# TV show "The book of Daniel"



## bond-servant (Dec 21, 2005)

Grrrrr 


From the America Family Association Web Site: 

NBC Demeans Christian FaithSupport AFA in this Effort
Writer for new series is practicing homosexual


NBC is promoting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis.

Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter.

At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law.

Network hype "“ and the mainstream media "“ call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual.

The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series.

Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright.
https://secure.afa.net/afa/afapetition/takeaction.asp?id=175


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 21, 2005)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15580


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 21, 2005)




----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 22, 2005)

Clone of Arcadia.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 22, 2005)

I wish they'd make a show about me. That would be a great show!


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 23, 2005)

I have a question.

A few years ago when I had a TV, I used to watch a show called Seinfeld. I found this show very funny and quite fascinating. This show was not just "about nothing", it was a show that exposed human foibles and human interactions.

Anyway, in hindsight I realize that this show frequently discussed fornication. Jerry also said more than once that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and on more than one occasion disrespect was shown to parents. These are all heavy-duty sin issues.

I may start watching TV again in the New Year. Now I doubt I will watch the"book of Daniel" because of the ungodly characters. Should I also boycott "Seinfeld" for the same reason? Other than Jerry's parents I can not think of any redeeming characters on this show.

This is an issue I have been pondering for some time.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 23, 2005)

I better clarify that last post. 

Seinfeld GLORIFIED fornication. Entire episodes focused on birth control (Spung-worthy), novel sexual positions, sexual threesomes, self-restraint contests, etc. 

In fact, virginity was considered a very odd characteristic of one of Jerry's girlfriends.

In hindsight, it is hard to see how the "Book of Daniel" can be much more depraved than Seinfeld. 

Now this puts me in a spot. 

Question: If I condemn the "Book of Daniel", how can I avoid being condemned by watching "Seinfeld"?


----------



## bond-servant (Dec 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> I have a question.
> 
> A few years ago when I had a TV, I used to watch a show called Seinfeld. I found this show very funny and quite fascinating. This show was not just "about nothing", it was a show that exposed human foibles and human interactions.
> ...



Well, I'm no fan of Steinfeld either but

to start with ,Steinfeld never pretended to be a Christian show, he didn't represent a man in leadership of the Christian faith and they didn't make it a point to blaspheme Jesus every eposide.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 23, 2005)

That is true Beth, and it is of some comfort. Seinfeld never pretended to be socially redeeming.

But the issue for me remains the same: the Bible speaks about not placing vile and impure things before you. It speaks about being good stewards of our time and talents. Paul speaks about abstaining from "dirty talk." (These are not verbatim quotes, I know)

Seinfeld and almost all TV shows are loaded with sexual innuendo, or crime. This is one reason I have gone without TV all these years.

Now if I condemn a TV show like "the Book of Daniel" because of its sinful subject matter, I may be setting a standard that I may violate by watching Seinfeld et al. This does not impress God - or non-Christians.

Do you see my conundrum?

To add to this, I can find TV to be hugely educational. Even sitcoms - as vile as they are - can accurately reflect the human condition. 

If we as good Christians abstain for watching "The Book of Daniel", what other shows should we not watch?

- do we only abstain from shows that mock Christian leadership?
e.g. The Book of Daniel, The Simpsons

- do we abstain from all shows that have sexual dialogue, immodest dress?
e.g. almost all sitcoms, and many many commercials

- do we abstain from all shows with violence?
e.g. almost all dramas

- do we abstain from all shows that do NOT explicitly try to glorify God?
e.g. almost all shows everywhere

This is fast becoming an issue for me because I may be getting a TV in the future. 

If non-Christians see us criticizing "The Book of Daniel," how do we justify the shows we actually watch without looking like hypocrites? 

Oh, the "Book of Daniel" should not be watched, but it is OK to watch Seinfeld discuss fornication, or "the X-Files", or whatever.

Many Christians love to criticize the world - but we seem to love the same TV shows. Is this an issue?


----------



## bond-servant (Dec 23, 2005)

Henry,

Good questions. I've had many of the same.

Personally we only watch 2 or 3 shows a week, and we do not have cable.
BUT, even those shows: House and Bones are not God-glorifying. I have pondered the same thing as you are asking. Y

Yes, we are supposed to be good stewards of our time, and yes, Paul commends us to abstain from 'coarse jesting' NASB or ''crude joking' ESV -Eph 5:4, but I don't see the connection with television as much as with Rom 1:32 "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. "

How far does it go though? Not every convorsation I have is God-centered. I talked with a mechanic the other day about a great bbq place. Was that a sin? What about shopping for "luxuries"? Vain? Bad use of time and money even done sparingly? What about Christian liberty - where does that fit in?

There are some obvious principles, like spending way more time on God-centered activities then non God centered ones. Though, a Christian man that spends 10 hours at work a day is glorifying God in that b/c he is fulfilling God's role as the provider of the house hold. Same with the mom that spends much of her day homeschooling or carpooling and buying groceries and cleaning house. Much of this time can be filled with God though too...


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 23, 2005)

I see your points Beth.

I am just asking questions because in the near future I shall be confronted with TV again.

I have not had a TV for about 3 years. I have gone without cable for 6 years.

I am probably more "liberal" with television criticism than almost all of you.

I have two reasons for this:

1) I try to avoid setting high standards because God may "measure me" with these high standards. That is why I would hesitate condemning "The Book of Daniel," because I may actually watch this show at some point. (I'm terrible, I know)

2) I know some people that work very hard and are under a lot of stress. At the end of the day, I would hate to place "another burden" on them and tell them they should not watch Seinfeld, or whatever. Life is tough enough already. (I may have to change this at some point.)

In spite of my "liberal" values however, I still wonder about what TV shows I should watch. What I find even more distressful and appalling are the TV commercials.

I suspect TV is an area of hypocracy for many Christians, including myself.


----------



## Peter (Dec 23, 2005)

Thank you for this very relevent discussion Beth and Henry. Recently, I've been debating whether it is lawful to watch any kind of fictitious drama at all. I know the rule for a doubting conscience is to stay on the side of caution ("Whatever is not of faith is sin...") and for the most part have abstained from watching anything except news and some other things for around the past 2 months but occasionally have crossed the line. This rule would be much easier to follow if i had my own house and could do away with tv. You both have expressed many of my own concerns. First of all, Henry's cons: probably the greatest reason keeping me from moving to the conclusion all theatrical plays are sinful is that I dont want it to be a stumbling block to non-christians and I dont want to cause offense to Christians that dont share that conviction. But the pros (for concluding thus): all theater (or virtually all) is de facto ought right antagonistic to christianity (sex, drugs, violence, and all seen through an infidel world view), it does not necessarily have to be so yet it is; all theater does, by its nature, depict sin and we sport in it.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 24, 2005)

Peter said : "all theater does, by its nature, depict sin and we sport in it. "

That is an interesting comment, and you can make an excellent argument arguing against pretty well all TV, movies, etc. with this argument.

I doubt, however, you really want to do this. I suspect you - and pretty well everyone else on this board - is intelligent and appreciates the arts.

Most intelligent people like classic movies, or Shakespeare, or novels. Often, however, they depict sinful man. The Old Testament, too, goes into great detail of how sinful man can be.

Nobody here is going to argue against reading the Old Testament - even though it is full of graphic examples of sex depravity and violence.
No one. 

Question: How many people will argue against reading Shakespeare, or Dickens, or Hemingway? These works also depict very sinful men.

Question: If reading Macbeth is not sinful even though it depicted greed, extreme violence, witchcraft, etc., can one argue that watching Hill Street Blues is also not sinful?

I hate to say it: I found Hill Street Blues to be absolutely fascinating.













(Oh man. I seem to be arguing for the artistic merit of TV programming. I feel so dirty.....and stupid.......I just hope no one finds out that I used to watch The Simpsons)


----------



## Henry from Canada (Dec 24, 2005)

Merry Christmas Peter, Beth and everyone else.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 24, 2005)

Many good questions and legitimate concerns have been raised on this thread about the lawfulness and/or propriety of watching TV acting performances in our day and age. 

I have commented on these issues before, as noted below. It is obvious to anyone that what passes for peforming dramatic arts on television today is often garbage morally and dramatically. Rather than make an across the board condemnation of watching TV or the movies, however, I would prefer to direct someone to the principles for Biblically judging art found in Francis Schaeffer's _Art & the Bible_ or the healthy connection between art and Calvinism found in Abraham Kuyper's _Lectures on Calvinism_ (re Art) or the Westminster Standards which condemn lascivious stage plays (re Seventh Commandment) but not acting per se (re Ninth Commandment) and require (re Sixth Commandment) the sober use of "recreations." There are many good wholesome activities that we can be engaged in besides watching TV, starting with reading the Bible and good Puritan books. But I do believe that lawful theatre is a noble art form in itself and that the Hollywood should be reformed not abolished. In view of the times in which we live, it may be prudent -- and is certainly one's prerogative within the bounds of Christian liberty -- to abstain from TV-watching; but I don't see Biblical warrant to categorically condemn it as unlawful, and if it is not unlawful in its _esse_, then perhaps we should encourage and promote its _bene esse_. 



> The debate over entertainment, wholesome or otherwise, is not a new one for the Puritan Board. I will repost my comments from another thread:





> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The "theology of entertainment" is a very good question, one which I have wrestled with too. It is important, I think, on the one hand, to avoid legalism. The Westminster Larger Catechism, for example, in its exposition of the Seventh Commandment, notes that "lasicivious stage plays" are thereby prohibited. It does not, however, go so far as to say anywhere in the Catechism that all stage plays (movies not yet having been invented) are prohibited. In other words, drama or acting, in the writings of the Westminster Assembly, are not identified as unlawful. Some Puritans and Presbyterians (Increase Mather and Samuel Miller come to mind, plus a certain European Presbyterian denomination today I know of which bans people from the Lord's Supper who watch movies) have argued that stage plays are always connected with immorality and appear to leave no room for Christians to have any invovlement with them as spectators or actors. Others -- I noted in a separate recent thread how Theodore Beza wrote a play about Abraham, for example (meant for production outside the church) -- do not go that far. Some fundamentalist writings that I have seen claim that acting is inherently a violation of the Ninth Commandment because it involves pretense. I don't agree. I am inclined to see warrant for drama in the parables of Scripture. I see imagination and creative storytelling (in oral, written and dramatic form) as a noble art that can and should be honoring to God (and like everything else can be abused as we see in Hollywood today). The dramatic portrayl of sin need not be sin in itself; however, great caution must be used in such instances. I agree with the need to avoid provocations unto sin, as the Catechism states. Sex scenes should be verbotten. Romantic love can be portrayed, but kissing between actors and actresses can lead to trouble. In _Pure Country_, George Strait, a married man, refused to play his role unless he could refrain from kissing the female co-star. In ye olden times, the role of women in acting performance was severely curtailed or prohibited. Violence can be portrayed in ways that are not gratuitous and convey the honor of a warrior, I think. Bad language is something that I don't think should be part of a dramatic performance. However, as I have noted in a separate thread, it's hard for me to say that certain words can never be spoken in any context. Finally, much more could be said about the distinction between entertainment and recreation. The latter is more profitable, I believe. We should consider how we spend our time. Vegging out in front of movies may not always be the best use of time. One should always evaluate their motives for why they can set aside a chunk of time to watch a two hour movie but they can't find time for private or family worship. Having said that, there is much good that one can find in certain movies. _Chariots of Fire_, _Gods and Generals_, and _Luther_ are some examples that come to mind. _Braveheart_ and _The Patriot_ are two remarkable movies which may contain excessive violence and some other objectionable scenes, but also much that is good and praiseworthy. Let us not go too far and bind the consciences of others with respect to movies. And yet let us proclaim the need for drama, its actors and spectators to all submit to the Lordship of Christ in every way. Philippians 4.8, Romans 12.1-2, and 2 Cor. 10.5 are among many verses which ought to guide us in these matters.
> 
> [Edited on 3-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]



[Edited on 12-24-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## satz (Dec 24, 2005)

Nice post Andrew, i agree wholeheartedly.

Just on a side note, i think that it is inaccurate to say it is hypocritical to condemn some TV shows whilst allowing others. 

Many sins are not necessarily either 'yes' or 'no' but are matters of degrees and judgment. Things like covetousness are ,i think, examples of lawful desires being taken to an extreme. It is not sinful to desire a certain item or to make money, but when the desire is not ruled and becomes excessive, that is where sin occurs.

Likewise, in matters of practical living, somethings are not either/or, but require wisdom and judgment. In 1 Cor 10:27 Paul assumes it is no sin to accept a unbelievers invitation to dinner. Yet in other places he warns against 'revels' and 'banquetings' and all though the bible we are warned against corrupting influences from unbelievers. There is necessarily room for christian judgment and discernment here. There are certain invitations from unbelievers we would not want to accept. But the verse indicates that that does not mean it is always wrong to accept such an invitation. I believe similar discretion can apply to the area of drama.

[Edited on 12-25-2005 by satz]


----------



## Peter (Dec 24, 2005)

Andrew, thanks for that (re)post. It should be clarified though that the question is not on the lawfulness of recreation or entertainment but theater (tv shows, movies, stageplays) which portray sin for entertainment. Sin should not be named among the saints except with gravity and in abhorrence. It should not be a source of amusement. We should not have any fellowship with the works of darkness but reprove them and flee all show of evil. Doesnt theater go against the tenor of these and many more passages of scripture dealing with the believers attitude towards sin? And as you know there are many more criticisms of these forms of entertainment. Henry, you're right, I dont want to universally condemn theater b.c. that would reprove my own behavior. I wish the argument would go in Andrews favor but my partiality is sin. As for Shakespeare and Macbeth, many have condemned him and his plays. I'm interested to hear what Chris Coldwell has to say on this matter being a scholar on 17th-19th century presbyterianism and an apparent fan of Samuel Miller.


----------



## bond-servant (Dec 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Nice post Andrew, i agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> Just on a side note, i think that it is inaccurate to say it is hypocritical to condemn some TV shows whilst allowing others.
> ...



Excellent points!!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 5, 2006)

Two NBC affiliates so far have refused to run this show.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jan 5, 2006)

'Brokeback Mountain' Leads SAG Award Nods

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer 43 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - The cowboy love story "Brokeback Mountain" led nominees Thursday for film prizes from actors and directors unions, including performers
Heath Ledger,
Michelle Williams and
Jake Gyllenhaal and filmmaker
Ang Lee.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Brokeback Mountain" earned four
Screen Actors Guild nominations: Lead actor for Ledger and supporting actor for Gyllenhaal, who play old sheepherding buddies concealing their homosexual affair from their families; supporting actress for Williams, who plays Ledger's wife; and best overall performance by its entire cast.

Lee, whose films include "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Hulk," was among best-filmmaker nominees by the Directors Guild of America. Other directing nominees were
George Clooney for the Edward R. Murrow tale "Good Night, and Good Luck"; Paul Haggis for the ensemble drama "Crash"; Bennett Miller for the Truman Capote story "Capote"; and
Steven Spielberg for "Munich," a thriller centered on the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.

Clooney also earned a supporting-actor nominee from SAG for his role as an undercover
CIA agent in the oil-industry thriller "Syriana."

Along with "Brokeback Mountain," SAG nominations for best film cast went to "Capote," "Crash," "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Hustle & Flow," the story of a pimp and drug dealer forging a career as a rap singer.

Joining Ledger in the lead-actor category were
Philip Seymour Hoffman as author Capote in "Capote";
Russell Crowe as Depression-era boxer Jim Braddock in "Cinderella Man";
Joaquin Phoenix as singer Johnny Cash in "Walk the Line"; and
David Strathairn as newsman Murrow in "Good Night, and Good Luck."

Lead-actress nominees were
Judi Dench as a society dame who starts a nude stage revue in 1930s London in "Mrs. Henderson Presents";
Felicity Huffman in a gender-bending role as a man preparing for sex-change surgery in "Transamerica";
Charlize Theron as a woman leading a sexual-harassment lawsuit at a mining company in "North Country";
Reese Witherspoon as Cash's soul mate and eventual wife, June Carter, in "Walk the Line"; and
Ziyi Zhang as a poor girl who becomes a belle of Japan in "Memoirs of a Geisha."

Huffman also was nominated for best actress in a TV comedy series for "Desperate Housewives," a role that earned her an Emmy last year.

"Desperate Housewives" co-stars
Teri Hatcher,
Marcia Cross and
Eva Longoria, who along with Huffman took four of the five TV musical or comedy nominations at the upcoming Golden Globes, all were shut out for guild nominations. The show's entire cast was honored with a nomination for comedy ensemble, along with "Arrested Development," "Boston Legal," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "My Name Is Earl."

Nominated for TV drama ensemble were "The Closer," "Grey's Anatomy," "Lost," "Six Feet Under" and "The West Wing."

Policeman roles in "Crash" "”
Don Cheadle as a devoted detective,
Matt Dillon as a racist beat cop "” earned them supporting-actor nominations. Along with Gyllenhaal and Clooney, the other nominee was
Paul Giamatti as boxer Braddock's manager in "Cinderella Man."

Joining Williams as supporting-actress nominees were
Amy Adams as a Southern waif in the comic drama "Junebug";
Catherine Keener as Capote pal Harper Lee, author of "To Kill a Mockingbird," in "Capote";
Frances McDormand as an ailing miner in "North Country"; and
Rachel Weisz as a slain humanitarian-aid worker in "The Constant Gardener."

SAG awards will be presented Jan. 29 in a ceremony televised on TNT and TBS. The Directors Guild will present its awards Jan. 30.link

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Slippery]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 5, 2006)

Thank God for HGTV!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 24, 2006)

NBC announced that they have cancelled the show.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 24, 2006)

YEP!!


----------



## Ivan (Jan 25, 2006)




----------

