# Evils of Drama?



## tdowns (Mar 14, 2008)

Can somebody, the poster perhaps, clarify this:

"My wife and I, not all that long ago, came to the realization of the evils of drama.

Now we can teach our children about the evils of it, and we can forbid them to view drama. But, just as we learned, in process of time, in our hearts, we have to also give our children the time that it took ourselves to finally come to the realization. And in the meantime pray God for His grace in this matter."

Do you mean in service, or in general, like movies?


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 14, 2008)

SermonAudio.com - Should Christians watch Movies


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 14, 2008)

The Christian and the Theater


Look at what they wrote about actors in the 1820's:




Accordingly, in all ages and countries, play-actors have been generally found triflers, buffoons, sensualists, unfit for sober employment, and loose in their morals. It is not pretended that there have been no exceptions to this character. But the exceptions have been so few, and their circumstances so extraordinary, as to confirm, rather than invalidate the general argument. And is it even true, that there ever has been a complete exception? Was there ever an actor who exhibited a life of steady, exemplary, Christian purity and piety? I never heard of such a person; and until I do, I shall venture to say there never was one. Yet this is the profession which all who frequent the theater contribute their share, to encourage and support. They give their presence, their influence, and their money—for the maintenance of a class of people whose business it is—directly or indirectly, to instill error and sin, to corrupt our children, and to counteract whatever the friends of piety and good morals are striving to accomplish for the benefit of society.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 14, 2008)

I have had a lot of gay haircutters at salons or beauty salons. You don't see me posting a thread on the evils of haircuts.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I have had a lot of gay haircutters at salons or beauty salons. You don't see me posting a thread on the evils of haircuts.




Pergy, it's not just the immorality of the actors. That is just one very small aspect In my humble opinion. It is the sickening images, profanity, blasphemy, senuality, and every type of vice that is paraded before your eyes with these activities. It is the time that is sunk into these types of leisure activities. It is the money sunk into them. (finger pointed at myself while listing these) 

Can that time and brain space be redeemed?? Since stopping much of those activities, (this has been a long process, I am down to only a very few Austen type movies, I still really like movies) I am haunted now occasionally by images of things from movies and I pray the Lord would wipe them from memory. I have sifted through my movies twice now and am about to do a 3rd sweep. Each time I was getting rid of them based on content, and each time I was more and more sensitive to that content. 

You become calloused to the sin paraded before you. As you get rid of it and leave only your daily work and reading in the Word of God you become less and less calloused to it and you cannot stand it to be in your sight. I think this is the way it should be. 

What communion hath light with darkness? 

You tell me Pergy, can you view the things bolded below and not be a partaker in them? If the principle that Christ set forth that if you just look a woman with lust that you have commited adultery, or if you hate someone you are a murderer, if that holds true, how on earth can we pay with our kingdom resources to sit in front of the filth that we sit in front of when we watch even a tv commercial?? How can we not be partaking of it? 

We are ingesting it with our minds and our hearts and emotions that are toyed with by the content in the movie to move us to love, hate, jealousy, and every type of emotion with the characters of the movie. Even if it isn't real we still love, hate, and have jealousy in our hearts and minds. You still lust an object before your eyes which is the very definition of idolatry. 

I think we lie to ourselves and suppress the truth if say we can sit through that and not be touched.

Ephesians 5
1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 

* 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. *
*7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.* 

8 For ye were sometimes darkness, _but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light_: 

9 (_For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth_) 

10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 

11 _And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them._ 

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.


----------



## etexas (Mar 14, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I have had a lot of gay haircutters at salons or beauty salons. You don't see me posting a thread on the evils of haircuts.


 Pergi! Man! That was TOO funny! (sorry guys back on topic.)


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 14, 2008)

Id like to know where I can get a copy of the list of sins of this 'magnitude'. Sometimes when I see posts regarding a subject and opinion like this, my walk becomes impossible. I may as well become an old school Amish. Reminds me of reading the mishna with my jewish friend. Do not covet is enough for me. I do not need 87 things listed from what every man in the world describes as coveting. Bunch of peccadillos is all it is if that. Dramas, plays, movies, drinking, card playing, dancing, pictures, and screennames and first names breaking the 3rd commandment. I love acting as a profession, I love plays, And Just as I am "smart enough"(notice the quotes signifying one does not have to be that smart), to realize that Christ is not made out of wood when He says He is the door, I can somehow muster up enough brains to watch a drama and know Anthony Hopkins is not a cannibalistic serial killer. My goodness, why did Christ go to the cross?


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Would this preclude the reading of books as well?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Would this preclude the reading of books as well?



I am sure this made someones list David somewhere.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Would this preclude the reading of books as well?
> ...



 It seems like that would follow logically. Well, I'm off to the monastery.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Would this preclude the reading of books as well?



It would depend upon what you are reading and why you are reading it. Reading a novel in which a volent rape is described in minute detail is not something a Christian should be reading.

*Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
Answer: *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.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 14, 2008)

I hope it is a "Reformed" Monastery... 






Davidius said:


> Well, I'm off to the monastery.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Would this preclude the reading of books as well?
> ...



I don't think that anyone here would argue for the legitimacy of p0rnography. The thread implies that watching any movie is a sin, and I just wanted to ask a legitimate follow-up question. If the issue is not so black and white that all movies and books are sinful, then there must be some kind of subjective line, and at that point we are crossing into the murky waters of individual conscience.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 14, 2008)

lascivious is the key word for the catechism.....

Whether the lascivious is Visual, Audio, Physical, or mental imagery....






Davidius said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 14, 2008)

There goes half my history books...particularly the ones on Henry VIII.

(I'm being fasticious. I do believe there is a line...where exactly is difficult to place)


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The thread implies that watching any movie is a sin, and I just wanted to ask a legitimate follow-up question. If the issue is not so black and white that all movies and books are sinful, then there must be some kind of subjective line, and at that point we are crossing into the murky waters of individual conscience.



Not really as the Bible provides us with a number of simple rules:

*Psa 101:3* "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me."

*Rom 16:19* "yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil."

*1Co 15:33* "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."

*Php 4:8* "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Does it meet this test?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 14, 2008)

Really! Are you sure?

p0rnography does not just exist as images... p0rnography exist on the dance floor when people mimic lustful acts when dancing in the modern styles... p0rnography exist in Audio with Music that makes those either on the floor listening or those singing the songs mimic sexual acts and have lustful thoughts... Certain beats of the music can be very lustful.... p0rnography exist in books that describe in words sexual acts, i.e. Romance Novels, or even Crime Investigations when describing in details a rape case.. p0rnography exist in clothing catalogs when showing swim wear or underwear ads... p0rnography exist in movies from all of the above categories..... 

I am not against clean decent movies... But p0rnography exist on many levels and 9 times out of 10 it exist in most movies from the music, to the acts displayed.. I have seen many christian try to defend certain music, movies, dances, books, etc.. And when they do that they are defending a form of p0rnography....





Davidius said:


> I don't think that anyone here would argue for the legitimacy of p0rnography.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2008)

David and Robert, can you answer my question about the principle that Christ set forth when he said if you look with lust, or hate in your heart, you have committed adultery and murder?? If that is true how can we put those things in our minds and hearts via books or movies??

What are the bolded things in this passage if they are not the sins and fleshly things in movies and books or where ever they are found "in the world??"

1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, *the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life*, is not of the Father, but is of the world..


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Augusta said:


> David and Robert, can you answer my question about the principle that Christ set forth when he said if you look with lust, or hate in your heart, you have committed adultery and murder?? If that is true how can we put those things in our minds and hearts via books or movies??
> 
> What are the bolded things in this passage if they are not the sins and fleshly things in movies and books or where ever they are found "in the world??"
> 
> ...



Again, no one is arguing that p0rnography is acceptable. The title of this thread is not "The Evils of p0rnography," rather "The Evils of *Drama*." You don't need to keep posting verses about lasciviousness. What I'm asking someone to defend is the thesis set out in the OP, which implies that all movies and all books are sinful, regardless of their content.

***
To Michael:

Yes, I am sure that no one here is suggesting that pornographic media, dirty rap dancing, and romance novels are acceptable. We'll have to agree to disagree about the "sensuality" of music with the beat on 2 and 4.


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 14, 2008)

*Are you referring to "Murder on the Orient Express" for example?*



Augusta said:


> David and Robert, can you answer my question about the principle that Christ set forth when he said if you look with lust, or hate in your heart, you have committed adultery and murder?? If that is true how can we put those things in our minds and hearts via books or movies??
> 
> What are the bolded things in this passage if they are not the sins and fleshly things in movies and books or where ever they are found "in the world??"
> 
> ...



Or one of Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe books?

There's no doubt but that you're right about the necessity of being careful what we let into our minds through books, films, television, etc., as once it's in there it's almost impossible to eradicate.

I've more than a few things I read or saw that I'd love to delete permanently from my memory banks.

But I'm not certain Scripture calls for us to avoid all forms of fiction, especially as some of the descriptions in non-fiction works are every bit as horrid as anything Stephen King ever dreamed up.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 14, 2008)

Demonize movies in general all you want... but stay away from Braveheart!!!


----------



## etexas (Mar 14, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> Demonize movies in general all you want... but stay away from Braveheart!!!


And The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 14, 2008)

That is a sad one.... I love braveheart but did they have to put lustfulness into the movie.......




SolaScriptura said:


> Demonize movies in general all you want... but stay away from Braveheart!!!


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> That is a sad one.... I love braveheart but did they have to put lustfulness into the movie.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No kidding. There are some movies that are so good and one can hardly figure out why the producers decided that there just _had_ to be an indecent scene or two.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 14, 2008)

Augusta said:


> David and Robert, can you answer my question about the principle that Christ set forth when he said if you look with lust, or hate in your heart, you have committed adultery and murder?? If that is true how can we put those things in our minds and hearts via books or movies??
> 
> What are the bolded things in this passage if they are not the sins and fleshly things in movies and books or where ever they are found "in the world??"
> 
> ...



Traci:

The principle is that Christ wants one to realize that only In HIM can one be cleansed. Even our purest thoughts have to be cleansed Traci. As David said, Do not hear what i am not saying. I am not saying pronography is good medicine for the soul and marraige. This thread is about drama. These novel ideas of what is sinful honestly would make me want to be monastic or old school amish. Yet we know how false that is. If this is what the bible teaches, I would be better off blind, deaf and dumb, in a wheelchair so I couldnt dance. How sad it is to be under so much bondage.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > David and Robert, can you answer my question about the principle that Christ set forth when he said if you look with lust, or hate in your heart, you have committed adultery and murder?? If that is true how can we put those things in our minds and hearts via books or movies??
> ...



David, you are trying to pigeon-hole this into just standing for p0rnography but it covers more ground than that. The verse says ALL that is in the world. There are more things lusted after than naked women. People lust for power, for money, for worldy possessions. 

Portrayed in you average tv show are all sorts of these things. Forget about sex entirely and lets focus on the murder and violence in movies and tv. 

Psalm 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 28:17
A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person shall flee to the pit; let no man stay him.

Proverbs 10:11
The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.

Luke 3:14
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

My point really is not that the medium of drama is per se wicked. It is all about content. I still really like Austen and Dickens type films. I have struggled with whether to get rid of my Pride and Prejudice because Lydia takes the Lords name in vain many times in it. Should I just overlook the the 3rd commandment for my own enjoyment of this movie??


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Augusta said:


> David, you are trying to pigeon-hole this into just standing for p0rnography but it covers more ground than that. The verse says ALL that is in the world. There are more things lusted after than naked women. People lust for power, for money, for worldy possessions.
> 
> Portrayed in you average tv show are all sorts of these things. Forget about sex entirely and lets focus on the murder and violence in movies and tv.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to pigeon-hole anything. The main point is that you've been talking about content and I've been talking about medium. According to the above sentence which I have bolded, however, it seems that we have no real disagreement. Whether or not you should throw away Pride and Prejudice is another discussion, at least according to the thesis of the OP.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > David and Robert, can you answer my question about the principle that Christ set forth when he said if you look with lust, or hate in your heart, you have committed adultery and murder?? If that is true how can we put those things in our minds and hearts via books or movies??
> ...



Robert, I can only say with Paul:

Romans 6
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 

2 _God forbid._ *How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?*


The bondage is sin and the committing of sin. That is what we are free from. We are free to serve God and all that that entails. We do indeed have to guard our eyes and our ears. Being the temple of the Lord has much less to do with the body and more to do with my mind and soul In my humble opinion.

If I, for entertainment, watch all kinds of sinful acts paraded before my eyes. How on earth can that be pleasing to him?? How can that be me living no longer in sin or not being a partaker in the sins of the world? 

Romans 1:32

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, *but have pleasure in them that do them.*


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 14, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Augusta said:
> ...





traci:

I must ask, is this regenerated life hard to live as you do worrying about every glance, or word, or program you watch? Seriously, this is sanctification without Christ. This is striving for some aesthetic holiness this side of the grave. An impossibility that only leads to dispair. The little engine that could, 'i think i can i think i can i think i can. This is not was were are called for.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Augusta said:
> ...



Again, neither he nor I are talking about "all kinds of sinful acts paraded before our eyes." Using this kind of exaggerated language is a straw man and makes our position look ridiculous by imputing a different meaning than the one we have. If we were really arguing that everyone should have all kinds of sinful acts paraded before their eyes, you would have much cause to reprimand us. But I assume you have read my previous post by now and hence hope that this point is unnecessary. 

By the way, the apostle Paul to whom you refer is the one who quoted the Hellenistic poet Aratus in his address to the Athenians in Acts.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > David, you are trying to pigeon-hole this into just standing for p0rnography but it covers more ground than that. The verse says ALL that is in the world. There are more things lusted after than naked women. People lust for power, for money, for worldy possessions.
> ...



If Richard from the UK was the author of the comments in the OP where he was asked if he meant movies in general, and then Richard himself put up the sermon about Christians not watching movies, then I think I am still within the bounds of the OP to talk about movies and their content. How is that for a run on sentence.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Richard isn't married (at least I'm pretty sure...correct me if I'm wrong, Richard!), so I don't think that the quote in the OP is from him. I'm not quite sure how the OP could be construed any way other than to mean the evils of drama in general, not the evils of sinful acts portrayed in drama. The question had to do with "service" and "in general," i.e. whether drama is wrong as an element of worship or whether ALL drama is sinful. If we agree that the medium is not inherently evil, then great!  I don't really want to discuss the specifics of what to watch and what not to watch right now, though.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



David, will you grant that there are sinful acts in most modern movies, tv, and books?? No exaggerated language necessary.

 Posted before you said you didn't want to talk about it.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

You're not going to lure me in!  See the end of my previous post. 


 I cross-posted while you were correcting your cross-post.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 14, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Augusta said:
> ...



probably. and I watch them. Not out of open defience to scar my brain though traci. I am still looking for the list of peccadillo sins though. 

Traci, riddle me this batman, you seem to be espousing a monastic life. Is this the best way for a believer to live in the world?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 14, 2008)

As an aside, where is Bert Mulder who made this statement imported to this thread anyway. He lit the match and has not responded once... I am arguing against a phantom. THis is an example of a drive by exegesis!!!!


----------



## Kevin (Mar 14, 2008)

Boy, its too bad that our Lord & Saviour didn't know about this rule! Then he could have avoided that incredible faux pas of quoting from a dramatic work!

Then if only Saint Paul had not worked in all of those references from plays & popular works of drama into the NT. 

Wow is this ever confusing. At least our Lord & the Holy Apostles only refer to the "good plays", the Greek Jane Austen! No, wait a sec...what is all of this murder & incest in the play that Christ quoted...

I think I will go lay down now, my head hurts...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2008)

Amazing Grace:



> THis is an example of a drive by exegesis!!!!



That is the best phrase I have ever seen on PB. I will use it from now on out. 

I have noticed that "he who defines, wins." If you define x as p0rnography, then p0rnography it must be. Therefore, all of Paul's admonitions against immorality are summarily marshalled. Thus, anyone who disgrees with you is against Scripture (according to the strictest of reasoning). 

But this is still better than "Dating according to Boaz." In his case he had too much to drink the night before and woke up with a beautiful woman. I should write a book to that effect. No doubt it would sell millions among the Evanjellyfish. And the irony is that it would be biblical.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> probably. and I watch them. Not out of open defience to scar my brain though traci. I am still looking for the list of peccadillo sins though.
> 
> Traci, riddle me this batman, you seem to be espousing a monastic life. Is this the best way for a believer to live in the world?



I don't live a monastic life!!!  If not having cable and only a small movie library is living a monastic life then maybe I do. I read lots of books, mostly older classics that don't typically have the sensational blasphemy of today. 

*I must re-interate that I do not believe the medium of movies or drama or books to be the problem. It is like anything else it is how it is used or abused that matters. * 


We are a normal family. We haven't thrown our Xboxs out _yet _we still play the tamer games that don't have profanity and violence. I got a good trade-in value on our two copies of Gears of War. There is just no justification for that kind of entertainment In my humble opinion. (Amazing graphics is not a justification  ) My husband and I have thankfully come to this realization together for the most part.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 14, 2008)

There was a point in my Christian life were I broke all my secular music and stopped reading fiction novels and did not watch tv except for Discovery channel (which is worst of all I found out due to the indoctrination in evolutionary theory)...

But now I am so happy to be able to find a few hours per week and sit and veg in front of a tv. The news is good, but even more so is a very imaginative movie. Sure, one has to pick carefully and sometimes one needs to turn off the tube totally and just buy some dvds that match one's level of carefulness, but movies and drama are wonderful expressions of the imaginativeness. 

Sure, you could say that our imaginations are only evil continually, but then many on this board like those Narnia films too. 

I just watched the Bridge over Terebithia and man oh man that was a 2 hour enjoyable journey.


Usually the Puritans opposed drama because an actor was made to be a liar. But that is a weak argument. None of the actors thinks he is another person, they are playing a role and everyone knows it - therefore it is not lying or deceit for an actor to portray a character in a drama.


As far as "lustful beats" I still on't buy the arguments against syncopated rythms, etc. I love techno when I run. Music is to be used and different types fit different uses, classical to study buy, techno for exercise.



Sometimes Christians mistakenly believe that to become holier one must become more and more restrictive. I.e. more strict = more holy.... This is only true to a certain degree.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Amazing Grace:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Use it Jacob.... Just pay me the royalties..


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

I like a good imaginative film also Pergy. I really liked National Treasure. It was very clean with no profanity. Why can't they make more movies like that? Why do they have to be laced with blasphemy and profanity. Why do they have to blur the line between good and evil? When a movie is clean and the bad is bad and good is good then I have no problem.

If there is gratuitous violence, potty humor, gratuitous sex or sensuality, vulgarity, and blamsphemy/profanity then I will pass. All sins grieve God though, even the smaller ones like greed, covetousness, not honoring parents, and lying. Who wants to watch a snotty little kid in a sitcom or movie? 

The biggest thing to my hubby is "you will never get that time back." We are exhorted to redeem the time because the days are evil. Shouldn't we rather be working hard at our vocations as unto God and improving our minds through education and reading and not dumbing ourselves down with the tripe served up at the movies or on tv? Is there really and defense for this: lastest movie releases


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Kevin said:


> Boy, its too bad that our Lord & Saviour didn't know about this rule! Then he could have avoided that incredible faux pas of quoting from a dramatic work!
> 
> Then if only Saint Paul had not worked in all of those references from plays & popular works of drama into the NT.
> 
> ...



To which plays did Jesus and Paul refer, and in which passages? I knew that Paul quoted from a Stoic poet, but not that plays were quoted.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

Redeeming the time means to redeem the opportunity, not every minute. Vegging out and relaxing IS redeeming the time sometimes. Sitting and doing nothing and looking at a mountain is redeeming the time.

Kairos not Kronos, right? I think that is the word in Ephesians.


A related question and a possible new thread: Then is workaholism a sin? Working too hard seems to be a sin too and breaks us down physically and emtioanally?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

The New Testament writers had the habit of “dipping into pagan vocabulary.” and even instances of using pagan source materials. 

Paul paints Jesus as the “pleroma,” a term widely used by the Proto-gnostics (Colossians 1:19). Christ is He in whom all the fullness of God dwells, forever recapturing this word from paganism. 

Paul quoted pagan poets (the Phaenomena of Aratus the Stoic). 

The Apostle John redefines the “logos” for Christian use.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

I think a workaholic would be sinning because they would be invariably neglecting their other vocations like husband, father, disciple etc. It must be balanced. Vegging oout on a mountain or something would be very relaxing. Vegging out in front of the tv is dangerous In my humble opinion. You get into this drooling state and just absorb all the crud without thinking. Garbage in garbage out is very true.

Our minds are God property and I think we should do whatever we can to improve our minds. Playing chess would be sharpening to the mind just as classical music would be.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> The New Testament writers had the habit of “dipping into pagan vocabulary.” and even instances of using pagan source materials.
> 
> Paul paints Jesus as the “pleroma,” a term widely used by the Proto-gnostics (Colossians 1:19). Christ is He in whom all the fullness of God dwells, forever recapturing this word from paganism.
> 
> ...



Some of the Apostles were very learned men. They were classically educated. I am a big believer in classical eduction. When you are reading and studying for the purpose of education it is different. Things are not sensationalized they are scrutinized and analyzed. It's totally different.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 15, 2008)

Well I am a sinner so I guess I might as well enjoy my sinful profession.

Never mind that men like Frank Capra, Jimmy Stewart, Charlton Heston, Cecil B. DeMille, Ralph Winter and myself are among the many Christians who have ministered in the film industry.
Never mind that my congregation is comprised of Reformed Christians that are animators, writers, actors personal assistants, camera grips and much more.

Instead let us bow to the legalistic rants of the frozen chosen few that have little grasp of historical context and apparently are very restless in Christ to waste such time as to demote the human arts, something given to us by the Almighty for glorifying the Almighty.
Yes in our fallen condition we are glory thieves and are capable of perverting the arts just as everything else but it doesn't discard their relevance and purpose.

My art is both a calling and my livelihood and I am not impressed with the flippant lack of respect given to people that have arts based professions, it is this kind of nonsense that gives rise to the cringe-worthy title "puritanical" that misrepresents the faithful by providing examples of calvinistic legalism which in truth should be an oxymoron.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The main point is that you've been talking about content and I've been talking about medium.



In the current clime the medium is linked directly with the content. i.e. name a film that does not break any of the 10 commandments?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > The main point is that you've been talking about content and I've been talking about medium.
> ...


Name me a man that doesn't and I'll concede to you a point, until then apply this standard to every profession and see how consistent you can remain.

Your logic says sin is present on film so therefore film should be avoided all together well in that case televangelists spout blasphemy so ministers should be avoided all together.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > The New Testament writers had the habit of “dipping into pagan vocabulary.” and even instances of using pagan source materials.
> ...



Some apostles (majority?) were uneducated (Acts 2). Peter and others were simply fisherman.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > The New Testament writers had the habit of “dipping into pagan vocabulary.” and even instances of using pagan source materials.
> ...



First, what do you mean by "classically" trained? THey spoke koine Greek, a common language.

What do you mean by sensationalized versus scrutinized? I don't catch your drift.



Call me uncultured, but I don't see how playing chess is any more educated or sanctified than watching a cooking show on TV...at least you can eat after watching the cooking show.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > The main point is that you've been talking about content and I've been talking about medium.
> ...



Are we talking about a film that advocates/glorifies a breaking of the 10 commandments or whether one just happens to be broken in the film? If the latter, the PB should quickly be jettisoned!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Chess requires thinking, strategy. TV is passive. Chess is active. Culturally better? Probably not. Mentally better? Probably.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

Why does it have to be mentally better if our very purpose is to relax? Sitting and resting is just that - rest. Therefore, after a long and tiring day watching National Geographic about some place in Africa seems a lot better than practicing algebra equations or playing chess.

One need not be in constant motion at all times. 

I largely reject all notions of high culture versus low culture. There is city culture and folk culture perhaps.

As far as an activity being "mentally better" with today's rates of depressed and stressd peoples coupled with the West's hectic pace - a little more passive time might be needed. Slow down and zone out for an evening in front of Merril or whoever that badabam guy is...


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Name me a man that doesn't and I'll concede to you a point, until then apply this standard to every profession and see how consistent you can remain.



We are talking about what a Christian chooses to do not professions. 



No Longer A Libertine said:


> Your logic says sin is present on film so therefore film should be avoided all together well in that case televangelists spout blasphemy so ministers should be avoided all together.



God's word tells us to avoid sin.

*1 John 2:15, 16* "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

I didn't know the goal was relaxation. If you were trying to relax, then yes, tv is better than chess. 

I believe there high culture vs. low culture. But that's off topic.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Are we talking about a film that advocates/glorifies a breaking of the 10 commandments or whether one just happens to be broken in the film?



Both.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Are we talking about a film that advocates/glorifies a breaking of the 10 commandments or whether one just happens to be broken in the film?
> ...



Given your standards, then, will you leave PB (since the 9th commandment is violated on the majority of threads)? I would hate to see you go, but you need to be consistent.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

Hmmm.please elaborate Speardane/Ivanhoe.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Given your standards, then, will you leave PB (since the 9th commandment is violated on the majority of threads)? I would hate to see you go, but you need to be consistent.



Even if you were correct that PB violates that (which I would dispute) your argument is made null and void by your confusion of categories. If you violate it then that is your sin but that is completely different from my watching you violate it for my own pleasure.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Given your standards, then, will you leave PB (since the 9th commandment is violated on the majority of threads)? I would hate to see you go, but you need to be consistent.
> ...



I do not commit murder when I watch someone commit murder on TV, so by your above admission watching murder on TV isn't bad. Especially since I am not pleased by the murder.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Given your standards, then, will you leave PB (since the 9th commandment is violated on the majority of threads)? I would hate to see you go, but you need to be consistent.
> ...



Which categories did I confuse? I asked if you meant we shouldn't watch movies that glorify breaking the ten commandments. You said no. I agree.

I also asked if we could watch movies in which a commandment is broken, but not in a glorifying manner. You said no. 

Apropos above statement, I asked if we could then read threads on PB, since the 9th commandment is routinely broken (see any of the politics, baptism, or theonomy threads). You said that's different. I disagree.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I do not commit murder when I watch someone commit murder on TV, so by your above admission watching murder on TV isn't bad. Especially since I am not pleased by the murder.



You are watching something that breaks the decalogue for your own pleasure. That is, you are enjoying watching someone be murdered (albeit ficticiously) and you obtain pleasure from it. The film is celebrating murder, desensitising you to it. No, murder is a wicked thing and "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me."


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

CHURCH FATHERS: De Spectaculis (Tertullian)


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > I do not commit murder when I watch someone commit murder on TV, so by your above admission watching murder on TV isn't bad. Especially since I am not pleased by the murder.
> ...



Um...no. Let's say that I accidentally see it (wasn't warned ahead of time, the previewing site mislead me, etc). Is it wrong, then?




> The film is celebrating murder, desensitising you to it. No, murder is a wicked thing and "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me."



You still didn't answer my question. People lie and slander and libel on PB all the time. How come that's different?

I just thought of a film that doesn't have all that bad stuff: _The Princess Bride_


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 15, 2008)

> I just thought of a film that doesn't have all that bad stuff: The Princess Bride



Rubbish. Fred Savage takes the Lord's name in vain and is disrespectful to his grandfather. Bad 'nuff.

Sorry, Buttercup.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 15, 2008)

Jacob, please understand that I am NOT calling _you_ Buttercup.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Um...no. Let's say that I accidentally see it (wasn't warned ahead of time, the previewing site mislead me, etc). Is it wrong, then?



Yes.



Ivanhoe said:


> People lie and slander and libel on PB all the time.



Could you provide evidence to substantiate this assertion?



Ivanhoe said:


> How come that's different?



I am pondering a good way to explain. But I think that the difference boils down to PB is made up of 'real' people goverened by the law of God whilst drama is a medium that is governed. So as a Christian it is lawful to enagae in discussion and debate with fellow Christians but it is not lawful to look at that which is wrong. If a work collegue lied then at work I would still work with them but I would not choose to associate with them outside of work. Any clearer?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> I am pondering a good way to explain. But I think that the difference boils down to PB is made up of 'real' people goverened by the law of God whilst drama is a medium that is governed. So as a Christian it is lawful to enagae in discussion and debate with fellow Christians but it is not lawful to look at that which is wrong. If a work collegue lied then at work I would still work with them but I would not choose to associate with them outside of work. Any clearer?



So you would not associate with sinners Richard? 

Listen closely, legalism, that '4 letter' word around here at times, is exactly what you and others are espousing. just as a legal approach to justification is impossible, so is legal piety/self sanctification beyond the scope of the biblical witness using traditions of men

I asked before but have yet to receive the complete guide sins of this nature.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. . .If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!". . .


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 15, 2008)

> Listen closely, legalism, that '4 letter' word around here at times, is exactly what you and others are espousing. just as a legal approach to justification is impossible, so is legal piety/self sanctification beyond the scope of the biblical witness using traditions of men



Hang on just a second here - if Richard is espousing _any_ manner of salvation by his virtue of his actions, _then_ he is a legalist. If, however, he is merely seeking to please the Lord in his Christian walk, calling him a legalist is _way_ out of bounds. If you don't like it, fine, but don't throw around heretic-level terminology so glibly - you are painting many of us with this broad brush and doing so unfairly as well as incorrectly.

Where is he using 'traditions of men'?

Also, you ask Traci:



> I must ask, is this regenerated life hard to live as you do worrying about every glance, or word, or program you watch? Seriously, this is sanctification without Christ. This is striving for some aesthetic holiness this side of the grave. An impossibility that only leads to dispair. The little engine that could, 'i think i can i think i can i think i can. This is not was were are called for.



I would say, yes! Christ's demands of us are complete and full - he wants 100%, no less. If He is concerned about even so little a thing as our thoughts (Matt 5:28), who can honestly say that He is not concerned with what we watch??? The ear gate, the eye gate - do we open them up to the floods of the world? I am _not_ arguing for monasticism, but we ARE to remain 'unspotted by the world'. Why is this such a difficult notion to bear? 

Richard quoted a confession which we *all* should at least agree with, if not personally confess. Can you argue on that basis? What is your response to the 'legalists' who wrote Q&A 139?

Those arguing against drama, etc. are doing so (I assume) in striving to please God, not in Christ-free sanctification. They are regenerate creatures whose salvation is assured through the blood of Christ. And therefore, they are living in gratitude and seeking to please Him.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 15, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > I just thought of a film that doesn't have all that bad stuff: The Princess Bride
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think it means what you think it means...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Um...no. Let's say that I accidentally see it (wasn't warned ahead of time, the previewing site mislead me, etc). Is it wrong, then?
> ...



I guess I will just have to sin boldly on this one. When Christ ate with prositutes and drank with drunkards, how come that known, willing association with the worst of sinners didn't qualify him as a sinner?



> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > People lie and slander and libel on PB all the time.
> ...



I could but I don't feel like it.




> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > How come that's different?
> ...



I'm sorry, but that is special pleading. It's okay on PB because otherwise I would be sinning (which is impossible for your position), but it's not okay in TV because that is the position you are espousing.

Here is my ethical position: Be holy, but not excessively so (just like Christ hanging wtih the drunks and other sinful lowlifes)


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 15, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> Hang on just a second here - if Richard is espousing _any_ manner of salvation by his virtue of his actions, _then_ he is a legalist. If, however, he is merely seeking to please the Lord in his Christian walk, calling him a legalist is _way_ out of bounds. If you don't like it, fine, but don't throw around heretic-level terminology so glibly - you are painting many of us with this broad brush and doing so unfairly as well as incorrectly.
> 
> Where is he using 'traditions of men'?




Traditions of men take the commands of God and add a tremendous amount of added rules and attempt to connect this thought with the original. Read the mishna. Dont do business on the sabbath, somehow became perverted into do not carry ANY money on your person on the sabbath, oh, but if you do carry enough so if you must purchase something, you will have the exact change so the business owner does not have to do more work by giving you change.

So now, do not covet, somehow is perverted to mean dont watch drama. Cappeesh?

I knew the legalist term would draw the ire of some. I can find no other way to call it. Do you claim the Amish with their superstitious beliefs, of the romans who will not eat meat on fridays as ridiculous? Yet ask them and they will say they are seeking to please the Lord in his Christian walk. Seeking to please the Lord is one thing Kevin, doing it by ridiculous self righteouss piety is another. You also miss a grave point regarding legalism. It is not ONLY about justification, it is also a strain of sanctification. You may find regulations as such, but I cannot. Make broad your phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of your garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi, if you must, but I will not be as this. Calling a brother believer to the carpet as a sinner becasue he watches drama is exactly this Kevin



kvanlaan said:


> I would say, yes! Christ's demands of us are complete and full - he wants 100%, no less. If He is concerned about even so little a thing as our thoughts (Matt 5:28), who can honestly say that He is not concerned with what we watch??? The ear gate, the eye gate - do we open them up to the floods of the world? I am _not_ arguing for monasticism, but we ARE to remain 'unspotted by the world'. Why is this such a difficult notion to bear?
> 
> Richard quoted a confession which we *all* should at least agree with, if not personally confess. Can you argue on that basis? What is your response to the 'legalists' who wrote Q&A 139?
> 
> Those arguing against drama, etc. are doing so (I assume) in striving to please God, not in Christ-free sanctification. They are regenerate creatures whose salvation is assured through the blood of Christ. And therefore, they are living in gratitude and seeking to please Him.




But it is not pleasing to Him when done to look more pious amongst others as if it gives one a notch in their sanctification belt. And I totally disagree with you about personal piety. Salvation is not this hard Kevin.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta;



> Is there really and defense for this: lastest movie releases



I can't comment on most of the moives listed there, but I can comment on the movie "The Final Inquiry" that was a GOOD MOVIE!!



> When a solar eclipse and earthquakes simultaneously occur throughout the Roman Empire, Emperor Tiberius calls upon Tito Valerio Tauro, a prominent Roman investigator, to seek out the proposed cause.



Many people were murdered as this man sought the truth of Christ's Resurrection on behalf of Emperor Tiberius..

When asked why Tiberius had sent this man, he responded to the effect "He wouldn't give up until he found the truth, no matter where it led him." 

Was there sin abounding in this movie? Yes, just as sin abounds in the world, but it also pointed those sinners to Christ our risen Lord.

There is supposed to be another one coming out in 2009, Resurrection 



> Filmmaker, screenwriter, and longtime Biblical Archeological Society member Lionel Chetwynd (Joseph, Moses) explores the 40 days following the crucifixion of Christ and his subsequent ascension into heaven in this challenging hagiography that picks up where Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ left off. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide



There is another one Lake of Fire that I'm not sure I want to see, but I might as it covers both sides of the abortion debate.

http://www.hollywoodvideo.com/movies/movie.aspx?MID=146218&LF=MB


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Richard isn't married (at least I'm pretty sure...correct me if I'm wrong, Richard!), so I don't think that the quote in the OP is from him. I'm not quite sure how the OP could be construed any way other than to mean the evils of drama in general, not the evils of sinful acts portrayed in drama. The question had to do with "service" and "in general," i.e. whether drama is wrong as an element of worship or whether ALL drama is sinful. If we agree that the medium is not inherently evil, then great!  I don't really want to discuss the specifics of what to watch and what not to watch right now, though.



For your information, this thread was started based on an example I stated in another thread.

Since he explains it better than I can, here follows an excerpt of a pamphlet written by Prof. Hanko:



> Is Drama per se wrong?
> Is it possible to take the position that drama is, per se, wrong? It is my conviction that it is. This is not a conviction to which I have come in the course of preparing this pamphlet. It is a conviction which I have held already when a youth when we used to argue these questions with all the fervency of youthful interest. It is a conviction that had to stand the battering of long hours of disputation and debate. And it is a conviction which has grown stronger with the years.
> 
> Drama is sin. It is a sin in the sight of God. It is a terrible sin which brings down upon those who engage in it God's severe judgment. This judgment comes not only at the end of life and at the end of the ages when all men stand before the judgment seat of Christ. But it is a sin which brings God's judgment already in this life to the one who commits it. It is a sin which God will not permit to go unpunished.
> ...



You can find the pamphlet here:

THE CHRISTIAN AND THE FILM ARTS


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 15, 2008)

Will also here quote his concluding paragraph:



> The Problem
> It is here that the problem of drama arises. We need to be thrilled, entertained, excited, titillated. We need new amusements to savor on our dulled palates. We need new stimulations of pleasure to awaken our dulled sensibilities and arouse anew our emotions. And so we need to face, again and again, the problem of drama. If only we could put entertainment in its proper place in the life of the Christian, the problem of drama would all but disappear.
> 
> Our problem is not, first of all, is drama right or wrong? Our problem is first of all, what does it mean to be a pilgrim and a stranger in the earth? That problem needs solving above all else.
> ...


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 15, 2008)

> But it is not pleasing to Him when done to look more pious amongst others as if it gives one a notch in their sanctification belt. And I totally disagree with you about personal piety.



I think you gravely mistake the general ardour shown by the 'legalists'. First, the OP quote was made by a brother in Christ who is neither legalistic nor self-righteous. BUT he has a great desire to please the Lord in his walk and his reading of scripture and his study of the confessions and his love for his children and his comprehension of the creeping influence of the world in the Christian's life has lead him to this belief for him and his family. Maybe you didn't like the way he stated it, but I don't see many direct responses to scripture or confession asserting the contrary, just accusations of legalism and Phariseeism.



> Traditions of men take the commands of God and add a tremendous amount of added rules and attempt to connect this thought with the original. Read the mishna. Dont do business on the sabbath, somehow became perverted into do not carry ANY money on your person on the sabbath, oh, but if you do carry enough so if you must purchase something, you will have the exact change so the business owner does not have to do more work by giving you change.
> 
> So now, do not covet, somehow is perverted to mean dont watch drama. Cappeesh?



So, then answer in the context of Q&A 139. Not by comparing alleged 'legalists' to the Amish, Rabbinical scholars or Roman heretics, but by addressing the confession. Are you leveling an accusation of legalism at the Westminster Divines? If so, support it. I don't think that in view of the confession, avoiding drama is such a stretch.



> Do you claim the Amish with their superstitious beliefs, of the romans who will not eat meat on fridays as ridiculous? Yet ask them and they will say they are seeking to please the Lord in his Christian walk.



No, I do not claim them. I claim my brothers who confess the same confessions I do and interpret scripture as I do (not me personally, but in the reformed sense, as a general statement). Are you then calling my convictions ridiculous and superstitious? I can point to scripture for implications and the confession for more concrete examples of my viewpoint, while you draw on the Amish, Jewish tradition, and the Roman Catholic Church.



> Seeking to please the Lord is one thing Kevin, doing it by ridiculous self righteouss piety is another.



Applying the term of 'ridiculous self righteous piety' to these convictions is, in itself, ridiculous. Did you listen to the sermon link about going to movies? I am not of Rev. Murray's ilk, but it is well worth listening to and makes quite a case. It is no small thing to ridicule such a teaching. Listen first and then tell me the man is off his nut, that he's a hyper-sensitive legalist. No. He was measured and wise in what he said. Even if I don't agree with him 100%, there was so much that was of value in there - it should _not_ be dismissed so flippantly.



> You also miss a grave point regarding legalism. It is not ONLY about justification, it is also a strain of sanctification. You may find regulations as such, but I cannot. Make broad your phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of your garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi, if you must, but I will not be as this. Calling a brother believer to the carpet as a sinner becasue he watches drama is exactly this Kevin.



I have no desire to be deemed a wise man in this context or to ever merit the term 'rabbi' or any other label of theological greatness. To call a brother to the carpet specifically as a sinner in this regard may be going a bit far. To warn him of this as a grave danger is nothing more than brotherly love and a duty we owe each other.



> Salvation is not this hard Kevin.



No, it is not. However, if you are saying that we will not struggle against sin until the day we die, and that we should not struggle with sin and strive for holiness, then I just don't follow your train of thought.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 15, 2008)

cross-posted. Didn't know you were here, Bert.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

This is rubbish.

An actor does not lie because everyone knows that it is fiction!


Under Mr. Hanko's extreme argumentation ALL storytelling then would be sin. 

Forget about storytime for your kid's at bed - you are a deceiver if you EVER utter fiction, or read fiction.

Simply saying "Drama belongs to Babylon" does not make it so. To say "It is sin. It is terrible sin. God will judge this terrible sin." is merely a declaration not a proof. 

There are a lot of assertions and drama in his denunciations but very little meat.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This is rubbish.
> 
> An actor does not lie because everyone knows that it is fiction!
> 
> ...



Seriously. It's hard to get past the rhetoric in that pamphlet. In several places one reads three or four sentences of "This is sin. This is sin. God is going to judge you. This is wrong" followed by one or two sentences of actually attempting to make a case, then a few more sentences asserting the sinfulness of drama.  He asserts that it violates the personality God has given us if we assume the persona of another during a dramatic performance. Why???


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This is rubbish.
> 
> An actor does not lie because everyone knows that it is fiction!
> 
> ...



Guys, please quit acting as if something inpalatable is being shoved down your throat against your own will.

I was simply advising a brother, on a different matter, in another thread, using a real life example out of MY growth in faith.

I was not imposing my views on anyone, evidenced by the fact that it took me a while to even respond in this thread... Believe it is the third page now, and my first post on this is the second page.

But I could not leave my brothers Kevin and Richard do all the work in my defense for me.

Thanks Kevin and Richard!


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > This is rubbish.
> ...



There's nothing wrong with showing how Prof. Hanko's arguments lead to absurdity. It's a perfectly valid and normal form of argumentation. If Prof. Hanko's arguments are correct, then I am never allowed to use direct speech when I'm relating the events of a narrative. I would have to _always_ use indirect speech, for using direct speech would be assuming the persona of the one to whom I'm referring. As Pergie mentioned, the same holds true for reading stories.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

ad hominy?

You're the one that says "That's Hanko for you.." I have never said anything against his character. He seems like a passionate guy who probably does a lot of good. I only attacked his poor argumentation. You have said more about him than I have. I was arguing straight at the article.


As for your last line, that you are the enlightened one and we are the one waiting to be enlightened, ...now THAT is the very root of the argument is it not...which is again merely declared and not thoroughly proofed.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 15, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > This is rubbish.
> ...





This is the false piety and false humilty and false god pleasing rhetoric that I speak of. If you call this a 'growth in faith" or being "more enlightened" than I, how can you not see this as legalism? Just by mentioning your views a more faithful and more enlightened creates a stumbling block. How long is your list bert? Seriously, if one person would just read the heretical mishna, you will see exactly what i am talking about. Traditions of men always start out with a truth of God and make it a birds nest of straw that houdini could not escape.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 15, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > But it is not pleasing to Him when done to look more pious amongst others as if it gives one a notch in their sanctification belt. And I totally disagree with you about personal piety.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





All ill say is whoever calls drama a sin, you, me, the pope, calvin, Luther, Tertullian, westminster, they are in error. Kevin, there is not one legalist I know who does not want to strive to please the Lord. There is not one believer of any flavor that I know who does not strive to please the Lord.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This is rubbish.
> 
> An actor does not lie because everyone knows that it is fiction!
> 
> ...



Not only would all story-telling be sin, but Jesus would be a sinner because he told stories which were obviously fictional. And then there is the wild tale in the OT about talking trees in Judges.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



Jacob watching something happen, actually planning to sit and watch something knowing that it is bad is tacit approval. Was Saul/Paul approving of Stephen's stoning and any less a partaker because he held the cloaks and watched?? No.

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but *have pleasure in them that do them.*

You are partaking in these sins if you don't turn it off or walk away. If you were there with Stephen you would have defended him or run away. How did you vote in the blasphemy poll? Would you turn it off or keep watching? Why only with the sin of blasphemy and not other sins??


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...



If you had seen my later comment, I qualified it. So the above doesn't apply to me.

What about Shakespeare? I enjoy Shakespeare. People get murdered in there. Should we write off William from our acceptable list? Don't you see where this ends?


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



The Princess Bride has a kid taking Jesus' name in vain.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...



My worldliness is thus exposed.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Sorry Jacob, I posted that before I saw that it was already pointed out.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



Jacob, where did you qualify this? I read everything and missed it.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

I would like to state for the record that I don't buy into Hanko's arguement. I think he makes the same error the prohibitionists make. He is blaming the medium and not the sinners behind the medium.

I do, however, believe that most modern movies are poo. I believe we can enjoy older movies from back when there was such a thing as "polite society" and things you just didn't do or say in "polite society." 

I also differenciated earlier about gratuitous portrayal of sins and portraying sins as sins. Example, I used to like the movie Sweet Home Alabama. I had to throw it out not only because of profanity and blasphemy but positive portrayal of things like premarital sex, homosexuality, drunkiness, and civil war re-enactment. Ok just kidding about that last one Jacob.  

This is the type of thing I am talking about that Christian watch all the time and try to justify. Me being one of them for many years. 

Contrast that with a film like National Treasure where the bad is bad and they don't positively portray sinful activities.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> I would like to state for the record that I don't buy into Hanko's arguement. I think he makes the same error the prohibitionists make. He is blaming the medium and not the sinners behind the medium.



Good. Hanko's argument was silly at best, gnostic at worst.



> I do, however, believe that most modern movies are poo. I believe we can enjoy older movies from back when there was such a thing as "polite society" and things you just didn't do or say in "polite society."



I agree.


> I also differenciated earlier about gratuitous portrayal of sins and portraying sins as sins. Example, I used to like the movie Sweet Home Alabama. I had to throw it out not only because of profanity and blasphemy but positive portrayal of things like premarital sex, homosexuality, drunkiness, and civil war re-enactment. Ok just kidding about that last one Jacob.



I would probably agree with you. I think I saw that movie once. Wasn't impressed.


> This is the type of thing I am talking about that Christian watch all the time and try to justify. Me being one of them for many years.



Well, I don't even have cable. I am a Luddite. I think I agree with you on this one. 



> Contrast that with a film like National Treasure where the bad is bad and they don't positively portray sinful activities.



This was my point all along. I wasn't glorifying watching murder. But I realize that 90% of all art, be it visual, auditory, or verbal, for the past 5,000 years has elements that we would call sinful (and the Bible isn't above using graphic, almost pornographic language at times). This is what I wanted to hear. You allow for the possibility--and it is a fanstatic movie, btw--of good, clean drama. I have nothing more to say.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

I have one more thing to say, actually:

The bible contains elements of rape, murder, incest, genocide (with God's permission), sex on many different levels (sometimes with God's praise), war--oh, goodness, the war. 

If we adopt modern standards, this borders on being X-rated. Yet I willingly read the bible. Even worse, I know of these elements ahead of time. True, the bible doesn't sanction that, which was my point in post 63 (you can read it here).

Frankly, given our hyper-Victorian standards, the bible should be off-limits for Christian discipleship.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> So you would not associate with sinners Richard?



I am a sinner and I associate with myself and many other sinners

But on a serious note, listen to Christ:

*Psalm 1:1* "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful."

*Psalm 26:4, 5* "I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers. I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked."

*Psalm 101:4* A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.

It is not wrong to speak to, work with and deal with unbelievers but we must be very careful about to what degree we associate with them. Our values are as different as chalk and cheese.



Amazing Grace said:


> Listen closely, legalism, that '4 letter' word around here at times, is exactly what you and others are espousing.



Pull the other one mate.... "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD." (*Psa 119:1*) We are talking about what sanctification looks like not how we are justified!


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I have one more thing to say, actually:
> 
> The bible contains elements of rape, murder, incest, genocide (with God's permission), sex on many different levels (sometimes with God's praise), war--oh, goodness, the war.



It is nonsensational, presenting the reality of life in a matter of fact way the very opposite of most films.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> I would like to state for the record that I don't buy into Hanko's arguement. I think he makes the same error the prohibitionists make. He is blaming the medium and not the sinners behind the medium.
> 
> I do, however, believe that most modern movies are poo. I believe we can enjoy older movies from back when there was such a thing as "polite society" and things you just didn't do or say in "polite society."
> 
> ...





Ivanhoe said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to state for the record that I don't buy into Hanko's arguement. I think he makes the same error the prohibitionists make. He is blaming the medium and not the sinners behind the medium.
> ...



 So...we're back to where we started on the first page (with Augusta at least). No, seriously, I think you guys just rehashed the exact same discussion that Augusta and I had yesterday.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> I would like to state for the record that I don't buy into Hanko's arguement. I think he makes the same error the prohibitionists make. He is blaming the medium and not the sinners behind the medium.



I think you have misread Hanko. I would suggest:

The Christian and Culture

and 

The Evil of Drama


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > So you would not associate with sinners Richard?
> ...



What about Christ fellowshipping with drunkards?


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

BJClark said:


> Augusta;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Bobbi, those do sound like decent movies. I may check them out. It is movies with bad content that I am concerned with. It just so happens that now a days that is the majority of movies.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Is it sinful to listen to Hilary Clinton give a speech?  She has some pretty wicked ideas and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm "approving" of her by listening...


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I have one more thing to say, actually:
> 
> The bible contains elements of rape, murder, incest, genocide (with God's permission), sex on many different levels (sometimes with God's praise), war--oh, goodness, the war.
> 
> ...



I agree with Rev. Murray when he says you cannot compare the two. The bible is speaking of historical events in order to put forth the revelation of God to man. It does not sensationalize or positively portray those things at all. It is usually very blunt with no details even. 

No comparison.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > I have one more thing to say, actually:
> ...



No sanctions? No details? You seem to have forgotten about the Song of Solomon, which does a good job of covering both of these criteria.

No sanctions? No details? Most of the violence in the Old Testament is sanctioned, and dashing babies' heads against rocks is hardly a vague description.

"Sensationalize" is such a vague, subjective term that it would be foolish for anyone to engage in such a silly debating point. I've already proven wrong your assertion that it doesn't condone them. 

And, finally, "The bible is different because it's the bible" begs the question.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



If sensationalize was vague then "positively portrayed" wasn't.  

Yes, there is violence but I think it is justified since it was commanded by God Almighty who is justice himself.

You are grasping at straws here David.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



And it is exactly to avoid this sort of mocking with Scripture, and mockery at sin, that I was hesitant to get into this topic here.

Because we have been here once before....

Disgraceful!


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Good riddance to this thread.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

I was addressing the claim that

"Watching/reading x is sinful because it contains sinful elements."

I then modified in response to that claim that I wasn't enjoying those sinful elements.

The claim was upheld that it is still sinful even if you aren't enjoying it.

I responded that the Bible had those elements.

"well, the bible is different."

Ah, but did you not read the original claim (it's own page 2)? It says that you can't watch/read it anyway. 

Here it is in analytical logic

There exists the situation that it is okay to read about murder/rape/genocide/trees talking.

Notice we have not explained contexts, etc. We can do that later. *All I wanted to do was weaken the claim that all forms of drama*, including--especially--fiction are not always wrong. I believe I have successfully done that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2008)

Nota Bene: I wasn't comparing Scripture to p0rn0graphic material. I was using what is called in logic a _reductio ad absurdum_ (a point people failed to grasp on the escape from alcatraz thread). I simply stated that Scripture uses language that disqualifies itself given the standards of "acceptability" posited in this thread.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Is it sinful to listen to Hilary Clinton give a speech?  She has some pretty wicked ideas and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm "approving" of her by listening...



Strange you should mention this because I once knew a person who condemned others for watching films, yet he had no problem reading books by Plato - a Sodomite who believed in abortion and a totalitarian state.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 15, 2008)

> Is it sinful to listen to Hilary Clinton give a speech?



Yes, always.  Why would a person do that to themselves?


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I was addressing the claim that
> 
> "Watching/reading x is sinful because it contains sinful elements."
> 
> ...



Granted Jacob, there are flaws there. Change it to:

"Watching/reading x is sinful because it contains glorified or positively portrayed sinful elements."

If a movie, book, or song does the above then it is In my humble opinion sinful. If a movie, book, or song approves of what is: _true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, or worthy of praise,_ and condemns: *unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, and unmerciful* then it is in agreement with the scriptures and therefore acceptable for consumption by a Christian.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 15, 2008)

> *All ill say is whoever calls drama a sin, you, me, the pope, calvin, Luther, Tertullian, westminster, they are in error.* Kevin, there is not one legalist I know who does not want to strive to please the Lord. There is not one believer of any flavor that I know who does not strive to please the Lord.



That's quite a statement there - the accumulated theological knowledge listed there (save you, me, and the pope) could put a man on the moon, were it converted to raw energy and harnessed. 

Maybe a smidgeon of substantiation would be appropriate for such a grand claim.

As for legalists who do *not* strive to please the Lord, I think you will find many. A legalist is working for his own salvation and usually seeking to publicize his own self-righteousness, he cares little for pleasing God. Do you think that the Pharisees were striving to please God? No. God was a meal ticket. Was the trumpet call at their offering tithe an attempt to please God? No. It was further publication of their own works for their own sake, not for God's.



> There is not one believer of any flavor that I know who does not strive to please the Lord.



Agreed - every _true_ believer does (and should). And they do it differently. With that I have no quarrel. But equating legalists' striving to save themselves with true believers striving to please the Lord is just a wee bit odd (to put it mildly.)


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 16, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > *All ill say is whoever calls drama a sin, you, me, the pope, calvin, Luther, Tertullian, westminster, they are in error.* Kevin, there is not one legalist I know who does not want to strive to please the Lord. There is not one believer of any flavor that I know who does not strive to please the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I disagree Kevin. All self righteouss piety of ritualistic fasting of some sort, in this case fasting from drama, is done to please God in their own eyes. I need not spend a smidgeon of anything to prove such an absurdety, since nothing in scripture other than a wrong interpretation on one truth has led to such nonsense. Dont you find such self serving striving as not watching drama, or no dancing, or no drinking or whatever else is on this list somewhere a bit contrary to liberty in Christ? Those who think that not watching drama, closens their walk with God are deceived into believing a lie. Keep those thoughts to oneself. I do not want to hear it, and neither does Christ want this as a witness to true humility and enlightenment as bert called it. IT is an offense. The Apostle Paul thought he was serving God when persecuting believers. He thought he was doing the right thing. Yet we learn he was not and was stopped by our Lord. Anyone who calls such peccadillos as drama, dancing, etc etc sin, are likened to those in MAtt 7. "Lord, didt we warn people of the dangers of drama, didnt we warn them of dancing, didnt we warn them of this or that?" I knew ye not!!!!!!!!!!!! You did it for self sactimoniuos sanctification. begone from me.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 17, 2008)

Christ settles this discussion.

Mark 7:15, "There is nothing that enters a man from the outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile him."


"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men', for laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men...the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do".


The Pharisees and scribes thought that all kinds of rituals and traditions would please God as much as they pleased men, but God shows that He is not impressed with some outward, external attempt at pleasing Him in the flesh, for man lost the message whenever he attempted to conceptualize the truths of God in a new carnal external act. Therefore, drama, dancing, etc etc etc will nto defile a man. He is already defiled, yet cleansed through the sacrafice of Christ.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Strange you should mention this because I once knew a person who condemned others for watching films, yet he had no problem reading books by Plato - a Sodomite who believed in abortion and a totalitarian state.



Before I get back to my highly exciting essay......

We need to draw some distinctions. Films are not wrong because sinners are actors. Similarly the music of Bach is not sinful because it was composed by a sinner. It is the content that is being objected to. 

But then note that it is also the reason why such a thing is being used / viewed / read. 

I would urge all who have commented here to listen to Murray's sermon in post number 2 and have a read of these:
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (1) « Puritanism Today
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (2) « Puritanism Today
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (3) « Puritanism Today
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (4) « Puritanism Today
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (5) « Puritanism Today


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Strange you should mention this because I once knew a person who condemned others for watching films, yet he had no problem reading books by Plato - a Sodomite who believed in abortion and a totalitarian state.
> ...



The content of Plato should definitely be objected to. Like yourself I also have to get back to an exciting essay (dissent in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev).


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 17, 2008)

Are you aware that we will have to answer for every idle word spoken?

And that we are to, in everything, seek His Kingdom?


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 17, 2008)

Bert, please do not think I'm mocking - I am not.

You have given a very dire warning. You have said that we will answer for every idle word spoken. I have spoken so many I could never count them. I have failed to live as Christ would too many times to count.

I have fallen short of seeking God in everything. I have sinned, fallen short, missed the mark and I am worthless apart from Christ. I am utterly ruined apart from the grace of God.

I have watched football on Sundays, I have watched movies that used the Lord's name in vain.

Now, what will happen to me when I stand before my redeemer's throne.
I don't believe in purgatory though I once did.

Will I have less crowns to to offer back to the Lord, will I be given less responsibility in heavenly politics. I have already failed at these points that we are debating so tell me, what will happen to me?


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 17, 2008)

Bob, esteemed brother, that will be you and me both....

I am not worthy to be even a doorkeeper in His church now, never mind heaven.

Like that line in your trailer, as an elder we soon learn that we are just empty, void earthen vessels...

When I look at all the time I have wasted, all the time I still waste, including in this thread, in this forum....


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 17, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Bert, please do not think I'm mocking - I am not.
> 
> You have given a very dire warning. You have said that we will answer for every idle word spoken. I have spoken so many I could never count them. I have failed to live as Christ would too many times to count.
> 
> ...




I think you may be put in charge of the drama team Bob...

On a serious note, nothing will happen. You have been aquitted.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

> I disagree Kevin. All self righteouss piety of ritualistic fasting of some sort, in this case fasting from drama, is done to please God in their own eyes. I need not spend a smidgeon of anything to prove such an absurdety, since nothing in scripture other than a wrong interpretation on one truth has led to such nonsense. Dont you find such *self serving striving *as not watching drama, or no dancing, or no drinking or whatever else is on this list somewhere a bit contrary to liberty in Christ? Those who think that not watching drama, closens their walk with God are deceived into believing a lie. Keep those thoughts to oneself. I do not want to hear it, and neither does Christ want this as a witness to true humility and enlightenment as bert called it. IT is an offense. The Apostle Paul thought he was serving God when persecuting believers. He thought he was doing the right thing. Yet we learn he was not and was stopped by our Lord. Anyone who calls such peccadillos as drama, dancing, etc etc sin, are likened to those in MAtt 7. "Lord, didt we warn people of the dangers of drama, didnt we warn them of dancing, didnt we warn them of this or that?" I knew ye not!!!!!!!!!!!! You did it for self sactimoniuos sanctification. begone from me.



"Self-serving striving"??? I just don't get that attitude. "Liberty in Christ" is a wonderfully elastic thing when we want it to be. There are a number of highly respectable theologians who, if I remember correctly, proclaim Christian liberty to be nothing more than liberty from the chains of sin, Satan, self-glorification, (and two more things I can't recall right now - it's awfully late here). 

So where you may see 'self-serving striving' in service to Christ and seeking to be 'unspotted by the world', I see a beautiful and full submission to His will for my life (though I fall down enough to create callouses on my knees and forehead). But what you see as simple liberty in Christ, others may as see someone who has taken a concept, blown it to smithereens, and relabelled outright licentiousness "liberty" - and in Christ's name no less!!



> "Lord, didt we warn people of the dangers of drama, didnt we warn them of dancing, didnt we warn them of this or that?" I knew ye not!!!!!!!!!!!! You did it for self sactimoniuos sanctification. begone from me.



This is a tone and attidue which I simply cannot support. When a brother warns you of (what he considers sin), you call him sanctimonious and basically a heretic (as you see him believing in self-sanctification) or at least grieviously in error while you trumpet the _very same_ attitude but from a contrary view from the other end of the pitch. Not stopping there, you call wise and respected theologians fools and dismiss their opinions out of hand, considering your opinion _so vastly superior_ that you need not even defend your gainsaying of their foolish notions. 



> I do not want to hear it, and neither does Christ want this as a witness to true humility and enlightenment



Thankfully, you have full knowledge of the mind of Christ. 

Don't you see this as overstepping the bounds of theological decency by just a mile or two??


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 18, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> "Self-serving striving"??? I just don't get that attitude. "Liberty in Christ" is a wonderfully elastic thing when we want it to be. There are a number of highly respectable theologians who, if I remember correctly, proclaim Christian liberty to be nothing more than liberty from the chains of sin, Satan, self-glorification, (and two more things I can't recall right now - it's awfully late here).



I wouldnt give them that much repect on this notion if that is all they find as liberty in Christ to mean.



kvanlaan said:


> So where you may see 'self-serving striving' in service to Christ and seeking to be 'unspotted by the world', I see a beautiful and full submission to His will for my life (though I fall down enough to create callouses on my knees and forehead). But what you see as simple liberty in Christ, others may as see someone who has taken a concept, blown it to smithereens, and relabelled outright licentiousness "liberty" - and in Christ's name no less!!



How is me saying that drama is not sinful, nor dancing, nor having our picture taken, nor screennames = licentious behavior? And how can you say that to receive a warning on such peccadilos is biblical? Do you not see it exactly as the pharissee spoke about the disciples picking grain and not washing their hands? 



kvanlaan said:


> This is a tone and attidue which I simply cannot support. When a brother warns you of (what he considers sin), you call him sanctimonious and basically a heretic (as you see him believing in self-sanctification) or at least grieviously in error while you trumpet the _very same_ attitude but from a contrary view from the other end of the pitch. Not stopping there, you call wise and respected theologians fools and dismiss their opinions out of hand, considering your opinion _so vastly superior_ that you need not even defend your gainsaying of their foolish notions.



Exactly, what HE considers sin, not what Christ considers sin. I put this in the same category as holy days of obligation and not eating meat on fridays during lent. I have defended it with scripture Kevin. Yet you will not interact with it. Again, it is exactly as the mishna with all these traditions of men. 

As I mentioned in post 116, Christ settles it. Let us interact with the writ please. We both are arguing too much without the Word behind us.

Christ settles this discussion.

Mark 7:15, "There is nothing that enters a man from the outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile him."


"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men', for laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men...the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do".


The Pharisees and scribes thought that all kinds of rituals and traditions would please God as much as they pleased men, but God shows that He is not impressed with some outward, external attempt at pleasing Him in the flesh, for man lost the message whenever he attempted to conceptualize the truths of God in a new carnal external act. Therefore, drama, dancing, etc etc etc will nto defile a man. He is already defiled, yet cleansed through the sacrafice of Christ.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 18, 2008)

Robert, I think Galatians 5 is very pertinent here. 

Galatians 5:13-
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; *only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. *
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 

16 This I say then, *Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.* 

17 *For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.* 

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 

24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 

26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 18, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Robert, I think Galatians 5 is very pertinent here.
> 
> Galatians 5:13-
> 13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; *only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. *
> ...





I love these scriptures. Yet I honestly do not know what they have to do with the conversation... Unless of course you are saying warning others that watching drama is a sin, it is fighting against the flesh. If this is the case, then I disagree.


----------



## KMK (Mar 18, 2008)

Perhaps the whole issue could be boiled down to one question: "What are your besetting sins?" It is conceivable that some might be easily entangled into all sorts of sins by watching or participating in drama: Idolotry, lust, hatred...

But it is equally conceivable that some are not so easily sucked into those same sins by watching or participating in drama. 

People are different. My wife loves to watch those medical shows about surgery and massive tumors etc but it makes me sick to my stomach!

Let's endeavor to be sensitive to each other's struggles while at the same time not 'projecting' our struggles onto each other. I struggle with gluttony, therefore I might have a different outlook on brownie consumption than those aggravating people who can just eat whatever they want and never gain a pound!

I wonder also if heated arguments about liberty vs. legalism oftentimes stem from one's background. Those who have been liberated from legalism may argue a tad too vehemently against rules while those who have been liberated from 'libertinism' argue too vehemently for them.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 18, 2008)

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 

* 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.*


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

> Exactly, what HE considers sin, not what Christ considers sin. I put this in the same category as holy days of obligation and not eating meat on fridays during lent. I have defended it with scripture Kevin. Yet you will not interact with it. Again, it is exactly as the mishna with all these traditions of men.
> 
> As I mentioned in post 116, Christ settles it. Let us interact with the writ please. We both are arguing too much without the Word behind us.



True enough. But the last two posts give plenty of such scripture - you can then say "but that's not what I think it means." We can then go back and forth on what this and that means to me, forever talking in circles. I can give you a stack of scripture from Paul on these things and you can then dismiss their significance with "but that's not what it means."

Instead of seesawing back and forth on this, we could just go to the confessions, which, we should all be in agreement, are _accurate_ summaries of the Biblical texts.

So again I ask you, how do you defend your position in view of Q&A 139?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Robert, I think Galatians 5 is very pertinent here. Galatians 5:13-*13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; *only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. **14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. *15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. *16 This I say then, *Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.* *17 *For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.* *18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. *19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, *20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, *21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. *22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, *23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. *24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. *25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. *26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.


This argument only works if I am practicing these things.* But you say, "Aren't you endorsing them by participating in the medium in which they are communicating?"** Common sense, and all non-silliness requires me to say no.* I know a lot of people thought I blasphemed when I pointed many of these elements in the Bible (didn't make the elements go away, btw).** My point was you can view/read something without committing sin.* If you say no, then on that logic--and we are sticking to logical formulations otherwise this entire thread is nonsense-- you must say reading the Bible is sin.*


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; *19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. *20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: *21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. *22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, *23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. *24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: *25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. *26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: *27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. *28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; *29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, *30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, *31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: * 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.*


Are you saying I should be put to death because I have a copy of _Les Miserables_ by my bed?* Are you now a theonomist?

This thread is now a joke and I contend the moderators shut it down.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

Essentially what y'all are advocating is monasticism of the worst sort. You want to fight against sin, well and good. But you have located the antithesis in the medium of creation, and not in sin itself. (I got that one from RC Sproul, so he is probably blaspheming too). This is a textbook case of gnosticism. 

The only way for y'all to be consistent is to join a monastery. Otherwise, when you step out into the world, you will be surrounded by sin. Given your arguments above, that is a participation in sin. 

Oops, there are sins in monasteries too. See Luther.


----------



## Blue Tick (Mar 18, 2008)




----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

Rubbish - be in the world, for sure. I don't think anyone is advocating monasticism, it's a red herring. We _must_ be in the world to a degree, or how else will we fulfill the Great Commission? If you are then saying that we are advocating neglecting the work that Christ Himself has commissioned us to do, I wholeheartedly disagree. 

Associating with sinners too, how do we avoid it? You simply can't - it's a non-starter. But when you associate with them, associate _with a purpose_. It is a challenge of epic proportions. How is watching drama interacting with the world _with a purpose_?


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

So Jacob, (or anyone), Q&A 139?

Anyone?

Anyone?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

> Rubbish - be in the world, for sure. I don't think anyone is advocating monasticism, it's a red herring. We must be in the world, or how else will we fulfill the Great Commission? If you are then saying that we are advocating neglecting the work that Christ himself has commissioned us to do, I wholeheartedly disagree.



Finally, someone sees the thrust of my argument. Now to interact with it...



> Associating with sinners too, how do we avoid it? You simply can't - it's a non-starter. But when you associate with them, associate with a purpose. It is a challenge of epic proportions. How is watching drama interacting with the world with a purpose?



Again, this raises the question: are all non logico-systematic (e.g., story, poetry) forms of communication sinful? I maintain that we can do precisely that--tell stories to sinners for a purpose. I think this is a rather blase point granted hundreds of years ago.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> So Jacob, (or anyone), Q&A 139?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?



My internet is slow and I am away from my confession. Help me out. Keep in mind I am not a strict subscriptionist so the argument won't mean too much to me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't frequent girly movies or lewd plays. Argument doesn't apply to me. Moving on...


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

> Moving on...



And that's it?

(Oops. Sorry, that was more a reply to "I guess I take exception to that")


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 18, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> So Jacob, (or anyone), Q&A 139?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?



Its right and wrong. Next...

I dont keep stews btw


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

> Again, this raises the question: are all non logico-systematic (e.g., story, poetry) forms of communication sinful? I maintain that we can do precisely that--tell stories to sinners for a purpose. I think this is a rather blase point granted hundreds of years ago.



Sure. If stories were out, that would cancel out illustrations in sermons.

But there's a gulf of difference between chillin' with your average movie/play and making an illustration in a sermon. When the average person speaks of 'drama', do they speak of stories with morals? I think not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't know what stews are. I get the feeling it is not soup.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > Again, this raises the question: are all non logico-systematic (e.g., story, poetry) forms of communication sinful? I maintain that we can do precisely that--tell stories to sinners for a purpose. I think this is a rather blase point granted hundreds of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. If stories were out, that would cancel out illustrations in sermons.



I will give you credit. You really do catch the force of my arguemnts. Most don't. 



> But there's a gulf of difference between chillin' with your average movie/play and making an illustration in a sermon. When the average person speaks of 'drama', do they speak of stories with morals? I think not.



I actually think they do, or at least the speak of stories while they are looking for meaning/reference points. Postmoderns, and I border on one on certain levels, really do want metanarrative and meaning, despite their denials. 

Drama, literature, Jesus' stories, are powerful weapons in our current cultural clime. Few things are more powerful than a parable. If we acted the parable out, would it necessarily become sinful?


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

> Its right and wrong. Next...



 What I was talking about was a response _actually_ discussing the question.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 18, 2008)

Sorry, Jacob, off to class now - back in 90 minutes.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 19, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I don't know what stews are. I get the feeling it is not soup.




I think it is modern day bath houses.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 19, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what stews are. I get the feeling it is not soup.
> ...



The Meaning of "Stews" in WLC #139


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 19, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > Its right and wrong. Next...
> 
> 
> 
> What I was talking about was a response _actually_ discussing the question.



I thought I did respond adequately Kevin..


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 19, 2008)

This thread is full of drama, who wants to repent first?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 19, 2008)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> This thread is full of drama, who wants to repent first?





I'll repent...I quoted the Princess Bride and no one laughed...


----------



## KMK (Mar 19, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is full of drama, who wants to repent first?
> ...



I laughed but I don't think it was the exact quote and that might be why no one caught it. I believe the exact quote is, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." In addition, without Mandy Patinkin's bad Spanish accent, it just isn't quite as funny.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 19, 2008)

true

So I repent of quoting a movie poorly...


----------



## KMK (Mar 19, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> true
> 
> So I repent of quoting a movie poorly...



Well, after all, it is *inconceivable* to pull off a 'bad Spanish accent' on a message board.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 19, 2008)

really?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 19, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> > Its right and wrong. Next...
> 
> 
> 
> What I was talking about was a response _actually_ discussing the question.




Kevin:

Please tell me how this stance of yours and Bert's differs from the heretical stance of separationists, ie Amish. Good values does not a biblical pattern meet. WHile I may admire certain morality strivings, as with other man-made traditions, this worship is vain because they are the doctrines of men (Matthew 15:9). It is a form of Godliness, but but denies the power thereof. Jesus never expected us to earn our way into sanctification, or to make a lifetime effort to impress Him. That's the whole reason why Jesus came to atone for our sins, because we couldn't. God is not impressed with our righteousness (Isaiah 64:6). God is impressed when we look to Christ's righteousness, the imputed righteousness which He provides to all those who believe upon His name. We cannot be saved by good works, nor sanctified. Does this mean that we are to squander our lives and sin more so grace may abound? Absolutely not Kevin. Yet after it is all said and done, we cannot look to our morality, not watching dramas, dancing, sitting in a hot tub as jewels to be put in our crown. Everything goes to Christ alone.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 19, 2008)

Shall we then sin, that grace may abound?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 19, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> Shall we then sin, that grace may abound?



If you read my post, I answered the same charge given to Paul.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 19, 2008)

Okay, I think we have pretty much exhosted this subject for now. Lets all take a break.


----------

