# Cursing and blasphemy in movies/tv



## LeeJUk

Something that I've been questioning for a long while is 

Is it a sin to watch? 

Please state your reasons why or why not?

Thanks


----------



## jwithnell

The older I get (late 40s) the more I realize how carefully I need to guard what goes into my mind. We are told to think upon good things. We are told to pray continuously -- how can we do that during 2 hours of sex, violence, cussing, and blasphemy?

Clearly the form of entertainment is a matter of Christian liberty. And to some extent, some Christians might be stronger than others in resisting the temptations or mind-set that can result from so many movies and TV shows. But for the most part, I think we should abstain. 

What's frustrating is that "family" movies and shows here in the US are just so stupid! And often portrait adults as the villains. My kids sometimes watch old shows via the internet or DVD and I watch very little except for our almost daily ritual of watching the old Flipper TV show before the youngest goes down for a nap.

You can add to the question whether or not we should be putting money into the hands of the people that produce this junk.


----------



## christianhope

Yes it is sinful. The short answer is, 'How can I say I love Christ when I watch things that He hates? How could I take pleasure in it?' In James 1:27 we are told that part of pure religion is to "keep oneself unspotted from the world." How does watching what is sinful glorify God? Or benefit my soul? 'Whatever you do in word or deed, do all to the glory of God' 1 Cor 10:31 

Please see the excellent article below for additional reasons:

From the April 2006 Young People's Magazine (Vol. 76, No. 4, pages 79-80) on the FP website , apparently written by the magazine’s editor, Rev. K.D. Macleod:

Looking Around Us : Sin As Entertainment

This is an age of entertainment. Never before have people had so much leisure time as in the last 50 years, or even the last 100. It was to meet the demand for different ways of occupying people's leisure time that cinemas began to open – especially as, in a time of new inventions, it was now possible to produce films, or what in America are called movies.

When television became common, it became possible for people to watch such films in their own homes, without anyone outside the family seeing them going to a cinema. More recently, with films available as videos or DVDs, people can watch them just whenever they want to. While some material on TV, and on videos and DVDs, is educational and instructive, much of it is dangerous. Sin is not a proper subject for entertainment. And most films, it would seem, are glorifying what is sinful.

Indeed there is something false about all acting – when people take on someone else's character and have to pretend to express someone else's emotions. This is quite out of keeping with what God demands in the Ninth Commandment: perfect truthfulness. It is, in effect, bearing "false witness" to others.

If violence and murder are wrong – and of course they are – then it cannot be right to turn them into entertainment. And it cannot be right to seek enjoyment from watching them. Nor can it be right to make sins against the Seventh Commandment into entertainment. Paul said of one such sin that it "is not so much as named among the Gentiles"; he was shocked that there were some in the church in Corinth who were guilty of that sin. How much more shocked he would be to find such sins used as a means of entertaining people. And how appalled he would be if he found some connected with the Church today enjoying such films.

What should be our attitude to sin? Remember Job, and how he is commended at the beginning of the Book which carries his name. It is said that he "eschewed evil"; he turned away from it – you may say that he always tried to get as far away as possible from evil. He would certainly not have found his enjoyment in watching others acting out what is sinful, and neither should we. We are in this world to glorify God, and it should be clear to everyone that watching sin – especially serious sin – is very far away from being glorifying to God. No wonder Paul said: "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" (Philippians 4:8). This should be our standard – always.

We should always remember that we have corrupt, sinful hearts. It is dangerous for us to watch what is sinful, because it is likely to stimulate evil thoughts in our minds. It makes us even more unlikely to want to draw near to a holy God, who hates sin with a perfectly hatred. The fact is that such entertainments are preparing sinners from an eternity far away from God – they most certainly will not prepare anyone for heaven.

In the light of the Bible, we are to flee from the wrath to come. Obviously then, we must flee from sin, and we must refuse to spend our precious hours watching sinful activities depicted on a screen for our entertainment.

http://www.puritans.net/movie reviews/moviereviews.html


----------



## T.A.G.

yes it is and i think the above post stated why very well!

my problem that I am dealing with when it comes to movies is watching movies that have magic ok? Like even Narnia


----------



## Tripel

It can be sin, but it isn't across the board. The hearing of certain words or the watching of certain pictures is not sin. Rather, it's what is in your heart.

If hearing foul language causes you to sin, by all means avoid it. But not everyone is the same.

---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------




T.A.G. said:


> my problem that I am dealing with when it comes to movies is watching movies that have magic ok? Like even Narnia


 
Again, what is going on in your heart when you watch a Narnia movie? I'm not going to argue against your conscience when it comes to what YOU should or shouldn't do. But as a general rule, no, it's not inherently sinful to watch Narnia movies or read Lewis' books. You are more than fine reading Lewis.

Honestly, I think it's silly to start labeling anything with magic or other supernatural acts as sin. It's story-telling. It's imagination.


----------



## christianhope

Tyler, it's encouraging to hear of your struggle over this issue. 

Concerning magic, think in the lines of 'does magic exist in the form this movie portrays? How does that fit with how God has chosen to create the world? 

If God has chosen not to create magic, am I not showing some form of agreement contrary to God's end in creation? Thereby, implying He has not done it right? 

Also think about the nature of stage acting in Narnia, is it right to be supporting a form of lying? Take Rev. Macleod's reasoning in the article above: _Indeed there is something false about all acting – when people take on someone else's character and have to pretend to express someone else's emotions. This is quite out of keeping with what God demands in the Ninth Commandment: perfect truthfulness. It is, in effect, bearing "false witness" to others._

Lastly, I think movies like Narnia, sensationalize a person and deaden their desires towards God. For instance, when I watch Narnia, or used to, my heart would rise and fall with the music and emotions of the story which we naturally find exhilarating and pleasurable. Well, what do I do then when I try to read my bible and find the movie distracting, or reading the bible boring because I have trained myself to expect unnatural forms of stimulation? 

I think such movies promote unhealthy (i.e. unbiblical) stimulation, memory patterns, and uses for our imagination other than what God has originally intended to be the focus of our minds and hearts, which are His purposes and glory. 

If God is my hearts desire, why do I want to take my eyes off of Him by some unnatural forms of stimulation?


----------



## Steve Curtis

Kauffeld said:


> Tyler, it's encouraging to hear of your struggle over this issue.
> 
> Concerning magic, think in the lines of 'does magic exist in the form this movie portrays? How does that fit with how God has chosen to create the world?
> 
> If God has chosen not to create magic, am I not showing some form of agreement contrary to God's end in creation? Thereby, implying He has not done it right?
> 
> Also think about the nature of stage acting in Narnia, is it right to be supporting a form of lying? Take Rev. Macleod's reasoning in the article above: _Indeed there is something false about all acting – when people take on someone else's character and have to pretend to express someone else's emotions. This is quite out of keeping with what God demands in the Ninth Commandment: perfect truthfulness. It is, in effect, bearing "false witness" to others._
> 
> Lastly, I think movies like Narnia, sensationalize a person and deaden their desires towards God. For instance, when I watch Narnia, or used to, my heart would rise and fall with the music and emotions of the story which we naturally find exhilarating and pleasurable. Well, what do I do then when I try to read my bible and find the movie distracting, or reading the bible boring because I have trained myself to expect unnatural forms of stimulation?
> 
> I think such movies promote unhealthy (i.e. unbiblical) stimulation, memory patterns, and uses for our imagination other than what God has originally intended to be the focus of our minds and hearts, which are His purposes and glory.
> 
> If God is my hearts desire, why do I want to take my eyes off of Him by some unnatural forms of stimulation?


 
There is no doubt that we have sensational responses to films, etc. But cannot the same be true of our experience when reading a novel? Are they, then, inherently sinful because they do not represent "perfect truthfulness?" What of a child engaging in make-believe (in my day, it was cowboys... not sure what is in vogue at the moment). I admit there is a line that is far too easily crossed, but is there nothing on _this_ side of the line that can be wholesome entertainment?


----------



## christianhope

> If hearing foul language causes you to sin, by all means avoid it. But not everyone is the same.



Yes, but there is a great difference between hearing someone curse unavoidably in daily life, and plopping yourself down for an hour or so to willingly submit yourself to the TV god or fantasy novel. Check out:

Psa 119:37 Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way. 

If we are to turn away our eyes from looking upon worthless things, why would any christian want to submit himself to seeing or beholding such things? To willingly do so is not in accordance with scripture.



> I think it's silly to start labeling anything with magic or other supernatural acts as sin. It's story-telling. It's imagination.



But where in the bible am I ever given such freedom to indulge in such forms of imagination and story telling? Why do I want a story other than the glory of God in all of my life? Fantasy is not right. I've read 40,000 pages of the junk and wasted how many precious hours watching it and I mourn over the time and sin it has caused me. The heart of man is sinful, those images and flights of fancy cause hardening of the heart over time. Verses like Psalm 119:37 imply against this supposed freedom to watch meaningless, imaginative movies.

Lastly, Mat 7:5 Thou "hypocrite" means literally in the greek "Stage Actor" - If the bible uses such language to describe a hypocrite, why do I want to give myself to watching them? Such is sinful and displeasing to God.


----------



## Philip

I look at it in the same light as I would reading such words in a work of fiction: is this the author's own sentiment, or is he/she simply trying to show a character as he or she is.

Also, the distinction between blasphemy (always a sin), cursing (often a sin), and vulgarity (rude, but sometimes appropriate), needs to be remembered.

As for the idea that acting is lying, is fiction lying? All that acting is, is fiction played out on a stage, screen, or recording (ie: radio drama, In my humble opinion a much-neglected medium). If fiction is lying, then was Jesus lying in telling parables? Because parables are fiction. How about poetic license? The Psalms are full of images which are not meant literally. The question is one of how the work is meant to be taken.


----------



## Grillsy

While "hypocrite" does mean stage actor...I don't think Jesus was commenting on the theatre of the day.
Jesus was rebuking the person who would try to lead a double life, pretending to be one thing when in reality they were not.
in my opinion it seems most likely that Jesus was not making a judgment upon drama in the passages you reference.


----------



## Caroline

In regard to the article about entertainment ... The Bible is pretty well packed with sex and violence, if we are honest. And some pretty rough language in certain places. David cuts Goliath's head off and runs around with it. Absalom had relations with his father's concubines in a tent on the roof. Paul says in Philippians 3 that he counts all things as _______________ (can you fill in the blank with a similar English word? The NIV politely substitutes 'rubbish', the KJV is more direct.) 

I think it's difficult to make a case that God wants us to read (or, in this modern era, watch) nothing but rainbows and flowers. I think the more appropriate question is what is the point of the sex, violence, or swearing? If it is portraying (in the course of telling a story) the way that people really behave ... well, that IS the way that people really behave, and the Bible never shies away from discussing that either. If it is suggesting that this is an _appropriate_ way to behave ... well, there we have more of a problem. (Although it would depend on context, of course. Some violence is justified). 

Myself, I don't have a strong stomach for movies. But I think it's a pretty fuzzy line about what is appropriate or inappropriate for a Christian to watch.


----------



## christianhope

> There is no doubt that we have sensational responses to films, etc. But cannot the same be true of our experience when reading a novel? Are they, then, inherently sinful because they do not represent "perfect truthfulness?" What of a child engaging in make-believe (in my day, it was cowboys... not sure what is in vogue at the moment). I admit there is a line that is far too easily crossed, but is there nothing on this side of the line that can be wholesome entertainment?



Steve, I would submit to you that reading novels for entertainment alone is not right either. Though I think they are much harder to categorize than movies, because in movies you actually have real people 'stage acting' which is a implied evil by our Lord, such as in Matt 7:5. But there can be helpful fiction, such as 'Pilgrims Progress.' I also believe documentaries are in line with a christian's calling, being they do not require stage acting, and are for genuine educational purposes.

For myself, I don't understand how entertainment such as fantasy novels have any place in the christian life. What benefit does it offer? How does it help me glorify God? It doesn't. Therefore it's out. I would hope this would be the view of all christians, not that I'm the rule of course, but I believe the word of God clearly implies such wholehearted service. Take our Lord's words: 

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. 

When I think of reading novels or watching movies for entertainment in light of those verses above, I cannot but believe those things are sin. Those verses are implicit in the gospel, God requires of us a wholehearted service. I should not think I can conform to the world and love it even a little, and yet believe I am truly serving my Lord as He has commanded. And if I take more pleasure in those novels and movies than I do in Jesus Christ, than I believe I would have sincere grounds for questioning my election. 

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 

Awhile back I had been reading three different fantasy series and was very into them, but, the Lord convicted me that it was wrong, and I threw them all out without ever finding out how they ended. I never regret that, though it was very hard at the time.


----------



## Steve Curtis

I commend your faithfulness to your convictions; however, I do not see the same prohibition in the text. As to the text in Matthew, ὑποκριτής was very commonly used merely to mean "to feign" (at least from the time of Demosthenes, mid-third cent.). I agree with Grillsy above that this text is unlikely intended as a diatribe against the theater. Nonethessless, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if we take more pleasure in such entertainment than in Jesus Christ, we must give earnest consideration to the reality of our election.


----------



## larryjf

It's funny how we can get so interested in entertainment.
What does that say about our mindset of the spiritual war that we are in?
I can't imagine a soldier on the front lines in WWII kicking back in his foxhole and reading a magazine while being fired upon.
Yet during the constant spiritual warfare that we are engaged in we seem to always find plenty of time for entertainment and so little time for the battle.

Has the Church militant become the Church entertainment?

Sad state of affairs...and i am in that sad state more often than not.


----------



## Philip

> For myself, I don't understand how entertainment such as fantasy novels have any place in the christian life. What benefit does it offer? How does it help me glorify God?



For myself, I find a good yarn to be delightful and, in many cases, inspiring. All good stories, even (maybe especially) myths, contain reflections, however dim, of _the_ story---the story that God is writing even now. You want to know why I read such novels as _That Hideous Strength_ of _The Lord of the Rings_ and find them profitable? Because they glorify God. I maintain that the writing of fiction is a fundamental human activity that shows the _imago Dei_ within us---God is a storyteller.

To draw one example: in _The Lord of the Rings_, I find much imagery taken quite consciously and carefully from scripture. I see Christ-types in the resurrection of Gandalf, Aragorn's role as the prophesied king who will emerge victorious from the paths of the dead, and even in Frodo's suffering-servant role in parts. None of these images are perfect, but they are not meant to be perfect---they are meant to be shadows pointing us to the truth.



> I can't imagine a soldier on the front lines in WWII kicking back in his foxhole and reading a magazine while being fired upon.



And yet I can certainly imagine him doing so during a lull in the battle. I can certainly imagine an officer during the Civil War taking a rest with the latest installment of Hugo's _Les Miserables_ or (as Chamberlain often did) with Homer. I think our duty as Christians is to choose our entertainment, our wine, any pleasure, wisely and well---choose only the best.


----------



## Andres

I let my conscience be my guide. I don't think it's ever failed me. Yes, there are times when I have purposefully ignored it and in those times it was sinful. I do know that as I have grown in my faith, I have also grown more sensitive to things I used to watch. I can no longer watch some of these shows because my conscience forbids it. Just the other night I was flipping through and saw Saturday Night Live. I saw Betty White, yes Betty White, on there talking about some very innappropriate things. I told my wife that I couldn't believe how vulgar SNL had gotten and how all their jokes were based on crude topics. But then i wondered had it gotten worse, or had I just been growing in holiness since I used to watch it before? Whatever the reason, my conscience immediately alerted me that it wasn't anything enjoyable. 
Here are some shows I will admit to watching in the past, even when I was a Christian, that I can't bring myself to watch anymore. 
SNL
South Park
Family Guy
just about everything on MTV (we still watch the True Life series occassionally) 
just about everything on VH1 
I also am much more cautious about movies my wife and I go to see now. Before I used to never care much about what it was rated, but now I check websites to see what its rated and why. Maybe has to do with the fact that because I'm married now I feel accountable for my household.


----------



## ZackF

I don't run as absolute on the matter as Kauffeld but carefully consider junking what is bothering you. Especially if it is leading you in that way. I don't put "nasty" words anywhere near on par with blasphemy as an offense but the two categories of language tend to run tandem in popular entertainment. I find less and less television that I want to watch. If it bothers you don't watch it. The spiritual disciplines of the Christian life as well as fellowship with the saints will have an "automatic" influence on what bothers you. Don't ignore it. It is of the Lord. Entertainment is not that same category as people you run into. Avoiding blasphemous people in real life is not the same avoiding poisonous entertainment.


----------



## larryjf

P. F. Pugh said:


> I can't imagine a soldier on the front lines in WWII kicking back in his foxhole and reading a magazine while being fired upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I can certainly imagine him doing so during a lull in the battle. I can certainly imagine an officer during the Civil War taking a rest with the latest installment of Hugo's _Les Miserables_ or (as Chamberlain often did) with Homer. I think our duty as Christians is to choose our entertainment, our wine, any pleasure, wisely and well---choose only the best.
Click to expand...

 
Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.


----------



## Andres

larryjf said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a soldier on the front lines in WWII kicking back in his foxhole and reading a magazine while being fired upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I can certainly imagine him doing so during a lull in the battle. I can certainly imagine an officer during the Civil War taking a rest with the latest installment of Hugo's _Les Miserables_ or (as Chamberlain often did) with Homer. I think our duty as Christians is to choose our entertainment, our wine, any pleasure, wisely and well---choose only the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
> Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not sure what you're advocating here...are you saying we shouldn't enjoy any entertainment, ever?


----------



## Philip

> Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
> Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.



So can you see a soldier engaged in battle eating and drinking? How about spending time with his wife? Your analogy is very poor as it applies to all kinds of things, some of which (I would contend) are duties.


----------



## larryjf

P. F. Pugh said:


> Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
> Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So can you see a soldier engaged in battle eating and drinking? How about spending time with his wife? Your analogy is very poor as it applies to all kinds of things, some of which (I would contend) are duties.
Click to expand...

 
I am speaking only in terms of entertainment....speaking to other duties is expanding my thoughts more widely than they are intended.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------




Andres said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a soldier on the front lines in WWII kicking back in his foxhole and reading a magazine while being fired upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I can certainly imagine him doing so during a lull in the battle. I can certainly imagine an officer during the Civil War taking a rest with the latest installment of Hugo's _Les Miserables_ or (as Chamberlain often did) with Homer. I think our duty as Christians is to choose our entertainment, our wine, any pleasure, wisely and well---choose only the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
> Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're advocating here...are you saying we shouldn't enjoy any entertainment, ever?
Click to expand...

 
I'm saying that entertainment should not be the focus of our lives.
I find it to be a poor way to redeem our time...but in some instances can refresh us.


----------



## Philip

larryjf said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
> Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So can you see a soldier engaged in battle eating and drinking? How about spending time with his wife? Your analogy is very poor as it applies to all kinds of things, some of which (I would contend) are duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am speaking only in terms of entertainment....speaking to other duties is expanding my thoughts more widely than they are intended.
Click to expand...


But your analogy begs that question---if we apply that standard across the board, we will do very little, it seems. Why does that standard apply only to entertainment and not to other activities?

I'm curious, though: would you say that any Christian might be called to create art along the lines of film, literature, music and other forms of entertainment?


----------



## larryjf

P. F. Pugh said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
> Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So can you see a soldier engaged in battle eating and drinking? How about spending time with his wife? Your analogy is very poor as it applies to all kinds of things, some of which (I would contend) are duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am speaking only in terms of entertainment....speaking to other duties is expanding my thoughts more widely than they are intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But your analogy begs that question---if we apply that standard across the board, we will do very little, it seems. Why does that standard apply only to entertainment and not to other activities?
> 
> I'm curious, though: would you say that any Christian might be called to create art along the lines of film, literature, music and other forms of entertainment?
Click to expand...

 
All right, let's look at the analogy in a broader sense...

Yes, we must eat and drink because it makes us fit for battle.
Yes, we must take care of our families because that is part of the battle.
As far as creating art...if it furthers Christ's kingdom by engaging properly in the battle, then yes.

It is not the same kind of war that WWII was...it is a spiritual war that we are engaged in, and therefore all of life must be brought to engage in it.

If even the mundane task of eating is to be done for God's glory, then certainly our entertainment should be as well.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1Co 10:31)


----------



## Philip

> If even the mundane task of eating is to be done for God's glory, then certainly our entertainment should be as well.
> 
> So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1Co 10:31)



Indeed, which is why we are free to enjoy entertainment to the glory of God. It is profitable because it involves enjoying the good things which God has provided---including creativity. It glorifies God for me to watch a good film in the same way that it glorifies God for me to go to the art museum or to hear a Beethoven symphony---the creation of these things is proof of the _imago Dei_, and so is the enjoyment.

We must, after all, remember that "The chief end of man is to glorify God _and enjoy Him forever_." Enjoying God includes enjoying things like art, music, wine, literature, food, and the company of the believers. All of these things can be abused and therefore we must be careful, but let's not go overboard and say that, in and of themselves, they are a waste of time. There is a time for every purpose under heaven.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

But I think more to the point is can we delight and "enjoy" something that directly or indirectly blasphemes God?


----------



## Caroline

I'm not going to argue with someone who has no interest in fiction or film. Each person should do as they please and as they feel pleases the Lord in their life in regard to such entertainment. But it is not as though it is a sin in itself. Certainly, it can be abused. But so can the lack of it. I cannot imagine how desolate my mind would be without the fiction and songs that I have gathered into it over the years, and I frequently do use song lyrics and fictional plot lines and movies to illustrate things in articles and letters regarding spiritual matters. The apostle Paul also quoted Greek poetry in some of his epistles, indicating that not only did he read it, but he felt that it held valuable insights, even though it was secular or even pagan.

The argument that we are in the midst of a war is compelling and yet I think we should not overestimate our importance. It is not as though Christ's work will be brought to ruin if I watch Spongebob Squarepants with my children on a Saturday afternoon. Yes, it would be wrong to watch Spongebob all day every day when I should be busy with my work. But the same can be said for internet forums, and yet here we are.

Some here say that sweeping music (such as is found in the Narnia movies) distracts them from God. I find that it strengthens my bond with the Creator of all sound and music. Not to say that either of us are wrong--but perhaps simply because something is not edifying to one person does not mean that it edifies no one.



> But I think more to the point is can we delight and "enjoy" something that directly or indirectly blasphemes God?



I suppose it would depend on what someone defined as 'blaspheming God'. I'm not trying to be evasive. Some people consider Spider-man blasphemous because he wears a red suit and so does Satan in the popular image of him. We would have to figure out a definition first before we could address that question.


----------



## jayce475

This discussion brings to mind Ecc 1:9.

Ecc 1:9: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

Our convictions range between:
1. all entertainment is generally okay if we partake of it righteously
2. some forms of entertainment may be okay if we partake of them righteously
3. most entertainment is not okay with the exception of some which can be more easily partaken of righteously
4. there is no such thing as entertainment partaken of righteously

We take scriptures about liberty/biblical separation/worldliness/doing things to God's glory and generally fit them into our own views. And regardless of our views, scriptures always seem to fit so well to them. I still find myself convinced that the third view is the most balanced based on scriptures, unpopular as it may be.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> We must, after all, remember that "The chief end of man is to glorify God _and enjoy Him forever_." Enjoying God includes enjoying things like art, music, wine, literature, food, and the company of the believers. .



I understand that some amongst us may be libertarian-leaning, but this is starting to sound hedonistic.


----------



## Andres

jayce475 said:


> This discussion brings to mind Ecc 1:9.
> 
> Ecc 1:9: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
> 
> Our convictions range between:
> 1. all entertainment is generally okay if we partake of it righteously
> 2. some forms of entertainment may be okay if we partake of them righteously
> 3. most entertainment is not okay with the exception of some which can be more easily partaken of righteously
> 4. there is no such thing as entertainment partaken of righteously
> 
> We take scriptures about liberty/biblical separation/worldliness/doing things to God's glory and generally fit them into our own views. And regardless of our views, scriptures always seem to fit so well to them. I still find myself convinced that the third view is the most balanced based on scriptures, unpopular as it may be.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We must, after all, remember that "The chief end of man is to glorify God _and enjoy Him forever_." Enjoying God includes enjoying things like art, music, wine, literature, food, and the company of the believers. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that some amongst us may be libertarian-leaning, but this is starting to sound hedonistic.
Click to expand...

 
you obviously haven't read much Piper have you?


----------



## Calvin87

I think that even if you abstain from watching such things with foul language, your flesh would simply find something to replace it with. Each sin we temporarily subdue is only replaced by one with equal tenacity. This however is not just cause to continue in one's current sin. But a statement was made earlier about novels, etc, almost everything we read is intertwined with sinful aspects. It's simply our total depravity making its ugly face known. Even John Calvin's works are filled with insults and rough speech. Should we not read them? In the time of the great theologians, they were well versed on the "Pagan poet" and "Philosophers" of the time. I don't know if you've ever read any ancient poetry or philosophy, but it can get pretty dirty.


----------



## kvanlaan

> But I think more to the point is can we delight and "enjoy" something that directly or indirectly blasphemes God?



No, we cannot. Just put it in this context: In watching a movie at the theatre that takes the Lord's name in vain, you have just helped to pay an actor to blaspheme God's name, the God you profess to love.

How's this for an acid test: can you watch a film and then pray: "Lord thank you for that, I pray that you would aid the producers and actors to produce more of the same. Amen."

Also, Lord's Day 36:



> Q. 100. Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that *his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing*?
> 
> A. It undoubtedly is, (a) for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death. (b)
> (a)
> Prov.29:24 Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not.
> Lev.5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
> (b)
> Lev.24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
> Lev.24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.


----------



## Caroline

kvanlaan said:


> But I think more to the point is can we delight and "enjoy" something that directly or indirectly blasphemes God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we cannot. Just put it in this context: In watching a movie at the theatre that takes the Lord's name in vain, you have just helped to pay an actor to blaspheme God's name, the God you profess to love.
> 
> How's this for an acid test: can you watch a film and then pray: "Lord thank you for that, I pray that you would aid the producers and actors to produce more of the same. Amen."
> 
> Also, Lord's Day 36:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 100. Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that *his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing*?
> 
> A. It undoubtedly is, (a) for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death. (b)
> (a)
> Prov.29:24 Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not.
> Lev.5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
> (b)
> Lev.24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
> Lev.24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Well, it's not like they asked me, though, you know. If I go have my tire changed and it turns out that the guy who changes it takes the name of the Lord in vain the entire time because he struggles getting the rusted bolts loose, then I am paying a guy who is taking the name of the Lord in vain. But I went to have a tire changed, and that is all. Likewise, I go to see a movie. I cannot help it if the actor swears. Somehow, it seems as though because it is a movie, I am suddenly responsible for everything that happens as if I wrote and produced it and had psychic foreknowledge of every line before I sat down. None of those are the case. But something can still be a good movie in spite of some rough words, just as I can still get my tire fixed even by a sinner. 

Let's keep some perspective also, that people often do these things in ignorance, not realizing that it is offensive to anyone. Children's shows often take the name of the Lord in vain, because most people simply have no concept of it being 'blasphemy'. Most Christians that I have known do that also, again with no concept of it being 'blasphemy'. Perhaps it is, but if so, then the sin is definitely unintentional, and not the entire basis of what they are saying. (Haven't you ever heard people comment, "Oh my ---, what a great sermon!"? I have. Not at my current church so much, but in other churches, people simply have no idea).

I do often thank the Lord for movies. The Truman Show made a huge impact on my life, although I do not recall off the top of my head whether there was any swearing. Whether there was or not, thank God for that movie.


----------



## AThornquist

If something is prohibited by God, it ought to be avoided by all people and not at all condoned by the children of God. I simply don't see any passage of Scripture that I could use as a basis for saying, "Oh, well _I'm_ not going to do that because _I'm_ a Christian; however, I'm at liberty to watch this other person do that sin since _I'm_ not tempted." Where is the hatred for sin in that mindset? It is good to hate the sin in one's own life, but something is strangely amiss when the sins of others are seen as benign, or at least tolerable for the sake of entertainment.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Well, it's not like they asked me, though, you know. If I go have my tire changed and it turns out that the guy who changes it takes the name of the Lord in vain the entire time because he struggles getting the rusted bolts loose, then I am paying a guy who is taking the name of the Lord in vain. But I went to have a tire changed, and that is all. Likewise, I go to see a movie. I cannot help it if the actor swears. Somehow, it seems as though because it is a movie, I am suddenly responsible for everything that happens as if I wrote and produced it and had psychic foreknowledge of every line before I sat down. None of those are the case. But something can still be a good movie in spite of some rough words, just as I can still get my tire fixed even by a sinner.



Not at all the same. In the first case, you should say something to let him know it is offensive. In the second case, you are partaking of this *as entertainment*. There's something very sick about that, no? Especially in light of Q&A 100 in Lord's Day 36. WE are to endeavour to prevent it and forbid it, I think that much is clear. Going to a movie that uses it flippantly would thus place that movie out of bounds for a believer, would it not? If it comes up, leave.



> Let's keep some perspective also, that people often do these things in ignorance, not realizing that it is offensive to anyone. Children's shows often take the name of the Lord in vain, because most people simply have no concept of it being 'blasphemy'. *Most Christians that I have known do that also, again with no concept of it being 'blasphemy'.* Perhaps it is, but if so, then the sin is definitely unintentional, and not the entire basis of what they are saying. (Haven't you ever heard people comment, "Oh my ---, what a great sermon!"? I have. Not at my current church so much, but in other churches, people simply have no idea).



Have they never read the Ten Commandments? The statement bolded above is very odd.


----------



## Andres

Let us agree that we should take a stand against the entertainment industry using the Lord's name in vain. Ergo, if a movie/tv show/song uses the Lord's name in vain, we will refuse to watch/listen to it. But how do you handle people around you taking the Lord's name in vain? For example, Caroline raises a good point - what if you heard your mechanic take the Lords name in vain while working on your car? Do you think it's fitting to admonish him? Or what if someone says it like the Oh, my goodness way - should we say something to that person? I struggle with this because my first instinct is to tell them something, but i must admit I rarely do.


----------



## kvanlaan

Andrew, I have to agree on all counts. I don't always when I should, but I always should.


----------



## Andres

kvanlaan said:


> Andrew, I have to agree on all counts. I don't always when I should, but I always should.


 
Thanks. I wasn't sure if I always should or not. I almost always feel I should, but then I wonder if I'm being self-righteous to say, "hey stop using the Lord's name in vain". Or what is the best way to say it so it does not come across as self-righteous or pretentious?


----------



## Philip

jayce475 said:


> Our convictions range between:
> 1. all entertainment is generally okay if we partake of it righteously
> 2. some forms of entertainment may be okay if we partake of them righteously
> 3. most entertainment is not okay with the exception of some which can be more easily partaken of righteously
> 4. there is no such thing as entertainment partaken of righteously



My own view is actually that most forms of entertainment may be partaken of, if we do so righteously---obviously, certain forms of entertainment are inherently sinful (eg: p0rnography).



> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We must, after all, remember that "The chief end of man is to glorify God _and enjoy Him forever_." Enjoying God includes enjoying things like art, music, wine, literature, food, and the company of the believers. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that some amongst us may be libertarian-leaning, but this is starting to sound hedonistic.
Click to expand...

 
How so? Does one have to be a hedonist to enjoy God's good gifts? Why were these things given, if not for our enjoyment under God?

Now, on the original subject:

Here's a quandary. You are on a tour of Turkey and have the opportunity to tour the Hagia Sophia, an ancient church in Istanbul known for its icons of Christ (assuming you have scruples on this point). Would you pay the money or not?


----------



## christiana

> *Yes it is sinful. The short answer is, 'How can I say I love Christ when I watch things that He hates?*



These words from Josh will be in my mind from now on whenever I turn on the TV! I so agree with this and know we are so easily conformed to this world over time as the wiles of Satan sneak into our thinking and mold us daily to be less aware and cautious of his ways to jeopardize our walk with our Lord! May I become ever watchful and prevent such as this!!


----------



## kvanlaan

> My own view is actually that most forms of entertainment may be partaken of, if we do so righteously---obviously, certain forms of entertainment are inherently sinful (eg: p0rnography).



How do you 'righteously' take part in something that uses the Lord's name in vain, in light of the confessions?


----------



## Soonerborn

I appreciate this thread and will offer something. I enjoy movies and my wife and I watch movies together. However, at times I do feel convicted that what I am watching is not glorifying to God and His kingdom and not sanctifying to my eternal soul. The fact of the matter is, I have images and words of inappropriate movies and TV shows in my head to this day that I watched as a teenager 20 years ago. Everything we do has consequences. 

Please don't get me wrong, I am by no means saying movies are wrong. Personally, I have to be careful with myself using "Christian Liberty" as a reason to watch a certain movie. If I were completely honest with myself, "Christian Liberty" may not be the real reason for me watching a specific movie (even though I tell myself it is), but "indulgence of the flesh" would be closer to the honest reason.

Personally, I think for me I am beginning to struggle not with the question of "Can I do it", but, "Should I do it".


----------



## Caroline

I don't think I would concede Andrew's idea that we must take a stand against people who use the name of the Lord in vain in the entertainment industry. I think that falls under the category of judging those outside the church (I Cor 5, which was mentioned on another thread). Leave it to God to judge them. We are not Messiahs, and we cannot set everything in the whole world right. This is not condoning it--but a simple admission that God is God and we are not. Not only the entertainment industry, but all creation groans (Rom 8). To toss out an entire movie because of one word is a little bizarre. If your math instructor uses the name of the Lord in vain, that is regrettable, but it doesn't mean that you can't learn calculus from her, nor that you are called upon to stand up in front of the class and shout her down. And I think most people would even agree with me on this point.

There's a tendency to categorize something differently because it is 'entertainment', as in 'well, it is only *entertainment*. We must have a tire fixed or learn math, but you don't really need entertainment'. I guess I don't see it that way.

I'm sure everyone here is getting sick of my UPCI stories, but I'm afraid I must drag yet another one out to make my point. In the UPCI, no one is allowed to watch TV or go to movies. The books that you can read are highly restricted also. In many churches, sports are not allowed. And much of this same justification is used for it--well, these things could be displeasing to God. How do you know if you sit down to watch a movie that someone won't utter a swear word? And if they do, how do you know that it won't sink into your heart and contaminate you? Are you willing to risk going to hell for two hours of entertainment? Wouldn't this time be better spent reading the Bible, praying, speaking in tongues, or cleaning the pastor's house?

The result of this, however, is what is known in cult studies as 'milieu control'. The person at the top (or the organization) controls the information that you have access to. You are not allowed to read, see, or study anything that is not in agreement with the group. Ignorance is a powerful weapon, and it has damned many a soul. When you are kept in an environment that bombards you constantly with a certain viewpoint (that the Trinity does not exist, for example), and then prevents you from being able to read anything that opposes this viewpoint (because it is 'blasphemous' and/or displeasing to the Lord), then how can you evaluate it properly? Entertainment is not always merely 'entertainment'. Books and movies and songs often convey powerful messages. They may be good messages or bad messages, but they are not indifferent, and cults know this, and that is why they suppress them. Of course, not everything is equally powerful or meaningful, and there are some books that I have read and thought, "Well, there's a few hours of my life that I will never get back." But still, that's not to say that all books are meaningless, even novels.

I don't think that merely because this is the case means that every Christian is obligated to watch or read or listen to a variety of material, and if they are not edified by it, then they should find things more helpful to them. However, I would go so far as to say that an attitude that these thing MUST not be watched/read/etc is, in my opinion, not a sign of strength but of weakness. If someone's God cannot stand up to Star Wars, then He is no God. If He can't maintain someone's salvation as they watch Spongebob, then He is too weak to save. And that is my conclusion with the UPCI. Yes, they were right about one thing--when I began to read and watch and think, I 'fell away'. Because that's what people do when they realize something is a lie. 

The idea then of placing all kinds of restrictions--'must not watch', 'must not read', 'this might offend God', 'this might send me to hell' seems foolhardy, a return to milieu control. If I thought those restrictions were necessary to maintain my faith (and I do not, so don't panic here), then I would take a good hard look at whether my faith was worth maintaining. As the saying goes: _Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me._


----------



## Jared

I have to admit that I haven't been following this thread. But I would like to make a couple of comments. First of all, I watched The Karate Kid with my wife. We were disappointed that Jaden Smith, who is only 12 uses profanity in the film. Jackie Chan's character tries to correct him in one of the scene's, but I can't help but think that this is just a subtle ploy to attempt to acclimate people to the idea of a child using language like that. I'm aware that there are older films that feature children using profanity, but it has always been difficult for me to watch. When adults use language like that, it's annoying, but when children use language like that, it's heart-breaking.

I have also wondered about books by Ayn Rand for instance. I know that she was an atheist, and so she's not being hypocritical by using language like that in her books, but I still wonder about it. At the same time, it could help to have the kind of knowledge that comes along with studying atheistic philosophy in order to know how to respond to an atheist.


----------



## LeeJUk

larryjf said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a soldier on the front lines in WWII kicking back in his foxhole and reading a magazine while being fired upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet I can certainly imagine him doing so during a lull in the battle. I can certainly imagine an officer during the Civil War taking a rest with the latest installment of Hugo's _Les Miserables_ or (as Chamberlain often did) with Homer. I think our duty as Christians is to choose our entertainment, our wine, any pleasure, wisely and well---choose only the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the spiritual war that we are engaged in have lulls?
> Even if it did, i don't see most entertaining themselves during lulls, but rather spending much of their time and effort on it.
Click to expand...

 
The kind of spiritual war you advocate will lead to a exhaustion and burn out.

You gotta have time for relaxation, entertainment and doing the things you enjoy. God gave us these things as gifts. It may not be movies but it may be something else.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I don't think I would concede Andrew's idea that we must take a stand against people who use the name of the Lord in vain in the entertainment industry. I think that falls under the category of judging those outside the church (I Cor 5, which was mentioned on another thread). Leave it to God to judge them.



We are not talking about judging them, we are talking about not consuming these things in the name of entertainment. There is no upside to this - simply letting it wash over us and sit passively by is to denigrate God's holy name. If we do not honor it with even a peep when it is blasphemed, what then does the third commandment mean to us? What does it mean to be a beacon on a hill in this regard? Salt of the earth? (I can see this as very much being an example of us being trampled into the soil and having no flavor). It is our passivity in this which has lead to His name being a cuss word. Shame on us.



> We are not Messiahs, and we cannot set everything in the whole world right.



So neither should we protest or try to change abortion? What makes the sixth commandment more important than the fourth?



> This is not condoning it--but a simple admission that God is God and we are not. Not only the entertainment industry, but all creation groans (Rom 8). To toss out an entire movie because of one word is a little bizarre. If your math instructor uses the name of the Lord in vain, that is regrettable, but it doesn't mean that you can't learn calculus from her, nor that you are called upon to stand up in front of the class and shout her down. And I think most people would even agree with me on this point.



No one said anything about shouting her down. How is it possible to shout someone down in love? But to politely ask that she not blaspheme the name of our Lord and Saviour? Where is the issue with that? It is no more than we should do.


> There's a tendency to categorize something differently because it is 'entertainment', as in 'well, it is only entertainment. We must have a tire fixed or learn math, but you don't really need entertainment'. I guess I don't see it that way.



So give some reasons for it, based on Scripture. Opinions do not constitute truth.



> I'm sure everyone here is getting sick of my UPCI stories, but I'm afraid I must drag yet another one out to make my point. In the UPCI, no one is allowed to watch TV or go to movies. The books that you can read are highly restricted also. In many churches, sports are not allowed. And much of this same justification is used for it--well, these things could be displeasing to God. How do you know if you sit down to watch a movie that someone won't utter a swear word? And if they do, how do you know that it won't sink into your heart and contaminate you? Are you willing to risk going to hell for two hours of entertainment? Wouldn't this time be better spent reading the Bible, praying, speaking in tongues, or cleaning the pastor's house?
> 
> The result of this, however, is what is known in cult studies as 'milieu control'. The person at the top (or the organization) controls the information that you have access to. You are not allowed to read, see, or study anything that is not in agreement with the group. Ignorance is a powerful weapon, and it has damned many a soul. When you are kept in an environment that bombards you constantly with a certain viewpoint (that the Trinity does not exist, for example), and then prevents you from being able to read anything that opposes this viewpoint (because it is 'blasphemous' and/or displeasing to the Lord), then how can you evaluate it properly? Entertainment is not always merely 'entertainment'. Books and movies and songs often convey powerful messages. They may be good messages or bad messages, but they are not indifferent, and cults know this, and that is why they suppress them. Of course, not everything is equally powerful or meaningful, and there are some books that I have read and thought, "Well, there's a few hours of my life that I will never get back." But still, that's not to say that all books are meaningless, even novels.
> 
> I don't think that merely because this is the case means that every Christian is obligated to watch or read or listen to a variety of material, and if they are not edified by it, then they should find things more helpful to them. However, I would go so far as to say that an attitude that these thing MUST not be watched/read/etc is, in my opinion, not a sign of strength but of weakness. If someone's God cannot stand up to Star Wars, then He is no God. If He can't maintain someone's salvation as they watch Spongebob, then He is too weak to save. And that is my conclusion with the UPCI. Yes, they were right about one thing--when I began to read and watch and think, I 'fell away'. Because that's what people do when they realize something is a lie.
> 
> The idea then of placing all kinds of restrictions--'must not watch', 'must not read', 'this might offend God', 'this might send me to hell' seems foolhardy, a return to milieu control. If I thought those restrictions were necessary to maintain my faith (and I do not, so don't panic here), then I would take a good hard look at whether my faith was worth maintaining. As the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.



When God Himself asks us not to blaspheme, when what we confess gives us the same direction (and more, in that we must oppose it), is that 'milieu control'? Nonsense.



> Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God's decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable
> 
> Questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
> 
> Question 114: What reasons are annexed to the third commandment?
> 
> Answer: The reasons annexed to the third commandment, in these words, The Lord thy God, and, For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain, are, because he is the Lord and our God, therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused by us; especially because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment, albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men.


----------



## Christusregnat

I am okay with blasphemy in a movie, so long as the story line gives the blasphemer what he deserves: death.


----------



## KaphLamedh

If in movies or TV-series has cursing or blasphemy, I don´t watch them. If people in our jobs or in schools cursing and blasphemy, we can´t so anything but pray and maybe say that they should stop that, but movies and TV we can turn off.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

I am a little surprised that Reformed believers here are arguing that what we think upon seems to have no impact on how we act. This is what I wrote recently for an article:

The temptation for all of us is to simply conform to the dress, conversation, and lifestyle of those around us. For instance, many Christian parents think nothing of watching with their children TV shows or movies that are full of blasphemy, sexual perversion, nudity, and violence. Subsequently, these same parents bewail the fact that their children imitate the behaviour of these onscreen actors despite the clear biblical warning, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners,” (1 Corinthians 15:33) and “Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.” (Deuteronomy 7:26).


----------



## Der Pilger

Kauffeld said:


> If God has chosen not to create magic, am I not showing some form of agreement contrary to God's end in creation? Thereby, implying He has not done it right?



Merely watching something does not constitute agreement with it. It *could*, but not necessarily. If you are watching a movie about Robin Hood, does that in itself mean you are agreeing with thievery? I doubt it.



> Also think about the nature of stage acting in Narnia, is it right to be supporting a form of lying? Take Rev. Macleod's reasoning in the article above: _Indeed there is something false about all acting – when people take on someone else's character and have to pretend to express someone else's emotions. This is quite out of keeping with what God demands in the Ninth Commandment: perfect truthfulness. It is, in effect, bearing "false witness" to others._



That's a bit much. I don't think it can be considered false witness to others because everyone concerned understands in advance that it is just acting. Therefore, nobody is being deceived.

As I see it, we need to be careful about what goes into the mind because of its potential influence upon our thinking. Carnal, worldly thinking can subtly, imperceptibly worm its way into our thought life if we submit to it repeatedly, making itself seem more and more acceptable as time passes. And what abounds in the heart has a tendency to manifest itself, sooner or later, in our outward conduct. The outward life is inseparable from, and flows out of, the inner person (Mt. 5:27; Mt. 12:34; Mark 7:21-23). It's no wonder that we are told to love God not only with our heart, soul and strength but also with the *mind*.

Edit: I just noticed that Dr. Ferguson said essentially the same thing as I just did above. I agree!


----------



## christianhope

Well I missed a day on this thread, but would like to give my comments why I think watching movies for entertainment is wrong.



> While "hypocrite" does mean stage actor...I don't think Jesus was commenting on the theatre of the day.
> Jesus was rebuking the person who would try to lead a double life, pretending to be one thing when in reality they were not.
> in my opinion it seems most likely that Jesus was not making a judgment upon drama in the passages you reference.



First it is known the greek culture during the time of Christ had a very great bent towards the theatre, therefore when I read Christ's words in Matthew 7:5 "Thou Hypocrite (Literally 'stage actor' in greek)" - I can know that Christ was using that term pejoratively, as if Christ were to say "You prostitute!" Or "You blasphemer!" Of course I believe the primary intent of Christ was to point out the sin of the pharisees who were living a double life, yet, this term is very clearly pejorative in nature and therefore, instructive for His people. For example, if Christ called someone a prostitute in a spiritual sense by saying "You prostitute!" That would not mean that He was approving of prostitution, even though he wasn't speaking about a physical prostitution in that verse. Such is the use of 'stage actor' it implies disapproval via the context and usage of the term.

Second, I don't see how actors can perform their roles without sin. For example, is it ever right for someone to 'pretend to pray?' Or how about to pretend to be another man's wife, or a wife's husband on the screen? What about the implications of bedroom scenes, even if nothing is seen, yet the implication is that this man slept with so and so etc. Such things are truly vile and of great reproach in the sight of God. It is contrary to the 9th commandment which requires truthfulness and is therefore blatant sin. Therefore, if it is sin for the actors, why would anyone willingly submit themselves to watching such? To do so is also sin, because you are agreeing and/or accepting of the sin of the actors to a certain degree at least, because you've chosen to place other mens sin before your eyes for your own entertainment. 

Psa 119:37 Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way. 

I would be interested in hearing other's thoughts, though of course I am convinced myself my conclusions are correct. Christians should not watch movies lest they partake in other men's sins.


----------



## Der Pilger

Kauffeld said:


> Steve, I would submit to you that reading novels for entertainment alone is not right either. Though I think they are much harder to categorize than movies, because in movies you actually have real people 'stage acting' which is a implied evil by our Lord, such as in Matt 7:5. But there can be helpful fiction, such as 'Pilgrims Progress.' I also believe documentaries are in line with a christian's calling, being they do not require stage acting, and are for genuine educational purposes.
> 
> For myself, I don't understand how entertainment such as fantasy novels have any place in the christian life. What benefit does it offer? How does it help me glorify God? It doesn't. Therefore it's out.



What about the following:


Playing a sport
Playing a leisurely game of chess
Going to a concert of classical music

Assuming all these activities are done merely for entertainment/recreation, do they help you glorify God? If so, how? When Christians do them, are they laying down their cross instead of taking it up?


----------



## Tripel

Josh,
It's been mentioned a couple times now, and I don't think you've addressed it. Actors are not deceiving. People who watch movies are not being deceived into thinking that they are viewing a real slice of life. The audience knows they are acting, so how is that deception???


----------



## christianhope

> What about the following:
> 
> * Playing a sport
> * Playing a leisurely game of chess
> * Going to a concert of classical music
> 
> 
> Assuming all these activities are done merely for entertainment/recreation, do they help you glorify God? If so, how? When Christians do them, are they laying down their cross instead of taking it up?



Playing sports for exercise possibly have a little redeeming value. Though sports such as boxing and football do not conform to the sixth commandment due to the nature of the sport. It's abuse of the body in ways God does not intend. 

Playing Chess and going to a classical music concert? Those things would be wrong if they were indulged in, i.e. To purposefully desire absence of Christ through personal diversions is a sign of the sinfulness and hardness of our hearts.


----------



## Der Pilger

Kauffeld said:


> What about the following:
> 
> * Playing a sport
> * Playing a leisurely game of chess
> * Going to a concert of classical music
> 
> 
> Assuming all these activities are done merely for entertainment/recreation, do they help you glorify God? If so, how? When Christians do them, are they laying down their cross instead of taking it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Playing sports for exercise possibly have a little redeeming value. Though sports such as boxing and football do not conform to the sixth commandment due to the nature of the sport. It's abuse of the body in ways God does not intend.
Click to expand...


So let's say you are playing baseball with some friends for recreation. No abuse of the body there. Would that help you glorify God? If so, how?



> Playing Chess and going to a classical music concert? Those things would be wrong if they were indulged in, i.e. To purposefully desire absence of Christ through personal diversions is a sign of the sinfulness and hardness of our hearts.


 
Yes, but like I said, "Assuming all these activities are done merely for entertainment/recreation," do they help you glorify God? If so, how?


----------



## christianhope

> Josh,
> It's been mentioned a couple times now, and I don't think you've addressed it. Actors are not deceiving. People who watch movies are not being deceived into thinking that they are viewing a real slice of life. The audience knows they are acting, so how is that deception???



Danial, my apologies, I don't mean to evade the question and I'm glad you brought it up. First, actors are not intentionally deceiving, but that does not make what they are doing right. For instance, I would ask you straight up: "Is it ever right for a man to pretend to pray?" (Even though they are just "acting?") "Is it ever right for a man to 'pretend' to kiss another man's wife?" Please address this, because this is the heart of the issue for me.


----------



## TexanRose

I'm with Josh on this one. I don't see how it's okay to pretend to sin. And I can't think of a movie I watched, back in the day when I watched movies, in which an actor wasn't acting a sin. Even in "good" movies which condemn evil, there is usually a "bad guy" pretending to sin. As I tell my kids, "If it's not okay to do it, it's not okay to pretend to do it."

I'm convinced that the early church and the Puritans all condemned acting and the theater. I'm comforted to know that my church and family and I are not alone in our views, and that we have the weight of church history and Godly tradition behind us.

A lot of people think that they will be just miserable if they don't condone acting. They think that life would be drudgery without their favorite TV shows or movies. But it doesn't have to be that way! Life can be very rich and full without Hollywood. 

I think that TV desensitized me to the vileness of blasphemy. I always knew that it was wrong to use the Lord's name in vain, but now that I don't voluntarily place myself in a position to hear it as often, I cringe a little more when I do hear it. 

I knew a girl who managed to correct co-workers using the Lord's name in vain in a good-natured sort of way. She would just say "Hey! Language!" People would look at her strangely but were usually able to figure out, based on the context, what language she was objecting to. After a while some of the most habitual blasphemers learned to clean up their language when they were around her, and would say "Oops, sorry," when they let something slip. She was well-liked despite her scruples.


----------



## Der Pilger

Kauffeld said:


> Josh,
> It's been mentioned a couple times now, and I don't think you've addressed it. Actors are not deceiving. People who watch movies are not being deceived into thinking that they are viewing a real slice of life. The audience knows they are acting, so how is that deception???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danial, my apologies, I don't mean to evade the question and I'm glad you brought it up. First, actors are not intentionally deceiving, but that does not make what they are doing right. For instance, I would ask you straight up: "Is it ever right for a man to pretend to pray?" (Even though they are just "acting?") "Is it ever right for a man to 'pretend' to kiss another man's wife?" Please address this, because this is the heart of the issue for me.
Click to expand...

 
That's just it: Pretending is not the same as deceiving. It's role-playing, and that is not deliberate, calculated deception of another person. It's pretending for a purpose other than deception. That's why I don't think your argument works. You are narrowly defining all pretending as deception. If that were true, then when children play "make-believe" and pretend with each other, they are committing sin.

Edit: I'd say that the second example--pretending to kiss another man's wife--is wrong. It's not the pretending itself that is wrong, though, but rather the displaying of a sinful act, doing which could legitimize it in the eyes of others.


----------



## christianhope

Jeremy, thanks for your thought provoking questions, I will try to answer them.



> So let's say you are playing baseball with some friends for recreation. No abuse of the body there. Would that help you glorify God? If so, how?



I would distinguish 'recreation' in the following sense: If those actions can be performed in a spirit of submission and desire for Christ, then I would say they are good and glorifying to God. But if they are performed with a desire to forget about Him they are wrong, also, if those activities are not necessary, yet, they tend to take your mind off of God, then they should not be performed and would in those cases be sin. Further, sports played on a professional level are a source of much sin and should not be participated in by christians. (Due to the idolatry and vanity these professions promote) 



> Yes, but like I said, "Assuming all these activities are done merely for entertainment/recreation," do they help you glorify God? If so, how?



If performing those activities merely for entertainment, yes, I would say that is sin. Consider how mere entertainment and recreation is contrary to: Pro 23:17 Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the LORD all the day long. Also, this mindset of entertainment is contrary to: 

1Pe 1:17-19
(17) And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, *pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:*
(18) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
(19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

To me the idea of 'entertainment' in and for itself, just does not fit with the Word of God. Consider what the scripture teaches concerning the raising of our children as well: 

Deu 6:6-9
(6) And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
(7) And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
(8) And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
(9) And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Above we are shown that 'whatever we do' we are to be instructing our children in the things of God. If I can play chess with this mindset and end, to teach my child to fear the Lord, discussing the things of God over such a game, then I think that is a legitimate use and in conformity to Duet 6:6-9. Yet, that command is not just in the case of fathers and their children, but also in everything, 1 Cor 10:31 "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Christians today have strayed far from this mark, and I would hope to see a reformation in the way the visible church fears the Lord and seeks His glory in everything they do. 

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?


----------



## Tripel

Kauffeld said:


> I would ask you straight up: "Is it ever right for a man to pretend to pray?" (Even though they are just "acting?") "Is it ever right for a man to 'pretend' to kiss another man's wife?" Please address this, because this is the heart of the issue for me.


 
Pretending to pray? Not a problem. 
Kissing another man's wife? I'm not sure. I've thought about this issue a great deal in the past, but I haven't come to a conclusion. I'm probably leaning more towards it being a sin. 

But why, exactly, is it a sin for me to watch other people portraying sin? Is it worse for me to watch people "pretending" to sin rather than actually sinning, as they do in everyday life?


----------



## christianhope

> That's just it: Pretending is not the same as deceiving. It's role-playing, and that is not deliberate, calculated deception of another person. It's pretending for a purpose other than deception. That's why I don't think your argument works. You are narrowly defining all pretending as deception. If that were true, then when children play "make-believe" and pretend with each other, they are committing sin.



Jeremy, it's good to hear your thoughts, but I do not agree, I will try to explain my position more clearly so you can better judge for yourself.

Just because children pretend and 'make believe' doesn't justify stage acting. Christ condemned it in the New Testament during His time, (Matt 7:5) neither should the example of adults be taken from foolish children's folly. The bible is full of examples of the 'sins of youth' Job 20:11 His bones are full of the sin of his youth... Psa 25:7 Remember not the sins of my youth... Pretending for the purpose of instruction in glorifying God is good, for example, in giving instruction to children, but to pretend merely for the sake of entertainment, especially in such blasphemous cases as actor's 'pretending to pray' is a great sin in the sight of God and promotes lightness and hardness of heart in His people. The pretending of children is obviously a very light fault, though I do not think it is right. The proper training of children in more christian ages than ours was to inhibit such folly and to train the mind, not to promote such childish vanities, but to harness and equip them for the glory of God. 

Also, the argument of 'calculated deception' alone being the only type of pretending that breaks the 9th commandment is not true. It is certainly true that calculated deception is far worse, but pretending for the sake of entertainment is vanity and sin and contrary to the christian charter of the glory of God. I do not hold that 'all pretending' is wrong, for example, pretending in giving instruction to my children concerning the things of God would be an example of right use, but the movie industry, never uses it for this end. Movies today, even supposedly 'good christian films' are generally rife with instances of sinful forms of pretending. Therefore it is not right for christians to watch movies for the sake of entertainment and recreation. Are there not better way to spend our time? Are we not commanded to rather 'redeem the time? (Eph 5:16)' instead of wasting it on light sin and vanity?


----------



## Der Pilger

Kauffeld said:


> Jeremy, thanks for your thought provoking questions, I will try to answer them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's say you are playing baseball with some friends for recreation. No abuse of the body there. Would that help you glorify God? If so, how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would distinguish 'recreation' in the following sense: If those actions can be performed in a spirit of submission and desire for Christ, then I would say they are good and glorifying to God.
Click to expand...


Okay, so that leads to yet another question: How can I play baseball or chess "in a spirit of submission and desire for Christ"? Chess and baseball in and of themselves do not glorify God, at least not in any way that I can see, so how can I play them with an ongoing, consistent mindset of submitting to Christ? How am I to submit to Christ when I move the pawn two spaces forward? When my knight captures a pawn, how do I do that in a spirit of submission and desire for Christ? I'm not disagreeing with you; I am genuinely curious about this.



> But if they are performed with a desire to forget about Him they are wrong, also, if those activities are not necessary, yet, they tend to take your mind off of God, then they should not be performed and would in those cases be sin.



Thanks for your answer. I agree that everything should be done for Christ. The problem with your answer, as I see it, is your criterion that the activity not get your mind off of God. That means that you have to maintain a consciousness of God *every single minute* that you are playing it. Otherwise, your mind is being taken off of God, which you say is what should be avoided. But do we really have a non-stop consciousness of God when we engage in such amoral activities as baseball, chess, or a classical-music concert? 



> Yes, but like I said, "Assuming all these activities are done merely for entertainment/recreation," do they help you glorify God? If so, how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If performing those activities merely for entertainment, yes, I would say that is sin. Consider how mere entertainment and recreation is contrary to: Pro 23:17 Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the LORD all the day long. Also, this mindset of entertainment is contrary to:
> 
> 1Pe 1:17-19
> (17) And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, *pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:*
> (18) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
> (19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Click to expand...


I don't see how entertainment is contrary to the fear of God unless it is explicitly upholding something sinful. I don't see how playing baseball or chess, for example, keeps me from fearing God as long as they are not done with a sinful motive.



> To me the idea of 'entertainment' in and for itself, just does not fit with the Word of God. Consider what the scripture teaches concerning the raising of our children as well:
> 
> Deu 6:6-9
> (6) And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
> (7) And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
> (8) And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
> (9) And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
> 
> Above we are shown that 'whatever we do' we are to be instructing our children in the things of God.



I'm not 100% sure that the intent of the text is that we should be instructing our children in the word of God in *every *activity. I think the point of the passage is that instructing our children in the truth should be so central to our lives that it happens every day, throughout the day. That, however, does not have to mean that the instruction takes place in every single activity without exception. I could be wrong about this, but it seems like you are taking that text beyond its intention.



> Christians today have strayed far from this mark, and I would hope to see a reformation in the way the visible church fears the Lord and seeks His glory in everything they do.



I agree that Christendom in general needs to strive more for a lifestyle in which all is done for God's glory.


----------



## captivewill

I believe the standard should be exactly the same criteria as for other folks who are in your presence.
For myself, when the Name of God or Jesus is blasphemed the show is off immediately.


----------



## Philip

> I'm with Josh on this one. I don't see how it's okay to pretend to sin. And I can't think of a movie I watched, back in the day when I watched movies, in which an actor wasn't acting a sin. Even in "good" movies which condemn evil, there is usually a "bad guy" pretending to sin. As I tell my kids, "If it's not okay to do it, it's not okay to pretend to do it."



What about writing it into a book? Shouldn't the same principle apply, since in writing a villain, one has to, at least partly, try to get inside him/her and write realistically?



> I'm convinced that the early church and the Puritans all condemned acting and the theater.



The early church condemned theatre because in the ancient world, plays were always staged as part of the festival of Dionysius and so over time, the church came to condemn acting _persay_ even when the festival had died away. The Puritans condemned it as a waste of time and money. Frankly they didn't have much use for fiction and art either, on the same grounds.



> Consider how mere entertainment and recreation is contrary to: Pro 23:17 Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the LORD all the day long.



Josh, I appreciate your zeal for keeping time under God's jurisdiction, but you really do miss the point. The point is not whether this or that activity is a waste of time, but whether I can do it to God's glory. Can a man enjoy relations with his wife to the glory of God? Absolutely! Can a man light a cigar or have a glass of wine to the glory of God? Sure. Can these things distract? Yes---any good thing can be a distraction. I can even distract myself from thinking about God while reading the Bible (believe me, I end up doing it all the time). So it isn't about the act, or even the immediate motivation, but about the spirit in which you act. The question is "Am I glorifying God in my work, my recreation, my eating, my drinking, my reading (even of non-Christian works), my study?"

Can I enjoy an activity for its own sake and still glorify God? Yes, because in enjoying something for its own sake, I am enjoying the one who gave it.



> Playing Chess and going to a classical music concert? Those things would be wrong if they were indulged in, i.e. To purposefully desire absence of Christ through personal diversions is a sign of the sinfulness and hardness of our hearts.



To me, indulging in something means feeding a desire that you have, but it doesn't necessarily mean distracting oneself from Christ. I can meditate on Christ at a classical music concert just as I can distract myself from him during a sermon. The problem is your heart. There's nothing wrong, though, with getting caught up in the music of a concert or the complexities of a game of chess so long as I do it in a spirit that glorifies God through my enjoyment of His gifts.


----------



## Der Pilger

Kauffeld said:


> That's just it: Pretending is not the same as deceiving. It's role-playing, and that is not deliberate, calculated deception of another person. It's pretending for a purpose other than deception. That's why I don't think your argument works. You are narrowly defining all pretending as deception. If that were true, then when children play "make-believe" and pretend with each other, they are committing sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy, it's good to hear your thoughts, but I do not agree, I will try to explain my position more clearly so you can better judge for yourself.
> 
> Just because children pretend and 'make believe' doesn't justify stage acting. Christ condemned it in the New Testament during His time, (Matt 7:5)
Click to expand...


I know you discussed this earlier, but please show how this verse indicates that Christ specifically condemned stage acting.



> neither should the example of adults be taken from foolish children's folly.



I agree---provided it is, in fact, "foolish children's folly." Your answer assumes that pretending is wrong, but that is the very issue that is in question. 



> Also, the argument of 'calculated deception' alone being the only type of pretending that breaks the 9th commandment is not true.



Do you have a biblical basis for placing stage acting in the category of bearing false witness?


----------



## TexanRose

> I'm convinced that the early church and the Puritans all condemned acting and the theater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The early church condemned theatre because in the ancient world, plays were always staged as part of the festival of Dionysius and so over time, the church came to condemn acting _persay_ even when the festival had died away. The Puritans condemned it as a waste of time and money. Frankly they didn't have much use for fiction and art either, on the same grounds.
Click to expand...


So are you saying that the early church fathers were wrong to condemn acting itself? I've read some of what the early church fathers had to say on the subject--here's a link:
C. Dodgson, Tertullian Vol. 1. Apologetic and Practical Treatises. (1842). pp.187-219.  De Spectaculis.
and I thought the arguments against acting _per se_ were quite good.

I'm not sure if I agree with your interpretation of the Puritans' reasons for condemning the theater. Do you have links (or a book to recommend, or whatever) that show that they condemned it merely for reasons of time and money?

I would love to be able to emulate the piety of the Puritans, so if they rejected the theater, I would be inclined to follow in their footsteps as a default position. I wouldn't watch movies again unless someone could convince me that there is substantial good to be found in them (and to be honest, I can't see that happening). 

Here's another recent thread on the topic:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f64/acting-profession-compatible-godliness-60049/


----------



## Philip

> I would love to be able to emulate the piety of the Puritans, so if they rejected the theater, I would be inclined to follow in their footsteps as a default position.



Whereas I look at Scripture and ask, can I deduce "Theatre and acting are inherently wrong" as a good and necessary consequence from Scripture? The Puritans were no more or less holy than we are today. I love and respect the Puritans, but I also find myself respectfully disagreeing on various points and this happens to be one of them.



> I wouldn't watch movies again unless someone could convince me that there is substantial good to be found in them



What kind of "good" are we talking? Aesthetic? Artistic? Moral? Realistic?

Let me illustrate how your question is a bit unfair: if I were, say, to believe that painting was wrong and said, "I wouldn't go to the art gallery again unless someone could convince me that there was substantial good to be found in painting", I would be assuming that there is something inherently flawed about the medium---that somehow it inhibits goodness, truth, and beauty.


----------



## TexanRose

P. F. Pugh said:


> I would love to be able to emulate the piety of the Puritans, so if they rejected the theater, I would be inclined to follow in their footsteps as a default position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas I look at Scripture and ask, can I deduce "Theatre and acting are inherently wrong" as a good and necessary consequence from Scripture? The Puritans were no more or less holy than we are today. I love and respect the Puritans, but I also find myself respectfully disagreeing on various points and this happens to be one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't watch movies again unless someone could convince me that there is substantial good to be found in them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of "good" are we talking? Aesthetic? Artistic? Moral? Realistic?
> 
> Let me illustrate how your question is a bit unfair: if I were, say, to believe that painting was wrong and said, "I wouldn't go to the art gallery again unless someone could convince me that there was substantial good to be found in painting", I would be assuming that there is something inherently flawed about the medium---that somehow it inhibits goodness, truth, and beauty.
Click to expand...

 
The Puritans were more holy than I am. I want to emulate those who are more holy than I am. 

Not being a Bible scholar, I can't make a logical argument from Scripture against acting (I don't think I need to, as others have done it for me), but I personally *feel* that acting is inconsistent with the spirit of Scripture. So I don't see a need to argue with the Puritans on this one. I trust that the Puritans and early church fathers condemned acting based on their understanding of the Word of God.

By good, I mean, will I walk more closely with Christ by watching this? I think some art can help me walk more closely with Christ, for instance, if it helps me to see the beauty of God's creation in a new light. Racing to the end of the street and back with my five-year-old helps me walk more closely with Christ as it refreshes me physically and clears my mind, and gives me an opportunity to teach Godly character traits to my son. I don't see movies as helping me to walk more closely with Christ.

Edit:
I guess I'm making two separate arguments: 
1. Acting is wrong
2. There isn't anything substantially good in movies/TV, anyway
But 2 would follow from 1--if acting is wrong, then we can hardly expect to find good in movies. 

Looking at your painting analogy, Philip, the "medium" in this case would be filmmaking, the "content" would be the acting. I doubt anyone who condemns acting would say that filmmaking, per se, is wrong. The Planet Earth series is, in my opinion, an excellent example of filmmaking--without acting--that glorifies God (though the glory of God may not have been the motivation of the filmmakers).


----------



## christianhope

> Pretending to pray? Not a problem.
> Kissing another man's wife? I'm not sure. I've thought about this issue a great deal in the past, but I haven't come to a conclusion. I'm probably leaning more towards it being a sin.
> 
> But why, exactly, is it a sin for me to watch other people portraying sin? Is it worse for me to watch people "pretending" to sin rather than actually sinning, as they do in everyday life?



Daniel, concerning pretending to pray, can you imagine a King like Ahasuerus, who reigned over 120 provinces in the book of Esther, and at whose word a man would be killed instantly. Esther was so afraid to go into his presence that she fasted for three days without food or water, then went in with prayer, faith and hope that she would not be killed. Such a terrifying king, such kings Solomon gave instructions concerning that you wouldn't even think or speak against such in your own bedroom (Ecc 10:20), just in case someone might hear of it. Now, imagine such a king, and how easily someone could deserve death by esteeming him so lightly as to treat him without fear. Perhaps by pretending to supplicate to him for entertainment sake. I'd reckon no one would dare to do so before such a king, for if that king heard it, he would command their death. How much more should we not treat the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Who is a far greater king, and who is able to divide between the joints and marrow, discerning the very thoughts and intents of the heart? I think your presumption is very high, and the fear of God too low when we think to presume to say that it is not a sin to 'pretend to pray' - an earthly king would kill you for such an offense as an indignity upon his honor. Yet our God is higher than this. Consider Ecc 5:2 below, if I am to be careful concerning anything I say in prayer to God, how does pretended prayer conform itself to the biblical admonition? It doesn't.

Ecc 5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth

Lastly, the reason it's sin for you to watch someone pretending to pray is not that you're seeing sin, as if it were an accident, but because you're sitting down in front of it to be entertained. To that degree then you are giving approval of the sins of others. 

Even the sins of others we are commanded to turn away our eyes from:

Psa 119:37 Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way. 

But instead of this, many christians are turning their eyes 'towards' vanity for the purpose of their own desires for entertainment. 

The Word of God teaches us that this is wrong.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------




> I know you discussed this earlier, but please show how this verse indicates that Christ specifically condemned stage acting.



Jeremy, I will try to explain, part of this is a re-hash from a prior post: First it is known the greek culture during the time of Christ had a very great bent towards the theatre, therefore when I read Christ's words in Matthew 7:5 "Thou Hypocrite (Literally 'stage actor' in greek)" - I can know that Christ was using that term pejoratively, as if Christ were to say "You prostitute!" Or "You blasphemer!" Of course I believe the primary intent of Christ was to point out the sin of the pharisees who were living a double life, yet, this term is very clearly pejorative in nature and therefore, instructive for His people that He does not approve of stage acting. Think, if Christ said "thou prostitute" in stead of 'stage actor' that wouldn't mean that he thought prostitution was ok, that's why he used the term! Such is the case with the use of the term 'hypocrite' the historical context and usage implies this to be the case. 



> Do you have a biblical basis for placing stage acting in the category of bearing false witness?



It falls under the 9th commandment by default, due to the nature of it, i.e. it's wrong to pretend to do evil etc. Certainly when Christ called the Pharisees 'stage actors' He implied a breaking of the 9th commandment. It seems reasonable to me at least.


----------



## Philip

> 1. Acting is wrong



I have yet to see a good argument for this: it is not in clear violation of the 9th commandment (ethical puzzles such as Orson Welles' _War of the Worlds_ aside) and the one negative reference in the Scripture is the kind of thing that anyone today might say, without meaning anything negative about the acting profession.



> 2. There isn't anything substantially good in movies/TV, anyway



You are making a generalization.



> The Planet Earth series is, in my opinion, an excellent example of filmmaking--without acting--that glorifies God



Without acting, you say? First of all, narration is a kind of acting---it's a performance. Second, are you aware of how much even documentaries like _Planet Earth_ are contrived? I don't mean simple opinions, but even showing only what the filmmaker wants you to see. Angles, camera positioning, editing, and the like are used to give you a particular point of view.



> It falls under the 9th commandment by default, due to the nature of it, i.e. it's wrong to pretend to do evil etc.



So espionage and all activities connected with it are wrong, correct, since they involve deceit? If that is so, then all involvement with the US military and diplomatic services is wrong, because both rely heavily on espionage.


----------



## christianhope

> So espionage and all activities connected with it are wrong, correct, since they involve deceit? If that is so, then all involvement with the US military and diplomatic services is wrong, because both rely heavily on espionage.



Philip, no, espionage is an act of war and is certainly in a different catagory then entertainment. 

Thought I would add a note, war and espionage are tools of the civil magistrate. Example: It would never be right for me to declare war for the USA, unless I were in that office of authority to do so. Therefore to try and use such an example to justify watching movies is non-sensical. 

Respectfully,


----------



## Philip

Kauffeld said:


> So espionage and all activities connected with it are wrong, correct, since they involve deceit? If that is so, then all involvement with the US military and diplomatic services is wrong, because both rely heavily on espionage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip, espionage is an act of war and is certainly in a different catagory then entertainment. This is simply a red herring. Respectfully,
Click to expand...

 
How about in time of peace? If we are going to define the ninth commandment so broadly as to include acting, then espionage would seem to be a much more blatant violation.

Now, with regard to acting: I have a friend with whom I share the hobby of swordfighting. We have created several well-balanced practice longswords which we use to train. Now, when we train, I step into the role of someone who is trying to kill him and he steps into the role of someone trying to kill me. Since no modern warfare scenario would ever include longsword fighting, we obviously do it for recreation---is this, according to your criteria, sinful? If not, how is this different from doing it on a stage or in front of a camera (oh wait, sometimes we do).


----------



## christianhope

> How about in time of peace? If we are going to define the ninth commandment so broadly as to include acting, then espionage would seem to be a much more blatant violation.



The role of the civil magistrate is a distinct aspect of "God's minister of justice" (Rom 13) I'm sure espianage in the current U.S regime is sinful because the US is not defending the cause of truth. But under a reformed christian magistrate war may be waged and espianage would be lawful in such cases. 

Psa 119:96 I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad. (i.e. there is nothing that does not fall under God's commands in all of life)



> Now, with regard to acting: I have a friend with whom I share the hobby of swordfighting. We have created several well-balanced practice longswords which we use to train. Now, when we train, I step into the role of someone who is trying to kill him and he steps into the role of someone trying to kill me. Since no modern warfare scenario would ever include longsword fighting, we obviously do it for recreation---is this, according to your criteria, sinful? If not, how is this different from doing it on a stage or in front of a camera (oh wait, sometimes we do).



It is in violation of the 6th commandment due to the nature of such practice. I would say your body is not your own and you should choose to glorify God with it instead of placing yourself in dangerous situations. Regarding the ninth commandment if you truly are seeking to kill your friend in a 'acting' sort of way, I would think this certainly violates the ninth commandment as well.


----------



## Philip

> The role of the civil magistrate is a distinct aspect of "God's minister of justice" (Rom 13) I'm sure espianage in the current U.S regime is sinful because the US is not defending the cause of truth.



So you would view any involvement with the United States military or diplomatic services as being sinful then?



> It is in violation of the 6th commandment due to the nature of such practice. I would say your body is not your own and you should choose to glorify God with it instead of placing yourself in dangerous situations.



In other words, physical training of a martial nature is sinful.



> there is nothing that does not fall under God's commands in all of life



Are you saying that if it is not commanded, it is forbidden?


----------



## KMK

Can anyone objectively define what 'cursing' is?


----------



## kvanlaan

So pretending to kiss another man's wife is wrong, correct? I agree, certainly. But then *surely* taking the Lord's name in vain is wrong, no? Whether it is just in an actors lines or not, *it is still sin* - the confessions are very clear on it! Why this does not elicit a simple head nod is beyond me; we are all believers who, by their presence in this discussion subscribe to particular confessions, and thus agree with them. For those arguing that blasphemy in movies/TV is OK, how do you reconcile this? Some take exception to parts of the WCF, but surely no one would take an exception to the third commandment, would they?


----------



## Andres

kvanlaan said:


> So pretending to kiss another man's wife is wrong, correct? I agree, certainly. But then *surely* taking the Lord's name in vain is wrong, no? Whether it is just in an actors lines or not, *it is still sin* - the confessions are very clear on it! Why this does not elicit a simple head nod is beyond me; we are all believers who, by their presence in this discussion subscribe to particular confessions, and thus agree with them. For those arguing that blasphemy in movies/TV is OK, how do you reconcile this? Some take exception to parts of the WCF, but surely no one would take an exception to the fourth commandment, would they?


 
Do you mean the 3rd commandment?


----------



## kvanlaan

Yes, not sure why I got that stuck in my head - I did it earlier in the post and corrected it once I saw the preview but I guess it didn't take...

BUT don't take the Sabbath lightly either!

PS - fixed it!


----------



## Caroline

kvanlaan said:


> I don't think I would concede Andrew's idea that we must take a stand against people who use the name of the Lord in vain in the entertainment industry. I think that falls under the category of judging those outside the church (I Cor 5, which was mentioned on another thread). Leave it to God to judge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not talking about judging them, we are talking about not consuming these things in the name of entertainment. There is no upside to this - simply letting it wash over us and sit passively by is to denigrate God's holy name. If we do not honor it with even a peep when it is blasphemed, what then does the third commandment mean to us? What does it mean to be a beacon on a hill in this regard? Salt of the earth? (I can see this as very much being an example of us being trampled into the soil and having no flavor). It is our passivity in this which has lead to His name being a cuss word. Shame on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not Messiahs, and we cannot set everything in the whole world right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So neither should we protest or try to change abortion? What makes the sixth commandment more important than the fourth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not condoning it--but a simple admission that God is God and we are not. Not only the entertainment industry, but all creation groans (Rom 8). To toss out an entire movie because of one word is a little bizarre. If your math instructor uses the name of the Lord in vain, that is regrettable, but it doesn't mean that you can't learn calculus from her, nor that you are called upon to stand up in front of the class and shout her down. And I think most people would even agree with me on this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said anything about shouting her down. How is it possible to shout someone down in love? But to politely ask that she not blaspheme the name of our Lord and Saviour? Where is the issue with that? It is no more than we should do.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tendency to categorize something differently because it is 'entertainment', as in 'well, it is only entertainment. We must have a tire fixed or learn math, but you don't really need entertainment'. I guess I don't see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So give some reasons for it, based on Scripture. Opinions do not constitute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure everyone here is getting sick of my UPCI stories, but I'm afraid I must drag yet another one out to make my point. In the UPCI, no one is allowed to watch TV or go to movies. The books that you can read are highly restricted also. In many churches, sports are not allowed. And much of this same justification is used for it--well, these things could be displeasing to God. How do you know if you sit down to watch a movie that someone won't utter a swear word? And if they do, how do you know that it won't sink into your heart and contaminate you? Are you willing to risk going to hell for two hours of entertainment? Wouldn't this time be better spent reading the Bible, praying, speaking in tongues, or cleaning the pastor's house?
> 
> The result of this, however, is what is known in cult studies as 'milieu control'. The person at the top (or the organization) controls the information that you have access to. You are not allowed to read, see, or study anything that is not in agreement with the group. Ignorance is a powerful weapon, and it has damned many a soul. When you are kept in an environment that bombards you constantly with a certain viewpoint (that the Trinity does not exist, for example), and then prevents you from being able to read anything that opposes this viewpoint (because it is 'blasphemous' and/or displeasing to the Lord), then how can you evaluate it properly? Entertainment is not always merely 'entertainment'. Books and movies and songs often convey powerful messages. They may be good messages or bad messages, but they are not indifferent, and cults know this, and that is why they suppress them. Of course, not everything is equally powerful or meaningful, and there are some books that I have read and thought, "Well, there's a few hours of my life that I will never get back." But still, that's not to say that all books are meaningless, even novels.
> 
> I don't think that merely because this is the case means that every Christian is obligated to watch or read or listen to a variety of material, and if they are not edified by it, then they should find things more helpful to them. However, I would go so far as to say that an attitude that these thing MUST not be watched/read/etc is, in my opinion, not a sign of strength but of weakness. If someone's God cannot stand up to Star Wars, then He is no God. If He can't maintain someone's salvation as they watch Spongebob, then He is too weak to save. And that is my conclusion with the UPCI. Yes, they were right about one thing--when I began to read and watch and think, I 'fell away'. Because that's what people do when they realize something is a lie.
> 
> The idea then of placing all kinds of restrictions--'must not watch', 'must not read', 'this might offend God', 'this might send me to hell' seems foolhardy, a return to milieu control. If I thought those restrictions were necessary to maintain my faith (and I do not, so don't panic here), then I would take a good hard look at whether my faith was worth maintaining. As the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When God Himself asks us not to blaspheme, when what we confess gives us the same direction (and more, in that we must oppose it), is that 'milieu control'? Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God's decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable
> 
> Questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
> 
> Question 114: What reasons are annexed to the third commandment?
> 
> Answer: The reasons annexed to the third commandment, in these words, The Lord thy God, and, For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain, are, because he is the Lord and our God, therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused by us; especially because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment, albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
I am sorry that you have so mistaken what I said. Please read it again, and perhaps it will become clear to you. Or you can ask questions, if you like. But you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said that taking the name of the Lord in vain was not wrong. Just that it doesn't invalidate everything in its environment. Certainly, there may be some cause for starting an awareness campaign that taking the name of the Lord in vain is not an appropriate thing to do. As I previously noted, most people don't realize this--even Christians. However, one cannot be responsible for correcting all wrongs everywhere. In fact, I do not demonstrate against abortion, although I am glad some people do. I am otherwise occupied with work with ex-cultists and caring for my family and being disabled, and I simply do not have the time and energy. We are limited in what we can do. Does anyone here go to Catholic churches to ask them to remove their statues because it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment? If your mother had a statue of Mary in her house, would you feel compelled to mention it every time you saw it? We can't right all wrongs everywhere. God is sovereign. We are not. Moreover, some sins are more heinous than others. If you saw a doctor about to murder an unborn infant and he said a curse word as he did it, which action would you be more concerned with stopping?

Milieu control is not a reference to stopping people from blaspheming. It is the implantation of a fear of being exposed to sin (not a fear of sinning, but merely being exposed to it). It confuses mere observation of sin with sin. And the fear prevents objective evaluation and learning, because it teaches people to completely disregard everything that does not conform to their expectations, rather than evaluating what it is really saying. It is the equivalent of rejecting an entire semester of teaching on calculus because the teacher took the name of the Lord in vain the first day. Or, in extremes, it leads people to not take a calculus class at all if the teacher is not a Christian because who knows if she might take the name of the Lord in vain. Or, in this context, rejecting all movies or books that contain any 'blasphemous' words, regardless of the context, overall point, or things that could have been learned from them.

I have said it before, but I will say it again here because this conversation is really weird. THE BIBLE HAS KILLINGS AND IMMORAL SEX IN IT. It really does. If you make an argument, "You cannot read or watch anything that contains a story or situation in which someone violates a commandment", THEN TAKE THE BIBLE OFF YOUR READING LIST. If you think God doesn't want you to ever hear about someone breaking one of the Ten Commandments because it is improper to even think about, the TAKE THE BIBLE OFF YOUR READING LIST. 

Of course, this is silly. No one is going to stop reading the Bible. So where is the problem with reading or watching other things in which people don't keep commandments either? One could make an argument that it should not ENCOURAGE such breaking of commandments. or that these things shouldn't be dwelt on excessively. But to say that these things must be entirely absent is not logically defensible.

Edited to add: One thing that might make the 'milieu control' thing more understandable... Here's a thought ... why stop with entertainment? If it is not appropriate for you to hear the name of the Lord taken in vain in movies, then ... well, people do that on the internet also. Sometimes in ads, so that it doesn't matter if you are on a 'bad' site--something still might pop up, just as it might in a movie. Or an ad that makes you lust. So you shouldn't go on the internet. You have to keep your heart pure. And newspapers are out, too. They often contain stories about adultery or murder or they might quote people who take the name of the Lord in vain, and you should only think on pure things. Isn't the Bible enough for you? Can't you get everything you need there? You probably shouldn't read theology either, unless it is theology written by someone in our church, because otherwise you might be led astray. Hillary Swinklebocker read theology by someone who didn't go to this church, and now she left the church, and she's going to hell. Be warned.

Do you see where this going? That's milieu control.


----------



## kvanlaan

Actually, I don't see my comments as a misrepresentation of what you said at all. I am well aware that you are not saying that taking the Lord's name in vain is a good thing to do. My disagreement comes in that IF we hear it in entertainment that we are 'enjoying' and do nothing, that is wrong. Again:



> Question 100. Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing?
> 
> Answer: It undoubtedly is, (a) for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death. (b)
> 
> (a) Prov.29:24 Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not. Lev.5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. (b) Lev.24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. Lev.24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.



I am not even talking about protesting it openly on the street corner, I am merely saying that we should turn it off. Is that too much? In the OT it carried the death penalty, but for us to merely turn ourselves from watching it as entertainment, that is too much? I simply cannot fathom this response.



> We are limited in what we can do. Does anyone here go to Catholic churches to ask them to remove their statues because it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment? If your mother had a statue of Mary in her house, would you feel compelled to mention it every time you saw it? We can't right all wrongs everywhere. God is sovereign. We are not. Moreover, some sins are more heinous than others. If you saw a doctor about to murder an unborn infant and he said a curse word as he did it, which action would you be more concerned with stopping?



No, we do not. We already know that the RCC disregards the 2nd commandment, has for centuries. But if my mother professed to be a Reformed Christian and had a statue of Christ in her home, I would certainly make an issue of it, and ask her to put it away before I came over. Even if it was an RC acquaintance, I may go once, but if asked what I thought of the statues, would give scripture's opinion freely, and would not go back there. Every time. As far as the doctor goes, he is an instrument of Satan here on earth. Is it out of character for him to produce bad fruit in all that he does? I would of course stop the murder but likewise castigate him for his use of my Lord's name. 



> I have said it before, but I will say it again here because this conversation is really weird. THE BIBLE HAS KILLINGS AND IMMORAL SEX IN IT. It really does. If you make an argument, "You cannot read or watch anything that contains a story or situation in which someone violates a commandment", THEN TAKE THE BIBLE OFF YOUR READING LIST. If you think God doesn't want you to ever hear about someone breaking one of the Ten Commandments because it is improper to even think about, the TAKE THE BIBLE OFF YOUR READING LIST.



This is a non sequitur. The Bible is God's Word. But when He Himself levels a death penalty for something and our culture has so disregarded His word as to make it a phrase for use at almost any surprising instance (I dropped an egg, oh my ***), then it is right and responsible not to take it into our bodies as entertainment.



> Edited to add: One thing that might make the 'milieu control' thing more understandable... Here's a thought ... why stop with entertainment? If it is not appropriate for you to hear the name of the Lord taken in vain in movies, then ... well, people do that on the internet also. Sometimes in ads, so that it doesn't matter if you are on a 'bad' site--something still might pop up, just as it might in a movie. Or an ad that makes you lust. So you shouldn't go on the internet. You have to keep your heart pure. And newspapers are out, too. They often contain stories about adultery or murder or they might quote people who take the name of the Lord in vain, and you should only think on pure things. Isn't the Bible enough for you? Can't you get everything you need there? You probably shouldn't read theology either, unless it is theology written by someone in our church, because otherwise you might be led astray. Hillary Swinklebocker read theology by someone who didn't go to this church, and now she left the church, and she's going to hell. Be warned.



Yes, on the internet also. I will not read the Yahoo! entertainment gossip column (mostly because it is trash anyway) but I simply will not partake of something called "Oh, my goodness!" in that what purile things celebrities are doing right now simply don't have the gravity or importance to justify using God's name in such a manner. This is not UPCI nonsense, it is simply living as we have already professed we will live.


----------



## christianhope

P. F. Pugh said:


> The role of the civil magistrate is a distinct aspect of "God's minister of justice" (Rom 13) I'm sure espianage in the current U.S regime is sinful because the US is not defending the cause of truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would view any involvement with the United States military or diplomatic services as being sinful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in the US Air Force for six years, when I came to understand the establishment principle I got out, being I could not serve in good conscience. I had made a false vow in swearing to uphold and defend a document that is against the establishment of the christian religion, I think that's wrong. Though, there were other reasons as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in violation of the 6th commandment due to the nature of such practice. I would say your body is not your own and you should choose to glorify God with it instead of placing yourself in dangerous situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, physical training of a martial nature is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a black belt in martial arts and I don't regret it. Training for self defense is not recreational swordplay, you can take martial arts and not run the risk of seriously injuring yourself. I used to do full contact sparring and boxing, I don't do those anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing that does not fall under God's commands in all of life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if it is not commanded, it is forbidden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that God's law applies to all of our life, everything we think, do, or say we will give an account of on the day of judgment. This implies God's close scrutiny of even our thoughts, all is laid bare before Him with whom we have to do. This has implications for all of our life obviously and we should examine all our ways, bringing them into conformity with God's Word. The Regulative Principle is God's Law concerning His worship which is distinct from the laws that govern all of our practical life.
> 
> Philip, it's not my desire to offend if you disagree with me, I'm just trying to be faithful to the Lord, I'm certainly not your judge, but we will both stand before Him one day.
> 
> Psa 26:2 Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart.
> 
> Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
> 
> Psa 119:96 I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
> 
> Jer 20:12 But, O LORD of hosts, that triest the righteous, and seest the reins and the heart
Click to expand...


----------



## dane_g87

If you cannot genuinely pray this prayer before watching something, then you're going to have to take up your cross, crucify those worldly desires, and follow Christ.

(Psalm 119:37) Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity
(Psalm 101:3) I will set no worthless thing before my eyes; I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not fasten its grip on me.

Also, consider these 7 things God hates. Why is it that almost every movie/TV show makes entertainment out of the very things God considers abominable? And how can one who claims to be a child of God and who loves God, go and therefore love to watch the very things He hates? If the movie involves anything as entertainment that opposes the nature and will of God, then you're going to have to give it up.

(Proverbs 6:16-18) There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
*1.* Haughty eyes; *2.* Lying tongues; *3.* Hands that shed innocent blood; *4.* Hearts that devise wicked plans; *5.* Feet that run rapidly to evil; *6.* False witnesses who utter lies; *7.* One who spreads strife among brothers.

Finally, I highly encourage you to watch the following videos by Pastor Tim Conway on this issue: 
- Should Christians watch the TV? (this isn't about not watching TV _period_; just the things which don't align with God's will)
- Do you watch the things God hates?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Great thread. This is something the Lord has moved me to give up all such entertainments.


----------



## KensingtonerRebbe

The Reformed creeds call upon us to speak out whenever the name of God is slandered...

Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 99:

Q.What is required in the third commandment?
A. We are not to blaspheme or to abuse the Name of God by cursing,perjury,or unnecessary oaths, _nor to share in such horrible sins by being silent bystanders_. Rather, we must use the holy Name of God only with fear and reverence, so that we may rightly confess Him, call upon Him, and praise Him in all our words and works.


----------

