippee wadda blast!!!
See how that girl gave her life to save her sister? Isn’t that wonderful?
Yes, Daddy, how nice of her.
=======================================================
Out comes Romans 3 for instance and a powerful lesson on no matter how touched or moved we were in there, or how great it made us feel, there is NO sacrifice of any kind we can do ourselves that pleases the Lord without Jesus. The people who made that movie are enemies of our God according to His word and they would trick us into believing that God is happy with people because of what they do. This is a lie of the devil who constantly seeks to turn us away from the only sacrifice that matters to God which is when He sacrificed His own Son to save us from our sin which the movie told us nothing about.
What would you think if you sacrificed YOUR son for somebody and they said “no thank you I’ll do my own sacrifice”. That’s what God thinks. “I send my only Son and these sinful people are trying to tell you that this ice girl, who doesn’t really exist and has no sin that we’re told about, has done the same thing Jesus did. I’m glad the movie was fun. There’s a great lesson to be learned. That’s how God’s enemies fool us into believing their lies. If it was no fun we wouldn’t pay any attention.
That’s just one. I can think of several more.
Trevin says “the gospel parallels are incredible.”
There’s no such thing as “gospel parallels” Trevin. There’s THE gospel and lies. Can you show me in the Word where we find a precedent for these “gospel parallels” from God’s enemies?
If you can you will have made a convert to your view. If not then you have some prayer and thinking to do. SOME kind of answer would be greatly appreciated. I love ya brother. I do. But you just will NOT give me answers when I ask absolutely legitimate substantive questions like this. You are gonna get this. I just have to believe that you ARE gonna get this. Silence is not helping you.
LikeLike
Erik, that sermon by the liberal cleric was epic in ATITN
LikeLike
Kent,
He was played by Russell Doughten himself.
I’m on a quest to meet the actors and actresses from these classic Christian B-movies in real life. If only I had had the chance to talk with Doughten before he died.
One guy I might look up is Don Thompson, the director. He may still be in Des Moines. Van Harden, the programming director of WHO Radio might know where I can find him.
I want to see more of the Mark IV stuff before I try to contact him, though.
There’s a doctoral dissertation waiting to be written on all this.
LikeLike
kent, nothing like a good acronym to make me feel flummoxed.
for that’s why i hang out in seedy bars like OL.
ha
But I think I get your riff here. maybe..
first golf game of the year for me comes tomorrow, yo. i know you all wanted to know 🙂
peace
LikeLike
Andrew,
“A Thief in the Night”
LikeLike
February 19, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Kira says: “I think it is important to point out that Frozen is in fact NOT a Pixar film. It is Disney Animated Studios. I’d just like credit to be given where credit is due. This is not another example of “Pixar breaking Disney’s story mold” but instead, Disney itself taking a new direction.”
OK. I tried. I really did try to shut up now, but I am simply unable to just let this sit there.
Why in the name of all that’s holy should Christian’s be rejoicing that “Disney itself taking a new direction”? ANY new direction? IS Disney the salt and light of the world now? What if EVERY citizen of the United States joined them this very minute in their “new direction? Would there be even one more Christian than yesterday? Would the great and mighty name of the King of Glory be ANY more exalted? Or less, because multitudes now see themselves as “good” people with no need of a savior becasue Elsa and Anna have shown them the secret which has nothing to do with death in sin and resurrection in the promised redeemer of Genesis 3:15?
Greg, in all the gentleness and sincere good will there is. After reading your other VERY long piece on the Lego Movie and this one, I just cannot keep myself from asking.
WHO CARES?!?!?!?
Honest brother.
On and on and on about which pagan pedo propaganda piece makes people FEEL better than the other about not needing Jesus. This is where the tagline of my so called “blog” comes from.
“What IN THE WORLD has happened to Christ’s church?”
The WORLD has happened to Christ’s church. That’s what. Is what I’m saying really carrying no weight with you at all? I am simply echoing historic reformed orthodoxy. Previous generations would never have gone skinny dipping with the world like this. Read the Westminster Larger Catechism for instance. Starting at question 99 which prefaces itself with:
HAVING SEEN WHAT THE SCRIPTURES PRINCIPALLY TEACH US TO BELIEVE CONCERNING GOD, IT FOLLOWS TO CONSIDER WHAT THEY REQUIRE AS THE DUTY OF MAN (Caps are theirs)
You will be left with your jaw hanging open in the realization of how tragically far the modern church has fallen from that holy biblical standard set by those giants of the faith 350 years ago. Make no mistake. Oh yes they do address exactly what we are taking about here and would have been aghast at the notion of God’s people inflicting their children with these movies for any other purpose than exposing the devils lies. In fact they most likely wouldn’t even have gone for THAT. You’ll forgive me please if I put far more weight behind what they thought than what this marauding leviathan of a modern entertainment industry thinks. It’s a long story, not for here, but this has become a passion of mine. I did NOT realize until last summer how deeply set the devil had gotten his bridle in the mouth of the church using what the saints of old called “worldly amusements”.
I promise you, my only motivation is to see His name and reputation protected. Especially in the eyes of our young, who can name EVERY movie and tv character, but don’t know if the book of Ecclesiastes is in the old or new testament. If they’re even heard of it at all. In Wax’s thread there’s’ a woman rejoicing that her daughter loves to sing the empowering message in “Let It Go”. I wonder if she knows the words to “Amazing Grace”. Or even “Victory in Jesus”. I can’t help but doubt it.
LikeLike
Thanks, Erik. Another movie I will see whether I am able to stay awake while watching (insert sticky out tongue emoticon..)
LikeLike
Andrew,
It’s pure kitsch and each episode in the quadrilogy gets progressively worse. My son & I watched “Image of the Beast” (1980) on Saturday night and it is nearly unwatchable. All four appear to be available on You Tube.
LikeLike
This thread is wild.
LikeLike
Hi.
LikeLike
From that pathetic Gospel Coalition site:
Stupendous Man says: “I have yet to be convinced that God cannot work through the arts – an arena that he created (and that man, in many cases, has defiled)”.
The arts are from God, and man as bearer of His image and likeness is naturally inclined to creativity. God is blessed and glorified when we take after Him in this regard. I often say that “race” and ethnicity is God’s beautiful artwork for instance. My problem is with the grotesque elevation of the “arts” to a level of prominence in the modern church that is utterly unheard of in the scriptures. Artistic evangelism, or art for arts sake in general is a human contrivance until you or somebody else can show me either one in the bible, which will never happen.
Stupendous Man says: “A quick word to your first point, and then I will finish: do not the heavens declare the glory of God? And does the Psalmist not routinely praise Him through music and song?”
ABSOLUTELY!!! Now you’re talkin. That is one of the actually scriptural and hence righteous uses of art that God both PREcribes and DEscribes in His word. The explicit and direct praise and worship of Himself. There’s one and only one more.
Stupendous Man says: “Again, I appreciate your convictions…”
They’re not my convictions. They are the Word of almighty God and binding on every conscience for all time and eternity. This would not have sounded the least bit arrogant before the disastrous dialectic 20th century. It’s only a severely broken notion of “liberty” that has brought the church to a place where biblical certainty is now seen as arrogance.
Stupendous Man says: “As someone who has seen lives changed…”
God also uses all manner of horrific sin and evil to bring home His elect. That does not mean that the church is at liberty to promote and practice murder, rape and pillage in the name of the ends justifying the means. I also know of a woman who was saved reading the book of Mormon because there is an actually sound passage that describes true conversion which she took seriously and was genuinely born again. (God is SO good) Within a year she had broken her engagement to an LDS man and had left that church for a true one. God’s sovereign prerogative does not translate into the Book of Mormon being a legitimate evangelism tool. Only those means and methods He commands in His word are legitimate tools for the preaching of salvation to the lost. “Many will say to me on that day Lord Lord, did we not…”
Stupendous Man says: “As someone who has seen lives…brought closer to Christ through the arts,”
And THERE is the other biblical and therefore legitimate use of the arts. The explicit and direct edification of God’s covenant people. We have example and precept of both of these throughout both testaments. Excellent sir!! You got em both in one comment. The explicit and direct praise and worship of God.. by name (705 times in the book of Psalms), and The explicit and direct edification of God’s covenant people. Those two and only those two have a basis in the scriptures. What we do NOT find ANYWHERE in God’s Word is His people making art either for the world or it’s own sake. Ever. Even once.
Stupendous Man says: “I must ignore the cries of “libertine!” shouted by individuals such as yourself.”
You’ll do what you want of course, but as I say, mine is the biblical view. It has nothing to do with me as an individual. Every man is not free to do what is right in his own eyes.
LikeLike
Freddie,
Call Greg.
LikeLike
Who’s Freddie Erik? I’m honestly not getting your, what I’m gathering are supposed to be somewhat sarcastic statements. Seriously. I am not myself being sarcastic.
LikeLike
Must have been some spam that was deleted.
I’m sure my comment would be hilarious if we had context.
LikeLike
I wanted a couple clarifications on what you said in the other thread Erik. I wasn’t sure who was speaking or being quoted a couple times for instance, but I’m not going to have time at the moment. I have asked Dr. Hart that he allow you to address me. I will watch my manner. He doesn’t answer me so I don’t know if he will or not.
In the meantime I also don’t understand how deleted “spam”could give contextual hilarious meaning to your comment. I’m always up for some righteous hilarity. Could I prevail upon you to simply tell me what it means? 🙂
The bottom line in all this is that you have taken me a bit off guard with your concession to at least one major component of my campaign here from February. As the Lord lives brother, I take no smug self satisfaction in that fact. I am without means by which to prove that to you in a word, but may it done to me and much more if I lie. This was NEVER about ME being right or having some perverse legalistic obsession like I was repeatedly accused. Never.
Not that I expect anybody to celebrate, but you have shot way up on my respectometer. Truly.
LikeLike
From the Same Boat thread. To keep it from going any further off topic.
Erik says:
Greg,
You were building him up to great heights.
I’ve talked to his cats and they’ve told me he’s not that great.
Despite my largely tongue in cheek pounding of him last year, I do appreciate what is entailed in earning 5 degrees, publishing all those books and preparing all those classes and presentations. He is an impressive man in that regard. I doubt if I’d ever have the organized discipline to earn even one degree. Perhaps I overdid it, but I only meant to emphasize his more than ample qualifications for making a case such as this if there were one to make.
Erik says: “Start by telling us what’s been going on with you over the last year.
How is Detroit?”
I’m not sure what you mean exactly, but Detroit is still Detroit. A decaying wasteland of sickness and violence.
HERE is our last street mission to the deep east side neighborhood of Mack and Bewick. The 20th of December. That first shot is yours truly getting us started with a reading from John 6:35-40.
One significant change since last February is that my church was able to get me free insulin without tax payer money. You remember that I can’t afford it and I will not take political payoff money extorted from strangers who have been forced into providing me charity. How contradictory is that? It’s working too. It’ll probably buy me a few more years. Thank you Father God for your gracious faithfulness to a man who has fully earned his place in the lake of fire. I don’t know how interested anybody is in this kinda stuff. Feel free to ask if you want to know anything specific. Our daughter, the youngest, turned 19. I know it’s cliche, but man oh man do those years go fast.
Erik says: “We have ongoing discussions about all kinds of topics here all the time.
Coming here loaded for bear for the Battle of Armageddon is not the way to enter into them.
Just chill out and converse.”
Point taken. I’ll try to govern my admittedly 12 gauge temperament and invest myself deeper in the community here. A thing that I’m sure will just thrill Dr. Hart to death.
LikeLike
For the record I had no intention of reliving some of the dialog on this page. It just seemed like the place to continue the conversation Erik.
LikeLike
My occasion for writing this in unimportant to this site right now, but I thought I’d stick this over here and what, if any response I’d get. i can’t link to my place here, so I copied it instead.
====================================================
1st Corinthians 5 (NASB)
1-It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2-You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3-For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4-In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5-I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6-Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7-Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8-Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9-I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10-I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11-But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12-For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13-But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
==============================================================
There are several points that must be considered, grasped and accepted before a proper understanding of this difficult passage is possible. Not difficult in the sense of being particularly elusive in it’s meaning, but difficult in it’s subject matter. These are as follows:
1) The purpose of excommunication is twofold and motivated by love for Christ and His church. To hopefully rescue the erring member and to preserve the safety and purity of the body.
2) At no point in this passage is the man under consideration called by the apostle a brother in Christ. (we’ll get there)
3) The “judgement” Paul is talking about is not the final judgement of eternal destiny, but a judgment of the man’s fruit and hence the present credibility of his claim on Christ.
4) Excommunication is both the sentence of that Judgement and the judgment itself.
5) While gross sexual immorality is the example at hand, excommunication is to be carried out upon all flagrant, stubbornly practiced, unrepentant sin.
============================================================
There can be no disagreement on the nature and severity of the sin being here not only tolerated, but fallaciously held up as an object of liberty from law by the Corinthian church. (another story for another time) Leviticus 18:8 specifically forbids relations with one’s father’s wife. Paul makes clear that this perversion is of such a nature that it would raise the eyebrows of even the pagan residents of Corinth who were certainly no strangers to deviance and debauchery.
Paul’s mind, as he sets forth in verse 5, is not to exact vengeance or to look down on this man in self righteous condemnation, but his hope is that through this, the severest of Church discipline he may be finally saved.
———————————————————–
The offender is referred to directly 7 times in this passage and indirectly a few more. The first direct reference is in v.1 where Paul uses a simple pronoun (τινα – tina), rendered here by the NASB crew as “someone”. A person.
The second is in v.2 where he is called “the one” in the NASB. “Him” in the ESV. This is a single letter article , the rough breathing omicron, pronounced “haw” which is most often translated as “the”. The English word “one” is added to make the thought flow in our language. “The one who has done this”.
The third is in v.3. Here we have the article again except in the accusative case this time. (It is nominative in v.2) Translated “him” in the NASB and “the one” in the ESV.
We have 2 references to this man in v.5. The first is the pronoun τοιοῦτος (toy oo toss), which indicates classification or kind. The NASB renders this as “such a one”. Meaning “a guy like this”. The ESV is a little bland here with “this man”. The KJV actually flavors this more fully with “such an one”. The second reference in v.5 is another article. Here in the neuter gender. “The” spirit is what it actually says. The KJV translates it that way. More modern translations change the gender in English to “his”. Masculine. A legitimate liberty as it is indisputable that that’s what it means. “his spirit may be saved”.
The sixth time we find the “someone” from verse 1 being referred to directly (though as part of a category) is in v.11. This one is VERY important. Here we have a participle form of the verb ὀνομάζω (on omad zo). Paul’s use of this word and phraseology carries with it his intention that his readers understand the inconclusive nature of this man’s status as a “brother”. This word used this way brings the meaning of taking a name or designation. Technically, it could be understood either in the middle voice, which would mean that the man is calling himself a brother, or in the passive voice, which would mean that others are calling him that. Or both. The point is that his being CALLED a brother is not the same as his actually being one.
While not incorrect, the ESV regrettably sort of obscures this with the rendering “bears the name of brother”. My beloved NASB nails it with “so called brother”. That is EXACTLY what is being conveyed. This man is being considered a Christian brother when the evidence does not necessarily support that conclusion. It’s not necessarily the case that he is NOT a brother either. We don’t know yet. We have to wait to see how he responds to excommunication. More on that a little later. If Paul wanted them and us to consider this man a brother, he would have simply said “any brother” and not included this phraseology at all. It would have been less work to do so.
The last time in this chapter that our subject is referred to directly is the quotation of a principle found in several places in the book of Deuteronomy. (13:5, 17:7, 17:12, 21:21, and 22:21. Also Judges 20:13) This is in verse 13. “REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” Caps as per the NASB translators indicating a quotation from the Old Testament. The word “man” does not occur in the text. It is presumed. A standard practice when translating Koine Greek into English. In every instance of this principle under this phrase in the above cited OT passages, it simply says “remove the evil” and the offender was to be put to death. The crimes ranged from disrespecting authority to falsely prophesying to immorality. Saints are never referred to as evil or wicked persons. They may lapse into evil or wicked acts sometimes, but they are never referred to in these terms as persons. Of course we don’t physically execute such folks in the new covenant age, but it does help us understand how seriously to view the man in our passage here.
To sum up this section on that note, it is an illegitimate imposition upon the text to refer to this man or anyone else like him as a brother or sister in Christ. The apostle never does so and in fact uses specific language in v.11 to make that explicitly clear.
———————————————————————————–
Satan is referred to in scripture as “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and he under whose power lies the whole world. (1 John 5:19)
Being cut off from the comfort and strength of the fellowship of believers as well as being denied the means of grace in the administration of the word and the communion table IS being “delivered to Satan”. It is being sent into exile outside the camp to fend for oneself in enemy territory. The hope being that the pain and misery of this state of affairs might drive the subject to repentance and final salvation.
————————————————————————————
Let’s now take a closer look at verse 5. After declaring his judgement upon the offender in v.4 (we’ll touch on judging a bit later too), Paul defines this judgement, like I went into above, as “delivering to Satan”. The purpose is for the “destruction of the flesh”. The short version for this phrase is that “flesh” is here being used to connote the whole of the sinful carnal man still dead in Adam and who will not be completely shed while we are still in this body.
It should be noted that some tie this to Romans 1 where this same Paul refers to those involved in homosexuality as “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
In the Romans 1 passage though, the penalty is received in their “persons” (NASB) or “themselves” (ESV). This is a pronoun (reflexive) ἑαυτοῦ (heh ow too) and carries with it the idea of person hood itself. It is not the same as the flesh (σάρξ – sarx). Though the “dishonoring” of their bodies (ch. 1:24) may be part of the penalty, it is not intended to be redemptive in any way that can be gotten out of the text of the Romans passage. But the “destruction of the flesh” in 1st Corinthians 5 is overtly stated to hopefully be the instrument of that man’s rescue from the path to perdition. The people group described beginning with the 24th verse of the fist chapter of Romans are not comparable to the man in 1st Corinthians 5 whom Paul judges and commands the church to judge by putting him out into the Devil’s world in the hope of saving him. In Romans 1 these people are abandoned by God Himself under His direct unmediated judgement. Not Paul’s or the church.
One major key to understanding the lesson of 1st Corinthians 5 is the aorist, subjunctive, passive form of σῴζω (sode zo) which pretty much every translation anybody should care about renders as “MAY be saved” in vs.5. The aorist, subjunctive, passive (3rd person singular, which person and number aren’t as important in this case) is very precise. I had to do a good bit of research on this. I’m just good enough with Koine Greek to stumble through and know that one can get into trouble quickly by oversimplifying the grammar.
The aorist tense is already somewhat mystifying because we don’t have one in English. The subjunctive mood is the mood, generally speaking, of contingency. Combined with the aorist tense and passive voice as here, it can be used differently than if in the middle or active voices. The bottom line is, this form of this word translated as “may be saved” in this context, indicates that the credibility of his testimony as a Christian brother depends on how he ultimately responds to his excommunication. His spirit MAY be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. But maybe not too. We don’t know yet until we see what he does.
If he is a brother, he will repent and return. If he is not a brother and is to have any hope, it will come through the painful lash of excommunication. That is God’s definition of love in this circumstance. If he does not repent and shows himself not to be a brother after all, he needed to go anyway because Paul says that the leaven of his tolerated sin will pollute the whole church. Others will think they too can have what they see as the literal best of both worlds. Do what I want now and then an early retirement in Gods’ paradise. VERY dangerous and those who preach it will have the blood of those who believe it on their hands.
All Paul had to do was use a future indicative (or maybe even the subjunctive mood, but not the passive voice) to say his spirit “WILL be saved” if he was making that guarantee. That’s not what he said though.
——————————————————————————
That in mind, I have also heard it preached that this passage is a glorious exposition of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. That through all this, this man was kept safe in Christ and his salvation was never in question. This is simply untrue for all the reasons I have given. His salvation was the very thing that WAS in question until his repentance and restoration. Some solid expositors say he was unregenerate until his repentance and restoration. Some say his repentance and restoration demonstrated his regenerate state. I say it doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that Paul says to treat him as unregenerate, a wicked man (vs.13) and give him no comfort or assurance of salvation until his repentance and restoration is forthcoming.
Maybe the toughest part of this passage of all is that it’s somewhat easier to excommunicate somebody for raw public immorality or some other very “serious” sin. This passage is even harder when we consider the following quick points.
Paul makes it crystal clear that this applies only to those inside the visible church. “So called brethren” (v. 11) Those closest to us and hence most painful to deal with in this manner. Not those in the world (v.10) In fact we are everywhere commanded to portray Christ to those who don’t know him, by our gracious love for them. We should live amongst them and be in their lives except when it would be disobedience to other commands of God to do so.
He also makes it crystal clear that he is speaking about ANY flagrant, open sin. We know this because he gives 2 representative lists in vss. 10 and 11 that include immoral people, the covetous and swindlers, idolaters, revilers and drunkards. His indisputable intent is to have them understand that everything he’s said in this chapter (though there were no chapters when he wrote it) about this man with his father’s wife, also applies to any open flagrant and unrepentant sin. A swindler is a thief. A reviler is essentially an abusive loud mouth and a gossip.
He says not to associate or even eat with them. In that culture, taking a meal with somebody was a significant act of acceptance and fraternity. It was not the bare action of chewing and swallowing food that was being forbidden though. It was any and all friendly association or interaction whatsoever.
I hasten to clarify that he is absolutely NOT referring to those who are fighting the Romans 7 war. A brother or sister who hates their sin, calls it sin and wars against it, is to be embraced, walked with and supported for as long as they fight. Excommunication and shunning are for obstinate, unrepentant, practitioners of sin who have exalted their own desires over the Word of God, the purity and safety of the flock or the reputation of Christ.
It is noteworthy as well that in v.12 the apostle Paul, somewhat sarcastically, but very rhetorically, chides this church for… hang on… NOT judging. He tells them not to worry about the corruption in the world, but you dern well better git yourselves about the business of judging those who claim to be one of us. This flies squarely in the face of the loud chanting mantra of our day, which is … “JUDGE NOT!!” The most biblically illiterate scriptural simpletons on the face of God’s green earth can quote Matthew 7:1 even though 90% of them don’t even know where in the Bible it is. There certainly is such a thing as self righteous, legalistic judgment which the Lord hates at least as much as immorality. (Like 18:9-14, Proverbs 6:16-19) By far the greater problem we have today though is timid permissiveness.
As always, I welcome thoughtful, constructive criticism and engagement. I will believe whatever I am convinced that Bible says, no matter what or who it makes me wrong about. Show me my error from the text and you will have my sincere and enthusiastic gratitude for having been used of the Lord to bring your brother into greater truth.
LikeLike
From my Facebook Page:
=================================
Here is an email I sent to a friend after reading THIS article this morning. (Jennifer Lawrence drunkenness and guilt over sex scene with married much older man) He is the one and only man I’ve ever met who had his views on that filth factory in Hollywood turned around through God’s grace in using me for that purpose. I’ll say it again. Pornography is a horrific enslaving scourge, but Hollywood is a thousand times worse because it is welcomed with open arms inside a morally decomposing western church. We are financing the ruination and damnation of people like this with God’s money.
Blasphemy, blood and debauchery in the name of “story”, “art” and “cultural engagement”. One day God is going to give me a debate with one of these big name “Christian” movie idolators like those reprobates at the very aptly named “Christianity Today”.
I will lay utter waste in Jesus name to every inane, self exalting, world worshiping bit of anti biblical wisdom of men they bring. For most people, it won’t make a bit of difference because despite what the say with their lips, the word of almighty God only runs their life where they like it to.
Not for Erik. He came kicking and screaming and those like Cherylu who have been along since the beginning, know that he was one of my most ferocious and thoughtful opponents ever. In a long period of silence between us early 2014, the Holy Spirit began breaking his heart and now he realizes what an abomination it would be to the Lord if it were himself or his wife or children being polluted and destroyed like this. So how can he pay others to do it for him?
Erik I love you brother (he doesn’t have a Facebook page). It is wearying and exhausting to cry aloud and spare not the clearest possible principles of God’s word and have almost literally nobody care. Because they are enslaved to this godless culture. I knelt by my bed and wept grateful tears seeing the work that Jesus was doing in you. Right at a time when that encouragement was just the thing God knew I needed.
The rest of you idolators repent. Do it today. Tomorrow is not promised to you.
=========================================
I sent Erik the following:
“That girl cannot ever undo that violating immoral experience that even her common grace fueled pagan conscience not yet totally dead (but it will be) tells her was adulterous and wrong. This made me physically nauseous and brought tears to my eyes. Not just for her, though she is just the latest in a long line of sinful tragedies, but for the fact that my glorious Jesus watches those calling themselves by His name condone and CELEBRATE this clear wickedness. Again. Financing the damnation of those they are supposed to be loving as themselves.
Be vigilant my friend and make no mistake. Entertainment is a drug. It will seduce even otherwise sound people into the grossest compromise and just like dope, it will not give up it’s marks easily. I know you “feel” that pull. It will have it’s fangs back in your jugular before you can blink 3 times if your heart is left unguarded.
Billions and billions a year and the church leads the way. Nothing, not even Catholicism can compete with this for it’s triumph of evil. For the simple fact of it’s beguiling, stupor inducing power that shields itself from criticism. It is the ultimate unholy Trojan horse.
Well. 🙂 You haven’t gotten one of my little sermonettes in a while. I hope I didn’t bore you to death.”
LikeLike
Yeah, Jennifer Lawrence is pretty hot. She’s no Margot Robbie though.
LikeLike
I was asked to respond to Sean (who is a smart guy) and see what kind of dialog might ensue. This was my response (email)
===========================================
Oh I know better than that. I’ll get more substantive conversation out of a pull string toy. Intelligence is not a substitute for Jesus. This is not a joke. These are real people whose eternal divine image bearing souls are at stake.
Let me make you this promise my brother. You put some distance between yourself and all that media crap? I mean all of it. The violence and the language too. You stay away from it a while and you will be stunned at how God will resensitize you to what should be horrifying to a child of His. You’ll look back in shame at what you will then clearly see that it had done to you. I’m not attacking you. I’m making you a promise from somebody who KNOWS what they are talking about. I’m living it.
It will cling to you like crazy glue though unless you stay in God’s word daily, seek Him in prayer and attend the means of grace and fellowship with faithful believers. (not so easy to find anymore), both for yourself and with your family. I’ll tell you what will happen. You’ll stop caring. Not out of holier than thou self righteousness, but just because it will fall off your radar as a natural consequence of walking close with Jesus.
New Avengers movie, Jurassic park thing, latest all the rave TV show, this or that great director’s new project, STAR WARS!!!??? I just don’t care. Does that mean I’m declaring sin on every one of those and will never see any of them? Not necessarily, but I just don’t care. It’s important you understand that when I say that, I’m not talking about pretending I don’t care to protect an image. I REALLY do NOT care down inside. From the vantage point God is growing in me, what could be less important? Even if it’s not sinful.
This is what Romans 12:1-2 is all about. Same with Hockey. I was the hugest Red Wings fan you ever heard of. I doubt I missed 5 games in 12 years. Watched 15-20 games a week during playoffs. Went to all 4 Cup parades. The Lord began calling me back and I realized one day that I just didn’t care anymore. Not on purpose or because hockey is an abomination. The Holy Spirit simply gave it it’s proper place on my list of priorities. Nowhere. That’s not the same as actual participation in healthy sporting activities though. I’m talking about spectator sports (long story).
Oh well. There’s 2 in two days. Sometimes I can’t help myself.
LikeLike
Merry Christmas Darryl:
LikeLike
And Happy New Year:
LikeLike
I’m going to ask you a favor Darryl. One which you are of course under no obligation to grant and your refusal of which would bring no disdain from me.
I’m asking you to unban and un-sower Erik. If he gets outta hand, you can apply whatever actions you do him, to myself as well. I’ll take responsibility for him. Just because I haven’t been around all that much in a little while, doesn’t mean that doesn’t matter to me. I would very much like to be able to comment here.
This was my idea btw. He knows I am, but he didn’t ask me or even hint for me to ask you this. Again, I know this isn’t my place and I presume to wield no authority here, but what harm could come from giving the ol boy another chance?
Also, I have no idea what he might say. In case you suspect some sort of strategic collusion or something. Not so at all.
I don’t know that I can say this without sounding paternalistic, but you will no doubt wonder what MY motivation is in this. Honestly I think it would do him some good to learn to interact here without getting himself tossed again. Yes sir, that is my honest to goodness motivation.
Waddaya think? No hurry, but I hope you give it some thought.
LikeLike
Greg, no. Sorry, but there it is.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart says: “Greg, no. Sorry, but there it is.”
Well, I’m disappointed, but that is your right and I do appreciate you even answering me. BTW, did you intentionally delete all the discussion that happened in this thread 2 years ago? That’s another question you are under no obligation to answer, but I’ll take silence as a yes.
Also, this conversation we’re having right now would have happened offline if I could just get you to email me.
tiribulus@yahoo.com
I promised you before and I stand by that promise that I will not make you sorry.
LikeLike
Greg, I haven’t deleted any part of this discussion. Can’t vouch for the hamsters inside my computer.
LikeLike
Actually the comments sections have been going a bit nuts. Like there’s only one page of all comments, but sometimes they have more than 50 comments on a page. Like if you look at Douthat channels Machen, there are 50+ comments on page 1, but it says there’s a second page. If you go to the second page, it’s empty. And then older posts with lots of comments only have about the most recent 50.
LikeLike
Walton, I’m trying to feed the hamsters. Thanks.
LikeLike
THIS cop must be a pietist. DEFINITELY an obedience boy.
LikeLike