About watching movies on streaming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Erosantonio

Erosantonio

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello everyone!

In recent days here in Brazil the use of streaming has grown a lot. The newly launched here was Disney+.

I started watching some movies about heroes. Particularly I like it a lot, but I'm inquiring about this taste a lot and fighting not to use these platforms too much.

I like movies about heroes, because through them I am able to extract lessons about the Christian life and perceive subjects like the triumph of good over evil, humanity's need for a savior, among others.

How do you benefit from fiction films?
 
Take 1 Corinthians 6:12 as your rule; asking yourself these questions 1) Is it beneficial? and 2) Is it gaining mastery over me? If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then you need to seriously consider dropping it. There is also the fact that every one of these streaming services have a monthly subscription fee and the companies that run them are the biggest proponents of the godlessness in society today. That was perhaps the biggest reason I dropped our streaming service. I didn't want my money going to support the garbage they were pushing.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Take 1 Corinthians 6:12 as your rule; asking yourself these questions 1) Is it beneficial? and 2) Is it gaining mastery over me? If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then you need to seriously consider dropping it. There is also the fact that every one of these streaming services have a monthly subscription fee and the companies that run them are the biggest proponents of the godlessness in society today. That was perhaps the biggest reason I dropped our streaming service. I didn't want my money going to support the garbage they were pushing.
Click to expand...

Your answer was extremely important to me. Thank you very much. God bless your life.
 
My wife and I have Disney+. We subscribed because the movies offered are actually clean for the most part. We probably watch three movies a month on it. With that being said we've had it for 8 months and are close to running out of clean movies (mostly the animated films) to watch. And even though the movies are clean, the ideologies being promoted are vacuous. As for other streaming services, I wouldn't touch most of them w/ a ten foot pole. AS for Christian services, Pureflix looks terrible as far as I can tell. I've seen them advertising for a newer movie where one of characters is supposed to be God. I have a friend w/ AGTV but it doesn't look that great to me either.
 
The great thing about streaming is the fast forward function.
 
The only benefit I get from fiction films is a brief time of entertainment, which is why I severely limit my indulgence of such. Now, food prep/recipe instruction on YouTube, that’s a whole nutha’ matter!
 
People all throughout history have liked good storytelling. There is nothing inherently wrong about listening to a story or the modern equivalent of watching a story. Most movies have a message such as honor and duty and perseverance in war movies, for example. Many war movies or fiction movies teach us about friendship, bravery, etc. Take the Lord of the Rings, for example. We learn perseverance and friendship. We learn of the folly of pacifism in the face of aggressive evil. Take even secular WWII stories and these teach us of grit and perseverance. If only Christians had the same tenacity as the Marines fighting on Guadalcanal, etc, or whatever war story is told or fictionalized on screen.

The NT writers have sometimes quoted pagan poets and thus they were not overly insulated from their surrounding culture but were educated or at least acquainted with some of these pagan works and even quoted them. I think they probably admired the skill of some of these pagan writers, too, probably (or else why quote them).



I once heard a pastor rail against evil Hollywood, but was arrested some years later for child sexual abuse. It is not the evil in Hollywood that is the Christian's main foe, but the evil inside our own hearts.

Furthermore, I am tired of judgmental Christians always charging others with "worldliness" - it is often a vague and undefined accusation that serves to elevate the accuser as morally superior. Christian virtue-signaling. I got criticized because I like secular music like Creedence Clearwater Revival and then when I asked what music they liked they listed off several "praise songs" that were either borderline or straight-out heretical. But because it was listed as "Christian" it got a free pass ("Christian music" usually just means they copied secular rhythms and made them worse but can still sell their records due to parents banning their kids from listening to any "secular" music).
 
Last edited:
There’s a difference between storytelling and acting. Acting involves falsifying the deeds and words of another, which is not consistent with the 9th commandment, even if the purpose is to educate or entertain and not to deceive. Acting and theatre has been largely frowned upon by both ancient Jews and Christians throughout history.

When an actor does anything, he can’t be said to be doing it from the heart to the glory of God. If he is acting out a good deed, it’s false, so it’s not really a good deed, and if he’s acting out a bad deed, that’s clearly not a good thing. He puts on emotions that are not his, and most of what the actor says in his act are lies because they are not true statements of facts or of what his heart actually thinks, although he is pretending that they are.

Also, so much excessive money and labour is poured into the industry of acting and films that ought rightly to be used in ways that will actually benefit society, instead of largely entertaining the world with unprofitable or downright evil content.

Francis Turretin demonstrates rightly that a lie is,

“the testimony by which a man speaks differently from what he thinks.” Although the intention to deceive constitutes a more perfect kind of lying, it is not always required in a lie, provided there is a will of enunciating what is false.”

“The lie prohibited by the ninth precept is commonly distinguished as to its object into pernicious (which is told with the intention of injuring and tends to the injury of a neighbor); jocose (told for the purpose of amusement); and officious (intended to promote the benefit of others). Concerning the first, all agree that it is a grievous sin, but concerning the last two (and especially the last) a controversy is moved by the Socinians, who maintain that they are either venial or no sins (with whom agree some laxer casuists, who take them out of the category of sin). However although we recognize a distinction between these lies (as that the pernicious is more criminal, the other two more light), still we consider them true sins condemned by the law of God.”

Excerpt From
Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol 2)

Or as à Brakel puts it,

“To lie is knowingly (or if one could have known) speaking contrary to the truth.”

“(2) There are lies for the purpose of entertaining others with fabricated stories. ―They make the king glad ... with
their lies (Hos 7:3).”

“In order to be deterred from lying, it ought to be known that:
(1) God frequently forbids lying. ―Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour‖ (Eph 4:25); ―Lie not one to another‖ (Col 3:9).
(2) It is an abomination before God. ―Lying lips are abomination to the Lord‖ (Prov 12:22).
(3) It is the devil‘s work. ―When he (the devil) speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it‖ (John 8:44);”

That being said there are many well done and factual interesting documentaries that might be worth watching in your spare time if you’re so inclined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alexmacarie said:
There’s a difference between storytelling and acting. Acting involves falsifying the deeds and words of another, which is not consistent with the 9th commandment, even if the purpose is to educate or entertain and not to deceive. Acting and theatre has been largely frowned upon by both ancient Jews and Christians throughout history.

When an actor does anything, he can’t be said to be doing it from the heart to the glory of God. If he is acting out a good deed, it’s false, so it’s not really a good deed, and if he’s acting out a bad deed, that’s clearly not a good thing. He puts on emotions that are not his, and most of what the actor says in his act are lies because they are not true statements of facts or of what his heart actually thinks, although he is pretending that they are.

Also, so much excessive money and labour is poured into the industry of acting and films that ought rightly to be used in ways that will actually benefit society, instead of largely entertaining the world with unprofitable or downright evil content.

Francis Turretin demonstrates rightly that a lie is,

“the testimony by which a man speaks differently from what he thinks.” Although the intention to deceive constitutes a more perfect kind of lying, it is not always required in a lie, provided there is a will of enunciating what is false.”

“The lie prohibited by the ninth precept is commonly distinguished as to its object into pernicious (which is told with the intention of injuring and tends to the injury of a neighbor); jocose (told for the purpose of amusement); and officious (intended to promote the benefit of others). Concerning the first, all agree that it is a grievous sin, but concerning the last two (and especially the last) a controversy is moved by the Socinians, who maintain that they are either venial or no sins (with whom agree some laxer casuists, who take them out of the category of sin). However although we recognize a distinction between these lies (as that the pernicious is more criminal, the other two more light), still we consider them true sins condemned by the law of God.”

Excerpt From
Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol 2)

Or as à Brakel puts it,

“To lie is knowingly (or if one could have known) speaking contrary to the truth.”

“(2) There are lies for the purpose of entertaining others with fabricated stories. ―They make the king glad ... with
their lies (Hos 7:3).”

“In order to be deterred from lying, it ought to be known that:
(1) God frequently forbids lying. ―Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour‖ (Eph 4:25); ―Lie not one to another‖ (Col 3:9).
(2) It is an abomination before God. ―Lying lips are abomination to the Lord‖ (Prov 12:22).
(3) It is the devil‘s work. ―When he (the devil) speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it‖ (John 8:44);”

That being said there are many well done and factual interesting documentaries that might be worth watching in your spare time if you’re so inclined.
Click to expand...
The belief that actors are liars is a very stupid belief. If an actor is playing Winston Churchill we know that is not actually Winston Churchill. Acting is merely visual storytelling.

Let's church discipline all kids for being in the school play then! Church discipline them for saying, "I am a little teapot, short and stout"...: because THAT too is a lie because they are clearly not a teapot! LIARS!

EDIT: sorry I said "stupid." Note that I said the belief was stupid and not the person. But I will be more gentle.
 
Last edited:
Pergamum said:
The belief that actors are liars is a very stupid belief. If an actor is playing Winston Churchill we know that is not actually Winston Churchill. Acting is merely visual storytelling.

Let's church discipline all kids for being in the school play then! Church discipline them for saying, "I am a little teapot, short and stout"...: because THAT too is a lie because they are clearly not a teapot! LIARS!
Click to expand...

Well no offence intended but based on your response, it sounds like you either didn’t read my comment very carefully, or didn’t understand the reasoning of the arguments presented.

“If an actor is playing Winston Churchill we know that is not actually Winston Churchill.”

That’s the point, that’s why it’s a lie, “it’s not actually Winston Churchill”, it is falsehood, even though the act is intended to entertain rather than deceive. An act, as opposed to the telling of a parable for example, is a lie in its form, because the act has an intrinsic contrariety to what is in the mind and heart of the actor, who puts on an act, which is more than merely storytelling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alexmacarie said:
Well no offence intended but based on your response, it sounds like you either didn’t read my comment very carefully, or didn’t understand the reasoning of the arguments presented.

“If an actor is playing Winston Churchill we know that is not actually Winston Churchill.”

That’s the point, that’s why it’s a lie, “it’s not actually Winston Churchill”, it is falsehood, even though the act is intended to entertain rather than deceive. An act, as opposed to the telling of a parable for example, is a lie in its form, because the act has an intrinsic contrariety to what is in the mind and heart of the actor, who puts on an act, which is more than merely storytelling.
Click to expand...
Naw. I call baloney.
 
alexmacarie said:
There’s a difference between storytelling and acting. Acting involves falsifying the deeds and words of another, which is not consistent with the 9th commandment, even if the purpose is to educate or entertain and not to deceive. Acting and theatre has been largely frowned upon by both ancient Jews and Christians throughout history.

When an actor does anything, he can’t be said to be doing it from the heart to the glory of God. If he is acting out a good deed, it’s false, so it’s not really a good deed, and if he’s acting out a bad deed, that’s clearly not a good thing. He puts on emotions that are not his, and most of what the actor says in his act are lies because they are not true statements of facts or of what his heart actually thinks, although he is pretending that they are.

Also, so much excessive money and labour is poured into the industry of acting and films that ought rightly to be used in ways that will actually benefit society, instead of largely entertaining the world with unprofitable or downright evil content.

Francis Turretin demonstrates rightly that a lie is,

“the testimony by which a man speaks differently from what he thinks.” Although the intention to deceive constitutes a more perfect kind of lying, it is not always required in a lie, provided there is a will of enunciating what is false.”

“The lie prohibited by the ninth precept is commonly distinguished as to its object into pernicious (which is told with the intention of injuring and tends to the injury of a neighbor); jocose (told for the purpose of amusement); and officious (intended to promote the benefit of others). Concerning the first, all agree that it is a grievous sin, but concerning the last two (and especially the last) a controversy is moved by the Socinians, who maintain that they are either venial or no sins (with whom agree some laxer casuists, who take them out of the category of sin). However although we recognize a distinction between these lies (as that the pernicious is more criminal, the other two more light), still we consider them true sins condemned by the law of God.”

Excerpt From
Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol 2)

Or as à Brakel puts it,

“To lie is knowingly (or if one could have known) speaking contrary to the truth.”

“(2) There are lies for the purpose of entertaining others with fabricated stories. ―They make the king glad ... with
their lies (Hos 7:3).”

“In order to be deterred from lying, it ought to be known that:
(1) God frequently forbids lying. ―Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour‖ (Eph 4:25); ―Lie not one to another‖ (Col 3:9).
(2) It is an abomination before God. ―Lying lips are abomination to the Lord‖ (Prov 12:22).
(3) It is the devil‘s work. ―When he (the devil) speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it‖ (John 8:44);”

That being said there are many well done and factual interesting documentaries that might be worth watching in your spare time if you’re so inclined.
Click to expand...

Did Joshua lie when he set an ambush behind the city of Ai, thus leading the men to falsely believe that the other army was retreating?

Did God lie when he told Samuel to tell Saul that he was going to offer a sacrifice, rather than anoint David as king?
 
Pergamum said:
The belief that actors are liars is a very stupid belief. If an actor is playing Winston Churchill we know that is not actually Winston Churchill. Acting is merely visual storytelling.

Let's church discipline all kids for being in the school play then! Church discipline them for saying, "I am a little teapot, short and stout"...: because THAT too is a lie because they are clearly not a teapot! LIARS!
Click to expand...

What if the child sincerely believes that they are in fact a little tea pot, short and stout? What if they believe that God made them a little tea pot, short and stout, but they are simply trapped in a human body? Is it a lie then?
 
Maybe it's just me, but I would argue that if an actor portraying a character is a lie, then the author writing a fictional story is a liar in the same way. The fictional author is making up a story that doesn't exist. Is that not a lie based on the same standard?

As far as watching movies goes, I don't watch TV. However, I don't judge those that do. I would say that watching something like PureFlix is far more dangerous than watching a movie about a hero. The movies on PureFlix get a pass because it is labeled as "Christian". The doctrine that some of those movies teach is far more damaging than a make believe story. Christians that don't know any better can easily be swayed by false teaching if it is labeled as Christian. Yet, through these "Christian" movies the audience is being taught things like the prosperity gospel, contemplative prayer, or even that God is a person on earth. At least with fiction the person watching knows that it is not real.
 
alexmacarie said:
Well no offence intended but based on your response, it sounds like you either didn’t read my comment very carefully, or didn’t understand the reasoning of the arguments presented.

“If an actor is playing Winston Churchill we know that is not actually Winston Churchill.”

That’s the point, that’s why it’s a lie, “it’s not actually Winston Churchill”, it is falsehood, even though the act is intended to entertain rather than deceive. An act, as opposed to the telling of a parable for example, is a lie in its form, because the act has an intrinsic contrariety to what is in the mind and heart of the actor, who puts on an act, which is more than merely storytelling.
Click to expand...
Is a metaphor a lie because it is literally untrue?
 
Zach said:
What if the child sincerely believes that they are in fact a little tea pot, short and stout? What if they believe that God made them a little tea pot, short and stout, but they are simply trapped in a human body? Is it a lie then?
Click to expand...
If they truly identify as a teapot then they should commit to the surgery and hormonal therapy to fully transition to handle and spout.
 
Andrew35 said:
Is a metaphor a lie because it is literally untrue?
Click to expand...

A parable, or allegory, is essentially an extended metaphor, and the point is that it is not a lie in any way, including it’s form, because though it is symbolic, it is speaking of something true. An actor, when he says his lines acting like he is someone else, is speaking contrary to what is in his own mind and heart, so his speech in pretending to be someone else is false, that’s why it’s an act, if he was being truthful about his emotions or words and actions it would no longer be an act and he would no longer be an actor.

BayouHuguenot said:
Did Joshua lie when he set an ambush behind the city of Ai, thus leading the men to falsely believe that the other army was retreating?

Did God lie when he told Samuel to tell Saul that he was going to offer a sacrifice, rather than anoint David as king?
Click to expand...

I’ll quote Turretin because he explains it better than I can, “It is one thing to pass over in silence an unnecessary part of the truth; another to tell what is false as if it were true. The former is lawful, not the latter.”

“XV. It is gratuitously supposed that God suggested a falsehood to Samuel, when he orders him to tell Saul that he had come to Bethlehem to sacrifice (1 S. 16:2). For although he was to come with another purpose in view (to wit, to anoint David), yet that did not hinder his coming there both for the purpose of sacrifice and of celebrating a feast. Now it is one thing not to set forth all the ends of anything; another to state a false end. The former was suggested to Samuel by the Lord, not the latter. Nor when one end is stated, are others denied.”
 
Osnah said:
Maybe it's just me, but I would argue that if an actor portraying a character is a lie, then the author writing a fictional story is a liar in the same way. The fictional author is making up a story that doesn't exist. Is that not a lie based on the same standard?

As far as watching movies goes, I don't watch TV. However, I don't judge those that do. I would say that watching something like PureFlix is far more dangerous than watching a movie about a hero. The movies on PureFlix get a pass because it is labeled as "Christian". The doctrine that some of those movies teach is far more damaging than a make believe story. Christians that don't know any better can easily be swayed by false teaching if it is labeled as Christian. Yet, through these "Christian" movies the audience is being taught things like the prosperity gospel, contemplative prayer, or even that God is a person on earth. At least with fiction the person watching knows that it is not real.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of fiction really..

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, … think on these things.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭4:8‬ ‭
 
Pergamum said:
You just described about 99% of humanity and 99.9% of the Puritanboard. And yourself.
Click to expand...

That’s not really fair, those at Berea were described as noble for searching the scriptures and considering the arguments and reasonings of the apostle. And I’ve seen many examples of people being open to correction and open to changing their mind on things on this board. And in this particular case I’ve actually presented rational arguments and responses here to what has been said, showing openness to considering the rationale of responses or corrections.
 
alexmacarie said:
A parable, or allegory, is essentially an extended metaphor, and the point is that it is not a lie in any way, including it’s form, because though it is symbolic, it is speaking of something true. An actor, when he says his lines acting like he is someone else, is speaking contrary to what is in his own mind and heart, so his speech in pretending to be someone else is false, that’s why it’s an act, if he was being truthful about his emotions or words and actions it would no longer be an act and he would no longer be an actor.



I’ll quote Turretin because he explains it better than I can, “It is one thing to pass over in silence an unnecessary part of the truth; another to tell what is false as if it were true. The former is lawful, not the latter.”

“XV. It is gratuitously supposed that God suggested a falsehood to Samuel, when he orders him to tell Saul that he had come to Bethlehem to sacrifice (1 S. 16:2). For although he was to come with another purpose in view (to wit, to anoint David), yet that did not hinder his coming there both for the purpose of sacrifice and of celebrating a feast. Now it is one thing not to set forth all the ends of anything; another to state a false end. The former was suggested to Samuel by the Lord, not the latter. Nor when one end is stated, are others denied.”
Click to expand...

Samuel (or God) deliberately misled Saul. I agree Samuel didn't lie, but for other reasons. That still doesn't get you off the hook for Joshua's actions. Even worse, there is the lying spirit God sent to King Ahab. Of course, one could say it was a demon and God was just giving it permission. That, though, raises other problems (like what is a demon doing in heaven in God's presence where no evil can dwell?)
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Samuel (or God) deliberately misled Saul. I agree Samuel didn't lie, but for other reasons. That still doesn't get you off the hook for Joshua's actions. Even worse, there is the lying spirit God sent to King Ahab. Of course, one could say it was a demon and God was just giving it permission. That, though, raises other problems (like what is a demon doing in heaven in God's presence where no evil can dwell?)
Click to expand...

Concealing information from Saul is not lying. What are your reasons for thinking Samuel didn’t lie, out of interest?

Joshua didn’t lie either, he didn’t have to tell them there was an ambush on the other side.

Yes God permitted the evil spirit to lie to Ahab.

The general rule of truthfulness is quite undeniable in Scripture, God is a God of truth, so I don’t see how these particular and peculiar instances can be pressed to open the door wide to such plain and useless obvious falsehood as there is involved in acting.
 
alexmacarie said:
That’s not really fair, those at Berea were described as noble for searching the scriptures and considering the arguments and reasonings of the apostle. And I’ve seen many examples of people being open to correction and open to changing their mind on things on this board. And in this particular case I’ve actually presented rational arguments and responses here to what has been said, showing openness to considering the rationale of responses or corrections.
Click to expand...
You are open to correction? You have presented well-reasoned arguments?

Who is the liar now?
 
alexmacarie said:
Concealing information from Saul is not lying. What are your reasons for thinking Samuel didn’t lie, out of interest?

Joshua didn’t lie either, he didn’t have to tell them there was an ambush on the other side.

Yes God permitted the evil spirit to lie to Ahab.

The general rule of truthfulness is quite undeniable in Scripture, God is a God of truth, so I don’t see how these particular and peculiar instances can be pressed to open the door wide to such plain and useless obvious falsehood as there is involved in acting.
Click to expand...

In all cases they deliberately misled them. They intended their enemy to believe the exact opposite.
 
alexmacarie said:
Concealing information from Saul is not lying. What are your reasons for thinking Samuel didn’t lie, out of interest?

Joshua didn’t lie either, he didn’t have to tell them there was an ambush on the other side.

Yes God permitted the evil spirit to lie to Ahab.

The general rule of truthfulness is quite undeniable in Scripture, God is a God of truth, so I don’t see how these particular and peculiar instances can be pressed to open the door wide to such plain and useless obvious falsehood as there is involved in acting.
Click to expand...
There is even obfuscation in your reply in that the text says "God put" a lying spirit into the mouth of the prophets versus how you represent it as God "permitted."
 
Pergamum said:
You are open to correction? You have presented well-reasoned arguments?

Who is the liar now?
Click to expand...

I am, and I have. You may not think they’re well reasoned, but I’ve sincerely attempted to reason well, and they’re certainly not as poorly reasoned responses as saying “Naw, not buying it.”
BayouHuguenot said:
In all cases they deliberately misled them. They intended their enemy to believe the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

I think if we think it through more carefully that’s not entirely the case, it’s more nuanced. They let the enemy believe what they wanted. It was the enemy’s fault they fled after them, there was no indication that there wouldn’t be an ambush. They just didn’t want the enemy to be aware of certain things, and withholding information from someone who we don’t want to be aware of it, and to whom we aren’t obliged to divulge it, is not wrong nor a lie.

As far as God permitting a spirit to lie, that spirit did want Ahab to believe the opposite, but we all agree that God’s permitting sin is not God’s approval of sin nor does it make God the author of sin. However that’s a difference subject than is relevant to this thread.
 
Pergamum said:
There is even obfuscation in your reply in that the text says "God put" a lying spirit into the mouth of the prophets versus how you represent it as God "permitted."
Click to expand...

Got put it there by way of permission, not production. We also read that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, are we to conclude that God produced sin in pharaohs heart? I’ve been assuming that we’re discussing with the mutual understanding that God cannot tempt any man to evil, in the reformed way of viewing it.
BayouHuguenot said:
There is even the bigger problem that the "evil" spirit is in heaven.
Click to expand...

Judicious reformed interpreters have proposed various and satisfactory solutions to this difficulty, just see Matthew Poole or Henry if interested.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
  • Locked
More Marvel Movies on the Way
Replies
18
Views
3K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
danmpem
  • Locked
Old Movies/TV about Time Travel
Replies
5
Views
3K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Warren
  • Locked
Movies, Anybody?
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Frosty
Frosty
B
  • Locked
ganster movies
Replies
22
Views
3K
govols
G
V
  • Locked
Thanksgiving Movies
Replies
6
Views
2K
Kevin
Kevin
Back
Top