Cursing and blasphemy in movies/tv

[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]

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)

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.

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]

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.

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]

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,

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[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.