Yuku free message boards

Y'all sound like I'm a eejit or idlelator or sumfin.

Maybe I missed something along the way, but Jesus used to hang with hookers. And the Bible is full of sex and violence. I've yet to got to a movie that portrays the kind of decadence and violence we find described in Scripture. When was the last time you went to a movie where the hero offered his daughters to be gang raped? Speaking of which, where did Moses learn how to write like that? Egypt, right? And what do we suppose he was reading there? Nice Christian allegories like Pilgrim's Progress? I think not.

Besides, since when do we have the obligation, let alone the right, to avoid exposing ourselves to the world and its sin (1 Cor. 5:9-10)? Separatism is itself a sin.

Frame makes a good distinction between "hearing" and "harkening." You can't properly interact with and respond to what you don't hear, and hearing doesn't imply harkening. For example, how do you tell a false prophet? You listen to him and evaluate him. You don't turn a deaf ear to him, or else you would never know if he were a false or a true prophet. We have an obligation to be in the world and to interact with it, and we have to learn how to reconcile that with our obligation not to obey it. We can't just pick one or the other.

Our obligation as believers is not to protect ourselves from the world -- that's God's job (John 17). Our obligation is to be in the world, engaging the world, saving the world. We need to avoid being seduced by the world as we do that, but under no circumstances are we to avoid the world itself.

I know of nothing in Scripture that would suggest that, as a rule, believers ought to avoid movies that portray "offensive" content. The only thing we need to avoid is movies that tempt or cause us to sin.

But even that general rule is not hard and fast. After all, we are always tempted to sin, whether we are in church or in a theater. The point is that we avoid temptation that we are not mature or strong enough to resist. Again, look at Jesus and the hookers. You know he was tempted to have sex with them (Heb. 4:15), and you know they must have offered to give him a freebie. I mean, the man was a god! Plus, he was a virgin. Talk about pent up! Nevertheless, he put himself in the position of being tempted -- but not beyond his ability to resist.

Now, if you can't go to a movie without lusting -- really lusting -- for the people on screen pretending having sex, then you shouldn't go. But if you're just offended, or embarrassed, or even a little interested, that's not evil. Are we to imagine that Jesus never saw an attractive woman and thought, "Wow"? He wasn't devoid of testosterone, after all. It's not recognizing beauty that is a sin; it's what you do with and about the thought that can be trouble.

And of course, this is all beside the point of entertainment. But if it isn't a sin to see it for the sake of knowing and interacting with the world, why should entertainment be any different? Unless, of course, someone wants to make an argument that entertainment is itself sinful.

Regarding WSC/WLC 1, glorifying God and enjoying him forever includes appreciating his creation and enjoying what he has provided for us, including entertainment, beauty, and what not. Even unbelievers can recognize truth in general revelation, and movies made by unbelievers often reflect these truths. For example, take any movie with a good guy who seeks vengeance against an evildoer. Granted, circumventing the law is generally unjust, but even Hollywood recognizes that evil deserves to be punished. And everyone in the audience recognizes this fact too, and longs for justice and vengeance, and there is a satisfaction when vengeance is completed because justice has been served as best as it can be. Its not perfect, but it reflects true longings and ideas largely drawn from general revelation. Insofar as movies help us understanding and feel truth, they are beneficial, even if they are contrived and do not present a Christian worldview.

Regarding Jesus and the hookers, Jesus sought the lost, i.e., he went looking for them, including hookers, etc. But whether he went to them or they came to him, the main point is that he kept their company. Therefore, keeping the company of prostitutes and sinners is not, in and of itself, sinful, even though it entails great temptation. Because some situations that involve great temptation are not sinful, we cannot condemn any situation as sinful merely on the basis that it presents us with strong temptation.

Quote:

---

Second, no, I have never seen a movie where a man offers his daughters up to gang rape. I don't have to. I've watched many MANY men sacrifice wives, children, family, etc. on the altar of their careers. And they weren't even trying to protect a stranger. You don't have to go to a movie to see this stuff going on. You can read teh newspaper. You can take a look at the real world around you.

---

I agree. But my point was not that you can get it elsewhere, but that it is not wrong to get it from movies and t.v. Because the Bible presents similar content, movies and t.v. are not to be condemned on the basis of sexual and violent content alone. You may determine that other factors involved in the presentation of sex and violence lead you to avoid a particular movie, but the fact that the content is sexual and violent is not sufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the movies condemnation. Otherwise, to be consistent, we would have to condemn Scripture as well.

Quote:

---

Also, all of scripture is instructive and placed by God for a reason, every single word. We are shown Lot offering up his daughters for a reason, perhaps several reasons. I don't think that you can have the same reliance on Hollywood to have your sanctification at heart out of divine and eternal love for the elect.

---

Again, I agree. But Scripture does not restrict us to taking in only information that is presented in such a way as to make direct and Scriptural application to our lives.

Quote:

---

"The point is that we avoid temptation that we are not mature or strong enough to resist." [Sorry, I don't know how to use all the technology.] I'm interested to see a reference in Holy Writ where this is said, as opposed to Paul, who says "FLEE." Not "come close to the line." Not "You who are stronger correct, because you can't fall." I have a significant problem with the logic and support for this statement.

---

Paul does not mean to run away from temptation. It is metaphoric language that contrasts with pursue (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11). In other words, dont commit the sins you are tempted to commit. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:14 he instructs his readers to flee idolatry. But in the same letter he also tells them that they can dine in idols temples and eat food that had been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8, 10). In this passage, at least, it is clear that his concept of flee did not include avoidance of contact. And in 2 Timothy 2:21-22, fleeing youthful lust does not mean avoiding situations that give rise to it, but rather cleansing oneself from lust through sanctification. And in 1 Corinthians 6, fleeing immorality means not sleeping with prostitutes, not avoiding their company altogether. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 5, he encouraged contact with sinful unbelievers and discouraged avoidance. In Ephesians 6, Paul used the imagery of standing firm rather than of fleeing. James, in turn, wrote, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you."

And to be fair, I never suggested that believers cant fall. We can, and that is why we need to use wisdom to avoid temptations that are too strong for us to overcome. I also never said that we ought to come close to the line. There is not line, only a continuum. Some temptations are stronger than others. Some we can bear for a little while, but no longer. Some we can bear at the time, but later we revisit and fall. But we cannot live our lives running from tempting situations all of life presents a temptation to sin. We avoid the ones that are too strong to bear, but we take the rest in stride. Im not suggesting we go to movies in order to test ourselves, but rather than we not refrain from going to movies on the basis that they present temptation. Jesus himself came to earth with the full intention of being tempted in every way that we are, meaning that he purposefully sought temptation of the strongest sort. Im not saying that it is wise for us to do the same thing, but I am saying that purposefully placing yourself in situations that you know will present temptation is not, in and of itself, sinful or wrong. Therefore, we cannot condemn movies merely on the basis that they present us with temptation.

Quote:

---

And, no, entertainments are not in and of themselves sinful. However, to quote one famous Reformed guy, do they "redeem the time?"

---

If we are refreshed or enlightened by them, if we see glimpses of Gods truth, feel compassion for our fellow man, reflect on justice and goodness, or do any number of other things that God does not condemn, then yes, they do redeem the time.

Quote:

---

Let me leave you with some thoughts. When you think about going to a movie, a particular movie, do you go with the thought that "this is going to glorify God by _________." Or "My ministry is going to be helped because ___________." Isn't that analysis part of the test? No, it isn't a death march, but we are responsible.

---

All of life glorifies God if we live for him. So yes, going to a movie glorifies God, so long as we dont sin. Withstanding temptation glorifies God. Reflecting on his truth as seen in general revelation glorifies him. Appreciating humanity glorifies him. And simply enjoying life glorifies him as well.

Quote:

---

I have heard it said by Charles Swindoll (and, I am sure, others) that we have lost our ability to blush at sin. By effectively goingalong withteh culture and not 'being affected,' have we just gotten jaded?

---

That depends on whose sin we're talking about. If we have lost the ability to blush at our own sin, we are likely jaded (cf. Jer. 6:15; 8:12). But the Bible doesn't usually recommend blushing/shame at the sins of others. More often, it recommends things like mourning (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1), anger (e.g., Ps. 31:6), compassion (e.g., Matt. 23:37) and intercession (e.g., 1 John 5:16).

Quote:

---

It may just be a saying of the 'Evangelical' church. However, I have heard it said many times that God cannot look upon sin. That is given as teh reason that we must be 'cloaked' in Christ. I wonder, then, how we take as entertainments things that have a significant component that God will not look upon.

---

But the same can be said about the unsaved world, of which we are to be a part, and in which we are to interact. It is also true that movies and the world may have good elements that God approves rather than condemns. And while it is true that God only accepts and loves us in Christ, it is also true that he has compassion on and shows goodness to many who are not and never will be in Christ. For example, in the Old Testament, God often demonstrated compassion toward the entire nation of Israel, even though many and sometimes most of them were and would remain unregenerate. So, whereas sin is something that God will ultimately punish, it is not thereby a sufficient factor to warrant God's immediate and unconditional wrath. God does "look upon sin," and he even shows a degree of love and mercy toward sinners, even toward those who are not elect.

Quote:

---

Much of what happens in the movies today, if we were aware of it in our churches, we would assert discipline for. Is it appropriate to be an expected component of our entertainments?

---

It is a component in our Bible, in our churches, and in our world. We ought not to condone it. But that does not imply that we ought to avoid it. Now, if you are talking about situations in which we rejoice in the sin as we are entertained, then clearly that is bad. If we can't go to a movie without rejoicing in the sin it protrays, then we ought not to go. But I think we can enjoy movies that portray sin without rejoicing in the sin itself.