Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
And yet if if is portrayed in the right light (which everyone here has agreed that it must be, acknowledging that many, many films do not do so), how is it any different from the biblical passages?
The Role of Entertainment in a Christian's Life
- Thread starter Authorised
- Start date
- Status
And yet if if is portrayed in the right light (which everyone here has agreed that it must be, acknowledging that many, many films do not do so), how is it any different from the biblical passages?
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Paul,
Collateral was a guess...pick some other shoot them up movie then...I haven't seen it. I see no point in watching it. And my comment about excuses was to the board at large...not just you. You are right we need to pick and choose each battle. But we also need to be careful.
Where do you draw the line is what I think this thread comes to, why, and does it really hold water in the light of scripture.
Collateral was a guess...pick some other shoot them up movie then...I haven't seen it. I see no point in watching it. And my comment about excuses was to the board at large...not just you. You are right we need to pick and choose each battle. But we also need to be careful.
Where do you draw the line is what I think this thread comes to, why, and does it really hold water in the light of scripture.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
The Incredibles was pretty violent and I never saw them once engage in family worship. Not to mention they relied on their super powers (autonomy) instead of God's providence. The movie might even be allegorized to see the divine spark within that everyone has. Plus the little boy "Dash" ran so fast that he was able to walk on water. Maybe they were trying to demythologize Jesus walking on water.
I'm no Brian Godawa but....:bigsmile: Off to read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy
[Edited on 1-12-2005 by crhoades]
Ex Nihilo
Puritan Board Senior
I haven't found this to necessarily be so. I don't excessively watch violent films, so when I watch a war movie or something like that, I'm sort of freshly reminded of how horrible it is. Not enjoyable at all... and I have more appreciation for what soldiers go through.
At the same time, repeatedly watching brutality can certainly desensitize. I've seen Gladiator so many times that very little in that movie bothers me anymore. (Fortunately, I think this is just because I've seen those particular scenes. Similar scenes in other movies still bother me... but I think after a while it wouldn't.)
Maybe the difference is in whether it realistically portrays war violence or whether it glorifies it and makes it cheap entertainment?
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Black Hawk Down?
Saving Private Ryan?
Star Wars?
Saving Private Ryan?
Star Wars?
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
htm not jpeg or somehting else-didnt work?
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Now it ownt open
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
That's my point! That many, many films (most even in my opinion) are not portraying sin in the correct light.
Originally posted by Paul manata
http://russell.mcmaster.ca/~bertrand/later.html
[Edited on 1-12-2005 by Paul manata]
Funny, they don't have "Betrand Russell, the Burning in Hell Years"
Coming in to the discussion late...
For myself I error on the side of caution. As a Christian there are many things that I can do, I always stop and ask myself whether I should do them. I avoid many movies because of their content be it cursing, sexuality, or excessive violence simply because I cannot stomach them and will probably walk out. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.
Often I find other things that are more profitable that I could be doing with my time. I do watch movies, but I try to be careful what I allow myself to see. I try to act in such a way as to keep a clean conscience before the Lord and not engage in viewing those things He deems abominable.
For myself I error on the side of caution. As a Christian there are many things that I can do, I always stop and ask myself whether I should do them. I avoid many movies because of their content be it cursing, sexuality, or excessive violence simply because I cannot stomach them and will probably walk out. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.
Often I find other things that are more profitable that I could be doing with my time. I do watch movies, but I try to be careful what I allow myself to see. I try to act in such a way as to keep a clean conscience before the Lord and not engage in viewing those things He deems abominable.
We are talking past each other here so this is my final summary -
It is not enough to be discerning while willingly exposing ourselves to things God hates. When you pay your money and sit down to watch a movie in order to be entertained, it is not enough to watch with discernment. We must check our motives for watching that particular movie in the first place. There is nothing wrong with relaxing and taking our minds off things and being amused. But if we chose to flood our minds with glorified sin and minimized holiness then we have made a bad choice.
Some people cannot watch movies with sexual situations or violence. It brings up images in their mind or even plants new ones there that should not be there. Repeated exposure to violence deadens us to the horrific nature of violence. Repeated exposure to sexual sin takes the edge off the true nature of this kind of sin. Watch Saving Private Ryan a few times and see if you are as shocked during the D-Day sequence as you were the first time you saw it. If you find yourself watching to indulge the flesh instead of to further crucify it, then maybe this example is the whole point - why do we do what we do to be entertained? Is it to fulfill the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, or pride of life? Or is it to glorify God?
This is a serious enough issue that we need to quit saying that a call for holiness and abstinence concerning movies is overreacting and we need desperately to drop the sarcastic comments and ad homs. There is nothing wrong with not owning a tv or not going to the movies.
If you can watch the movie and at the same time be holy and grow in holiness then go for it. If there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever, listen to the Spirit and your own conscience and flee. If you find movies that are good, pure, helpful, praiseworthy, then watch them. If not, stay away and do something more constructive with your time and money.
Don't think it is enough to be discerning. The Bible says there are categories of things that we are to avoid, flee, refrain from, and reject. You don't avoid something by examining it closely with discernment. You leave your coat in her hand and run the other way. Indeed, if we were truly discerning we would flee the trap in the first place rather than examining the trap to see where it might snare us.
That is all I am saying.
Phillip
[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]
It is not enough to be discerning while willingly exposing ourselves to things God hates. When you pay your money and sit down to watch a movie in order to be entertained, it is not enough to watch with discernment. We must check our motives for watching that particular movie in the first place. There is nothing wrong with relaxing and taking our minds off things and being amused. But if we chose to flood our minds with glorified sin and minimized holiness then we have made a bad choice.
Some people cannot watch movies with sexual situations or violence. It brings up images in their mind or even plants new ones there that should not be there. Repeated exposure to violence deadens us to the horrific nature of violence. Repeated exposure to sexual sin takes the edge off the true nature of this kind of sin. Watch Saving Private Ryan a few times and see if you are as shocked during the D-Day sequence as you were the first time you saw it. If you find yourself watching to indulge the flesh instead of to further crucify it, then maybe this example is the whole point - why do we do what we do to be entertained? Is it to fulfill the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, or pride of life? Or is it to glorify God?
This is a serious enough issue that we need to quit saying that a call for holiness and abstinence concerning movies is overreacting and we need desperately to drop the sarcastic comments and ad homs. There is nothing wrong with not owning a tv or not going to the movies.
If you can watch the movie and at the same time be holy and grow in holiness then go for it. If there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever, listen to the Spirit and your own conscience and flee. If you find movies that are good, pure, helpful, praiseworthy, then watch them. If not, stay away and do something more constructive with your time and money.
Don't think it is enough to be discerning. The Bible says there are categories of things that we are to avoid, flee, refrain from, and reject. You don't avoid something by examining it closely with discernment. You leave your coat in her hand and run the other way. Indeed, if we were truly discerning we would flee the trap in the first place rather than examining the trap to see where it might snare us.
That is all I am saying.
Phillip
[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]
turmeric
Megerator
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, and I actually do not own a TV or watch many movies. (I also saw The Incredibles,though) The problem is; nobody reads a novel, plays football or watches a movie to crucify the flesh - not even a G rated one. That's not what we're doing at movies or coffee-shops etc.
I am really not trying to be sarcastic, my point is; if we ask ourselves if every entertainment decision is to crucify the flesh, we'll never do any of it, we'll go to work, clean house, eat stuff that we hope doesn't taste too good, read the Bible & theology books, pray & sleep. I've tried to do that because I really feel guilty when I do something just for fun, and my brain crashes after a while. I have to read a novel or something. It doesn't have to be by Marquis de Sade, though!
If a person can't watch movies without sinning (some people can't be on the computer without sinning!) he/she shouldn't do it or let us pressure him/her into it. St. Paul says in Romans not to do this to each other.
Don't do anything you don't think you should do, but don't make a work that God must be pleased with out of it, God is pleased with us for Christ's sake, not for anything we do. I know, we all know this.
I am really not trying to be sarcastic, my point is; if we ask ourselves if every entertainment decision is to crucify the flesh, we'll never do any of it, we'll go to work, clean house, eat stuff that we hope doesn't taste too good, read the Bible & theology books, pray & sleep. I've tried to do that because I really feel guilty when I do something just for fun, and my brain crashes after a while. I have to read a novel or something. It doesn't have to be by Marquis de Sade, though!
If a person can't watch movies without sinning (some people can't be on the computer without sinning!) he/she shouldn't do it or let us pressure him/her into it. St. Paul says in Romans not to do this to each other.
Don't do anything you don't think you should do, but don't make a work that God must be pleased with out of it, God is pleased with us for Christ's sake, not for anything we do. I know, we all know this.
One last final note 
just because we enjoy something does not mean it is sinful or that we cannot be crucifying the flesh while having fun!
What is the motive? What are we exposing ourselves to? What are we thinking on? Training our flesh - beating our body into submission - crucifying self - these do not mean that we cannot enjoy things.
The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This is not a joyless, hurtful, bitter exeperience! Whatever you do, do it to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).
Now I am really finished. Really. I mean it.
Phillip
[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]
just because we enjoy something does not mean it is sinful or that we cannot be crucifying the flesh while having fun!
What is the motive? What are we exposing ourselves to? What are we thinking on? Training our flesh - beating our body into submission - crucifying self - these do not mean that we cannot enjoy things.
The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This is not a joyless, hurtful, bitter exeperience! Whatever you do, do it to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).
Now I am really finished. Really. I mean it.
Phillip
[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
http://russell.mcmaster.ca/~bertrand/later.html
[Edited on 1-12-2005 by Paul manata]
Funny, they don't have "Betrand Russell, the Burning in Hell Years"
maybe you could start one?? Though it will be everlasting and so it would kinda be hard to do.
But, we don't know *for sure* that he is burning in hell.
That is true, we don't know for sure. We don't know *for sure* that Nero, Hitler, or Pol Pot are either.
But I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep tonight over Mr. Russell.
I meant funny as in "odd" not in laughable. The title of the web page was "Betrand Russell, the Famous Years." Oh, to be famous for blaspheming the living God. What a legacy.
I have no strong bond with any unbeliever.
But that's not because I shun them as if I am better than them. They just know that I base my life on the word of God (Lord help me) and as such have little to no desire to spend much "quality" time with me. I pray when with them, point out God's word to them anytime I am with them and they openly and arrogantly sin as if it is no big deal, and share my opinions with them in regard to how I feel the word of God sees something they may be discussing.
They know that Christ and His word are the focal point of my life and as such I never "leave Him home". I even have many "Christian" friends who get annoyed with me for "making everything spiritual".
How I try and yeild my life annoys alot of people I am friends with. I've been called more names (legalist, Pharisee, Judge, etc) by the people in my life than I can count. I try and count it all as blessing. Often it is tough but I press on.
Adam,
thanks for the response. Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but how do you define 'strong bond'? Going out for a meal togeater? Inviting them over to your place? etc etc
I am not trying to be a nag here, but this is also something i really want to sort out in my own life. I have many relationships with unbelievers formed in the past and i sometimes really don't know what to do about them. My current opinion is that there is no need to cut off these relationships as though these people had suddenly developed the pox, rather we should just lead holy, Christ centred lives without compromise, and we can continue to 'relate' to the extent these people will tolerate us.
Don't get me wrong, i am definitely not trying to be self righteous here, i know fully that but for God's grace i would be no different than they are( and indeed i am not nearly as different enough as is).
oh...any just in conclusion...apologies for this OFF TOPIC POST
[edited to clean up excessive dead horse carcases that were messing up the screen]
[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]
Thanks Pastorway...sorry bout that
[Edited on 12-1-2005 by satz]
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
That's exactly the way I see it!
However, if you truely live an uncomprimised Christ centered life, from my experience, they will cut you off. Or, as you have said, they will no longer tolerate you.
Pray before every meal, a strong, proud prayer of thanksgiving asking for the Lord to bless the food, you, and your friends. Including when you are in a resteraunt! See how long they will tolerate that.
Refuse to discuss anything that is unacceptable to the Lord and tell them why the subject must change and see if they still want you around.
Tell them how it dissapoints you when they say something crude, rude, or ignorant. Watch the eyes roll with that one.
Now, do all of that with a soft, loving attitude of course! I am not saying you act like some know it all self-righteous jerk! But in love share your life for Christ with them in all areas.
The only time Christ rejecting friends tolerated my company on a regular basis were times that I comprimised my walk. Every time I hold firm to my calling I have been rejected by all who reject Him.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
http://russell.mcmaster.ca/~bertrand/later.html
[Edited on 1-12-2005 by Paul manata]
Funny, they don't have "Betrand Russell, the Burning in Hell Years"
maybe you could start one?? Though it will be everlasting and so it would kinda be hard to do.
But, we don't know *for sure* that he is burning in hell.
That is true, we don't know for sure. We don't know *for sure* that Nero, Hitler, or Pol Pot are either.
But I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep tonight over Mr. Russell.
unless he asks how you know what is the 'real" table? It appears smooth. But with a microscope you can see hills and valley's. With an even more powerful one, more roughness. So, is the table really smoth or is it rough? Or, it looks a certain shade of brown from where I stand, but another sahde from where you stand, so what is the color of the "brown" table? Or, from different perspectives the shape is different, so what is the shape? All of these have caused me many hours of lost sleep!
heh heh. At best he was a very, very, good author.
Sorry,
Theoretical mind games don't interest me. To me, Russell is just another arrogant God-hater. If I want to read pagan authors (and I do) I'll have a couple hundred (or thousand maybe) or so ahead of him.
I know, and I'm not upset or anything, just continuing to play along.
For me (seriously) I think the bigger problem for the teen (for example) is that he is more interested in such things than real life. My experience is that most people use those sorts of conversations to wall you off from the real problems or concerns of their lives. I don't play that game. (I don't play it with Homer either).
On another level, your last comment is right. I've spent a pretty fair amount of time in the past with philosophy, and it holds almost no interest for me now.
Somehow, I don't think our Lord would have talked at all about philosophy or thinking with Wittgenstein; he would have immediately gone after the heart.
That is not to say that Christians who know philosophy aren't important, but I don't see that (sorry) as having a huge pastoral role. There was a reason (and this is not a criticism) that Van Til was never (to my knowledge) a pastor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bahnsen never was either.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Bahnsen was in fact "an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church," as stated on the back cover of his Always Ready.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Oops - Paul, you beat me to it!
Chris,
Just so you know, an ordained minister is not necessarily a pastor. There are hundreds of ordained PCA/OPC ministers that are not pastors.
I thought I might be wrong about Bahnsen, that's why I hedged.
Paul -- where was Van Til a pastor? Not a minister, but a pastor. It was my understanding that he was a full time professor of apologetics at WTS for decades. I don't recall ever hearing of his pastoral charge.
One last thing - I didn't say Jesus wouldn't talk to Wittgenstein. I said he would not talk to Wittgenstein about philosophy (after the manner of Wittgenstein).
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
In that case, distinguishing between an ordained minister who is a pastor and one who is not, what are some of the differences in usual cases? Is it that an ordained minister can be ordained by a church for just one specific task, such as teaching somewhere inside or outside the church, but a pastor always has a greater number of responsibilities inside the congregation?
Yes. Ordained ministers can be seminary profs, teachers in Christian schools, work for publishing houses, administrators in denominational agencies, and so on.
Understood. But you're basing it on silence.
So when he was with the OPC, he was not a pastor, but a professor who preached, yes? Again, this is NOT a criticism - the Church needs men with a variety of gifts. But what you're saying to me is that Van Til was a pastor of a church for a year, and then a seminary professor of apologetics/philosophy who occasionally preached for the rest of his life.
Ivan
Pastor
Speaking of Van Til....
It has dawn on my meager memory that my Christian Philosophy professor at Southwestern Seminary talked A LOT about Van Til. My professor's name was L. Rush Bush. I think he might teach at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary now. Most certainly a conservative professor!
It has dawn on my meager memory that my Christian Philosophy professor at Southwestern Seminary talked A LOT about Van Til. My professor's name was L. Rush Bush. I think he might teach at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary now. Most certainly a conservative professor!
- Status
