What is your practice when it comes to movies -- either at a theater or as a DVD? The most liberal applicable answer, please.

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ed Vasicek's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1463
Occasionally watch decently rated movies (G and PG)
4%
Frequently watch decently rated movies (G and PG)
4%
Generally comfortable with most PG-13 movies
4%
Will occasionally watch an R-rated movied
21%
I ignore ratings and base my decisions only on reviews
46%
I rarely watch movies (if I do, they are G or PG) and find that they alter my mood
4%
Other
18%
Total votes: 28
Ed Vasicek's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1463
Movies Are Still A Big Issue

With the recent blog by Jesse Johnson, my thoughts turned the whole movie issue.

I occasionally watch G or PG movies (I confess to seeing the new Three Stooges movie), but very occasionally. I have been to a movie theater about 10 or 15 times in the last 25 years. I watch maybe one or two newer movies a year perhaps through a DVD (usually a kids movies), although I will watch quite a few vintage movies (I am a Charlie Chan junkie, for example).

The reason I do not watch many movies from the 70's and onward is because they stress me out and work on my emotions. I do not like Hollywood cronies setting the agenda for what I think about for hours or even days. I know a few other people who admit to be affected in the same way.

Anyhow, I think SI is certainly representative of conservative views, and I was wondering what the current viewpoints are in our circles.

Please vote and consider opining.

"The Midrash Detective"

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6775
I occasionally will attend a movie theater

It’s basically verboten in our church.

Recently I took my wife out to see The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I fell asleep midway but basically saw most of it

Sometimes we will watch an old movie on a cable channel. Last week I watched The Caine Mutiny

Some will dispute this but I view it as a Romans 14 issue

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4357
Ratings

We ignore ratings and use sites like http://www.kids-in-mind.com/ Kids in Mind instead. I've seen some kids movies that were rated PG but with very rude humor and double entendres that I did not appreciate. A PG-13 movie allows for partial nudity, sexual situations, and a maximum of 2 f-bombs. Ratings are worthless.

We occasionally watch a DVD or Netflix movie at home. We prefer documentary and science-based shows, from Mythbusters to Good Eats. For fun we get DVDs of old shows from the library- I Love Lucy is a favorite.

The last time I was at a theater was when I took my mom to see The Sixth Sense, because she didn't want to go alone. I'm not a big fan of theaters- don't like the price, the seating, or being surrounded by people. I loved it when I was a teenager, and have fond memories of standing on my seat screaming "Rocky! Rocky! Rocky!" with everyone else. But those days are way gone. Give me my own couch, my Snuggie, and a box of Fiddle-Faddle.

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 54
Ratings are a joke

The American ratings system is completely worthless. Just compare your average PG-13 Adam Sandler (to pull a name out of the hat) comedy to "The King's Speech," which was rated "R." TKS is much less offensive to me, and I am sure that is true for most people here. I find the Canadian ratings on the back of many DVDs are more reliable than the American system. Netflix and DirecTV use Common Sense Media which is very good.

No wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel will prevail against the LORD. Proverbs 21:30

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 378
Ratings are meaningless

As a former film student and a cinemaphile, and having made a smallish contribution to the discussion with a book of my own, I agree with Jim that in general film is a Romans 14 issue.

I do think, however, that the Bible says a lot about entertainment standards in terms what our eyes should or shouldn't see, where our minds are to dwell, and things that are "too shameful" to even speak about (let alone see re-enacted). Every believer has an obligation to wrestle with and apply what Scripture says regarding our entertainment choices.

Regarding film, there is the whole question of the impact of images and there needs to be an awareness of the unique power of film to touch the emotions. Film is all about emotions. That's why people go see movies --- to cheer, cry, feel romantic, get thrills, laugh, be scared, find inspiration, or most likely a combination of these things. The question is: how are films shaping our emotions, and are they linking our feelings to sin.

I am also haunted by Francois Truffaut's comment that film glorifies everything it shows.

As much as I love film, I try very hard to honor a biblical standard. I have found some R-rated films acceptable ("Glory", Kurosawa's "Ran" are favorites) and many PG films unacceptable. Ratings are mostly meaningless. I have found a treasure of films to satisfy my love of the art in Golden Age Hollywood films, and some gems among current and past foreign films, which are, surprisingly, often much more tasteful than American ones.

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6775
Schindler's List

http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/rvu-schindler.html

Christian Spotlight on Entertainment review (above link).

Image capture below.

I thought this comment by was interesting (from the viewer comment section):

Quote:
Actually, this movie gets it R rating for the fact that the Holocaust itself is rated R. Having studied the History of Modern Israel and the Holocaust what took place in this movie is true. I watched this at a Christian college and NO scenes were removed, based on the professors premise that the Holocaust is rated R.

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 378
Porn not needed as history

The original review at Christiananswers.net was correct. Schindler's List contains explicit sex scenes (an unconscionable abuse of the actors...and of course especially the actresses involved) that have nothing to do with the holocaust except that the sex and the holocaust were occuring around the same time. But I think that's generally true of history. Spielberg also included numerous nude scenes that had no direct bearing on the history. Orthodox rabbis condemned him for this.

Interestingly, in the 1960s a holocaust film The Pawnbroker was used to break the existing barrier against nudity in American films. Catholic officials said once you open that door, even for something serious, the floodgates will open and nudity will be commonplace. Of course they were entirely correct. Schindler's List was used to break the nudity and explicit sex barrier on Network TV as well, when NBC showed it uncut.

Spielberg was offered an opportunity to show the film in Muslim countries, if he excised the sex and nudity. He refused.

More recently, a film called The Boy in the Striped Pajamas conveyed all the horror of the death camps without being explicit regarding the nudity. It can be done if a man has talent and good taste and a regard for the dignity of human beings.

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6775
Schindler's List and Muslim countries

Re:

Quote:
Spielberg was offered an opportunity to show the film in Muslim countries, if he excised the sex and nudity. He refused.

There may have been other reasons that it was banned:

http://www.meforum.org/396/muslim-anti-semitism

Quote:
Schindler's List, a film portraying the suffering of the Jews under Nazi rule, is banned in Arab countries. Even Independence Day, which has nothing to do with either the Nazis or the Middle East, was denounced in Arab circles because it has a Jewish hero, and that is unacceptable. The film won approval for release in Lebanon only after the censors had removed all indications of the Jewishness of the hero—the skullcap, the Hebrew prayer, the momentary appearance of Israelis and Arabs working side by side in a desert outpost. A Hizbullah press liaison officer explained his objection to the film. "This film polishes and presents the Jews as a very humane people. You are releasing false images about them."

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6775
NY Times on the Schindler's List ban

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/07/movies/islamic-nations-move-to-keep-ou...

Quote:
"Schindler's List," Steven Spielberg's Academy Award-winning film about the Holocaust, is being effectively barred from theaters in many Arab and Islamic countries.

Citing everything from the Hebron massacre, in which a Jewish extremist killed Muslim worshipers, to the assertion that the movie is "propaganda with the purpose of asking for sympathy" to the traditional Muslim abhorrence of nudity and sex in movies, various Islamic governments have given the film a cold, if not hostile, reception.

Comment: There may be more than just the nudity in the ban!

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4357
Acting

Ditto, Bro. Wilson. Actors can pretend to steal, right, murder, etc... without actually committing those acts. So the major issue I have with depictions of nudity and sexual situations is that those are elements where the actors are not 'acting'. They really are nude. They really are engaged in foreplay- with people they aren't married to, and even if they were married IRL, why would I want to watch something ordained by God to be an intimate, private act reserved for husband and wife?

A true 'artist' can convey much without smacking their audience in the face with graphic scenes. It is apparently a sign of 'sophistication' or some such nonsense to be unmoved while watching explicit scenes of sex and violence. I think it's a sign of a seared conscience.

I think if we simply follow movie ratings, we ignore the underlying philosophies communicated by the story. I think one of the worst movies ever is The Little Mermaid. The bratty, scantily-clad teenager rebels against Dad, sells her soul to 'Satan' in order to get the guy, blahblahblah, and in the end everything is hunky-dory, Daddy is apologizing ...? I'd let my kids watch Aliens and Predators kill each other in Antarctica before I'd let them watch The Little Mermaid.

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6775
Speaking of Nazi films

Conspiracy (unrated .. HBO film)

and

Downfall (Der Untergang) (R rating)

A scene from Downfall is an oft-used Hitler rant parody (recently used by Team Pyro in Hitler’s response to Phil Johnson’s retirement from blogging)

The 1981 Nazi submarine movie Das Boot is also R rated

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 378
Not in this case, brother Jim

No, regarding Schindler's List there were careful arrangements negotiated at the time for some showings in Muslim countries...a real breakthrough because of the things you mentioned above. It was Speilberg who said "No" to an opportunity to have Muslims learn about the holocaust in such a vivid way because he, Spielberg, wouldn't allow cuts to his art.

Susan, I agree with you about the nudity and sexuality. It degrades people. A lost bit of wisdom from an earlier time ----

Quote:
It is an undeniable act, for the truth of which we may safely appeal to every age and nation, that the situation of the performers, particularly those of the female sex, is remarkably unfavorable to the maintenance and growth of the religious and moral principle, and of course highly dangerous to their eternal interests...

The present instance is perhaps another example of our taking greater concern in the temporal, than in the spiritual, interest of our fellow creatures. That man would be deemed, and justly deemed, of an inhuman temper, who in these days were to seek his amusement in the combats of gladiators and prize-fighters; yet Christians appear conscious of no inconsistency, in finding their pleasure in spectacles maintained at the risk, if not the ruin, of the eternal happiness of those who perform in them. --- William Wilberforce

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 688
different movie

Jim wrote:
A scene from Downfall is an oft-used Hitler rant parody (recently used by Team Pyro in Hitler's response to Phil Johnson's retirement from blogging)
I think that scene is from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/ Valkyrie

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Offline
Since
Thu, 5/3/12
Posts: 57
You can call me a prude if you'd like, but

I am very cautious about what I watch. Recently I watched an old musical and was convicted by what I saw. Many would say it was nothing--girls in shorts dancing, etc, but for the first time in my life I was convicted about it. My husband was not home which was the reason I even decided to watch it. Since I've been married (only married 4 1/2 years ago), I've become even more careful about what I watch. Many a good man has fallen after starting down a trail of seemingly innocent behavior and been drawn in by the devil's devices. I want to do my part in keeping my husband's focus on me and not drifting to other women, etc. He is cautious as well. Recently a friend left her husband (I do not know the reason except supposedly no other person involved) and I told my husband that we needed to fight harder than ever for our marriage. Besides, who needs movies when there are so many good books and other activities.

Remember David said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit "I will set no wicked thing before my eye."

Michelle Shuman

SDHaynie's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 43
Say it's my upbringing

Say it's my upbringing, but I feel very out of place in a theater. I have only been to a theater 5 times in my whole life...three times in the past 3 years (Up, Star Trek, and Warhorse...and two of those situations were unique situations where someone else invited me and paid). I don't like the atmosphere or the cost of the theater attendance, and if the movie is decent I can wait 'til I hear what others say about it and then buy the DVD.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the observation that this is a liberty issue (as long as standards such as Phil. 4:8 are insured), I do want to insert an observation here.
I have a book in my library by John Rice and Robert Sumner entitled, Hollywood Cesspool, which condemns moviegoing completely and cites many examples of unbiblical behavior (of course from the 50's and 60's). Some of those same films are now considered "good family viewing" on our local "Christian" TV station (connected with the INSP network) and are approved by such groups as Focus on the Family. Who's right? While I disagree with the conclusion that theatergoing is sin, I do think that some principles of personal separation, purity, and biblical thought brought up in the book are valid. So where does that that leave the specific movies mentioned?
Also, moviegoing was frowned upon by nearly all conservative Christians 40 and 50 years ago. Now it seems as troublefree to many Christians as breathing and eating. Hmmm....
I think the Biblical balance is somewhere in the middle. Let's learn to be discerning, let's teach Biblical principles of what should go in our eyegate and eargate. Definitely, let's not let anyone but God dictate what we should think about (nice comment, Ed). And let's give liberty where it can be given (I am growing weary of being called a legalist, because I generally don't go to theaters).

Shawn Haynie

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 688
upbringing

Quote:
Let's learn to be discerning, let's teach Biblical principles of what should go in our eyegate and eargate

A problem that exists today is that the men you mentioned (and a host of others) made rules that they expected folks would follow but failed to teach the principles. As it relates to movie going we were taught that there was something inherently evil in entering the theater building. When VCR's showed up folks could watch the movies at home that they wouldn't go to the theater building to see.

That showed how silly the rule against theater attendance actually was. In some case folks watched movies at home that they never would have watched in a theater. Had fundamentalism taught principles instead of rules, and allowed folks to apply the principles we would not be having this discussion today.

That form of fundamentalism was all about how good Christians didn't go places and do things, and as long as you didn't do or go you were considered to be a good Christian. It never required inner transformation, but it most certainly required external compliance.

Unfortunately it still exists in some segments of fundamentalism.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 378
JohnBrian

Just so!

I remember being at a Baptist College. "No movies." Having come to the college from film school, I begged them to let me have an exemption to see Ben-Hur playing in a revival a movie theater in Los Angeles. "Nope." "Why not?" "The atmosphere of the movie theater." "Sticky floors?" "You can't go."

Oh, well. Then, at halloween, for our edification, they showed the silly scare-flick "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" in the gym. I couldn't believe it.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 999
JohnBrian wrote: Jim

JohnBrian wrote:
Jim wrote:
A scene from Downfall is an oft-used Hitler rant parody (recently used by Team Pyro in Hitler's response to Phil Johnson's retirement from blogging)
I think that scene is from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/ Valkyrie

No, it's from Downfall.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4357
The Hollywood machine

SDHaynie wrote:
While I agree wholeheartedly with the observation that this is a liberty issue (as long as standards such as Phil. 4:8 are insured), I do want to insert an observation here.
I have a book in my library by John Rice and Robert Sumner entitled, Hollywood Cesspool, which condemns moviegoing completely and cites many examples of unbiblical behavior (of course from the 50's and 60's). Some of those same films are now considered "good family viewing" on our local "Christian" TV station (connected with the INSP network) and are approved by such groups as Focus on the Family. Who's right? While I disagree with the conclusion that theatergoing is sin, I do think that some principles of personal separation, purity, and biblical thought brought up in the book are valid. So where does that that leave the specific movies mentioned?...

Wasn't part of their reasoning that movie going was by proxy supporting an unGodly industry? I remember my Dad saying that he didn't have any objection to drama per se, but that he didn't want to plunk down his hard-earned money to support a machine that was built on immorality and oiled with depravity.

There have been many actors and actresses that have come forward (or written tell-all memoirs) about the sexual depravity that keeps the Hollywood machine running- including pedophilia. It's bizarre that Christians will boycott laundry soap over a gay march, but buy tickets for movies that in essence further the victimization of children. The same people who want to 'expose' Christian organizations that they believe have acted improperly have no problem at all with television shows or movies that employ directors, producers, and actors that extort sexual favors from young hopefuls, and pass around children like party favors. Color me unimpressed and unconvinced of their supposed 'outrage'.

The more I learn about the entertainment industry, the more I find the whole shebang repugnant. But living in this world means regular trade-offs. You can't buy light bulbs or socks without 'supporting' some unGodly business. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php ][img ]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad016.gif[/img ]

SDHaynie's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 43
I agree completely

JohnBrian wrote:
Quote:
Let's learn to be discerning, let's teach Biblical principles of what should go in our eyegate and eargate

A problem that exists today is that the men you mentioned (and a host of others) made rules that they expected folks would follow but failed to teach the principles. As it relates to movie going we were taught that there was something inherently evil in entering the theater building. When VCR's showed up folks could watch the movies at home that they wouldn't go to the theater building to see.

That showed how silly the rule against theater attendance actually was. In some case folks watched movies at home that they never would have watched in a theater. Had fundamentalism taught principles instead of rules, and allowed folks to apply the principles we would not be having this discussion today.

That form of fundamentalism was all about how good Christians didn't go places and do things, and as long as you didn't do or go you were considered to be a good Christian. It never required inner transformation, but it most certainly required external compliance.

Unfortunately it still exists in some segments of fundamentalism.

Thanks for this comment, JohnBrian. I agree wholeheartedly and I hope that's what I communicated. What I see happening, however, on the other side of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism is that because there were some problems with the methods of men in the past, these men (and it seems the fundamentalism of a whole generation) have been reviled and the pendulum has swung completely to the other side. An "I disagree with _____________, therefore the complete opposite must be the biblical stance" attitude seems to be very common. In other words, Christian standards have become more about "what excesses of the past I am against" than "what does the Bible really say." How I hope that this is just my personal experience and that I am reading the situation wrongly and not true of a majority of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism!

Again, I agree, it's all about inner transformation and not external compliance...and our convictions should be our own and not just a practice handed down from Rice, Sumner, Jones, or any of a host of the old "warhorses" that I could mention. But let's look at ALL that they say, not just reject the objectionable. Let's be Berean in our outlook and examine all in the light of Scripture. As we read what previous generations have written, let's learn to enjoy the meat and spit out the bones.

Shawn Haynie

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 688
professing vs possessing

SDHaynie wrote:
What I see happening, however, on the other side of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism is that because there were some problems with the methods of men in the past, these men (and it seems the fundamentalism of a whole generation) have been reviled and the pendulum has swung completely to the other side. An "I disagree with _____________, therefore the complete opposite must be the biblical stance" attitude seems to be very common. In other words, Christian standards have become more about "what excesses of the past I am against" than "what does the Bible really say." How I hope that this is just my personal experience and that I am reading the situation wrongly and not true of a majority of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism!

You're not reading the situation wrongly! It is true of a vast segment of professing Christianity.

The problem is that there is a vast segment of professing Christianity that is not possessing Christianity. Many of those raised in that environment are unregenerate, yet have managed to convince themselves that they are regenerate because they did and didn't what they were supposed to do and not do. Since they were also taught to trust in their profession; and to write a date in their Bibles so that when they were tempted to doubt they could look to that place in their Bible; and that eternal security was promised to them as a result of their profession; it's difficult to convince those who show very little of the new creaturely-ness that they are in fact unregenerate.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 688
thought I saw it

Greg Long wrote:
JohnBrian wrote:
Jim wrote:
A scene from Downfall is an oft-used Hitler rant parody (recently used by Team Pyro in Hitler's response to Phil Johnson's retirement from blogging)
I think that scene is from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/ Valkyrie

No, it's from Downfall.
I'm very confused! I thought I saw this scene in the actual movie, yet I don't recall seeing Downfall, but remember seeing Valkyrie. I'll have to find Downfall and watch it to see if I remember more than this scene.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 378
Tebowing at the movies

Interesting example of Hollywood in the pulpit was Tim Tebow recently crediting the very R-rated movie Braveheart with inspiring fierce dedication in him. His father made his boys watch it when Tebow was eight years old. Tebow spoke this to thousands of believers at a worship event with him as the key speaker. The reporter jokes that DVD sales for Braveheart will surely surge now. Thanks, Tim.

[url ]http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/18/Tebows-Fathers-Day-Sermon

Personally, I can think of many inspiring films without nudity, adultery and throat-slitting to inspire a little boy. It's a powerful hold Hollywood has on people through the emotions it generates.

Fred Moritz's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 36
The Survey

Did anyone ever think that Philippians 4:8 might be a standard by which a Christian determines what he sees, hears, or thinks about?

Offline
Since
Thu, 5/3/12
Posts: 57
Quite the Statement

"The problem is that there is a vast segment of professing Christianity that is not possessing Christianity. Many of those raised in that environment are unregenerate, yet have managed to
convince themselves that they are regenerate because they did and didn't what they were supposed to do and not do. Since they were also taught to trust in their profession; and to write
a date in their Bibles so that when they were tempted to doubt they could look to that place in their Bible; and that eternal security was promised to them as a result of their profession; it's
difficult to convince those who show very little of the new creaturely-ness that they are in fact unregenerate."

This is quite the statement.

Frankly, I was raised in that era and made my profession in that era and I'm one of those you would call a "legalist," however, I have scriptural reasons for what I believe and what I do. I base my salvation on Jesus Christ and His shed blood. I trusted in Him as a little girl to take away my sin and save my soul. Anything more is a works salvation and is condemned in scripture.

Not only is Phil 4:8 essential to why I do what I do, but also God's multiple commands in the Old and New Testament to "Be ye holy as I am holy." I have a hard time seeing the God who wrote the Old Testament commands as doing some of the things we do today under the auspices of "liberty." I don't do what I do to gain favor with God, but rather to honor Him with my whole heart and to also hopefully be used of God to point people to Him.

This morning I read once again about David and Bathsheba, I couldn't help but wonder if they had been alive today what excuses they would have had. I can hear it now--David's: I don't have to go to war, its my right and freedom to decide. I'm the boss, I make the decisions. It was my roof top, I had every right to be there. She's the one who dressed inappropriately. I can't help that I looked. She didn't tell me no-I figured she was okay with it and would take care of everything. I had to send someone to the front lines and he was my best. And then there is Bathsheba--It's my roof top, I have a right to dress however I want on my property. He's responsible for looking--I can't be held responsible. He's the king--He called I had to obey.

Many want to say that the same God who punished this sin and caused both David and Bathsheba to reap lives of heartache and suffering tolerates our behaviors today all in the name of "Christian Liberty." This same God who says He is the same yesterday, today, and forever and who called us to do all to the glory of God.

In this age of freedom, we are becoming more and more slaves to sin--just look at our world. Our churches are getting bigger and bigger meanwhile all manner of ungodliness increases.

We need a serious revival or Christ to come back really soon.

Michelle Shuman

SDHaynie's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 43
Amen!

Fred Moritz wrote:
Did anyone ever think that Philippians 4:8 might be a standard by which a Christian determines what he sees, hears, or thinks about?

Amen Dr. Moritz, I mentioned Philippians 4:8 in my first post and it is a verse I often quote to people when considering any form of entertainment. Many say, "But then I can't..." Again, the question comes down to a transformed life. A truly transformed life will want to follow Scriptural injunction.
As my wife and I have seriously thought about Philippians 4:8, we are starting to wonder about even having basic TV in our house...if its not the shows, the commercials will kill you...OOPS am I being legalistic? :/

Shawn Haynie

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1847
SDHaynie wrote: As my wife

SDHaynie wrote:
As my wife and I have seriously thought about Philippians 4:8, we are starting to wonder about even having basic TV in our house...if its not the shows, the commercials will kill you...OOPS am I being legalistic? :/

Thank goodness for the mute button.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 999
Chip Van Emmerik

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
SDHaynie wrote:
As my wife and I have seriously thought about Philippians 4:8, we are starting to wonder about even having basic TV in our house...if its not the shows, the commercials will kill you...OOPS am I being legalistic? :/

Thank goodness for the mute button.

And the recall button to switch to a different channel. And the DVR to record and skip through commericals.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1847
Yeah, I thought of the DVR as

Yeah, I thought of the DVR as I posted.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 303
Absolutely

Fred Moritz wrote:
Did anyone ever think that Philippians 4:8 might be a standard by which a Christian determines what he sees, hears, or thinks about?

Indeed. Or does anyone ever think about whether our entertainment choices are good stewardship of the time God has entrusted to us?

Or do we think about whether the things we watch are helping us to add the right things, the things described in II Peter 1:3-7?

Or whether the things our entertainment encourages us to laugh about are things that God considers funny? Or whether it places in our minds thought patterns that build up or undermine God-ordained institutions, relationships, and authority?

SDHaynie wrote:
As my wife and I have seriously thought about Philippians 4:8, we are starting to wonder about even having basic TV in our house...if its not the shows, the commercials will kill you...OOPS am I being legalistic? :/

Ours died 25 years ago. It really is easier to find time to read your Bible, play games with your kids or read aloud to them, spend time with people, etc. once your TV dies. You might even find time to work a job and pastor a church at the same time. Smile You might even find it easier to protect your kids from various corrupt sights and thinking patterns, and to teach them Biblically based respect. If your TV seems to be hanging on and just won't die, I strongly recommend euthanizing the beast at the earliest opportunity.

Though there are Scriptural principles that apply, it isn't a Scriptural mandate to kill your tellie. It's just common sense. Not everything lawful is expedient. And this monster is one that is very good at bringing us (and our children) under its power. It might not be quite accurate to say that the only good TV is a dead TV, but all of the very best ones are dead.

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 688
clearing things up

Michelle Shuman wrote:
Frankly, I was raised in that era and made my profession in that era and I'm one of those you would call a "legalist," however, I have scriptural reasons for what I believe and what I do.
Just to be clear.

I have never called anyone a legalist on SI.

I too was raised in that era, so wrote about what I know.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Offline
Since
Thu, 5/3/12
Posts: 57
To John Brian

I wasn't referring specifically to you in the saying you would call me a "legalist," but rather as a general reference to many who view me as a legalist. I am concerned that you decided that many are unsaved from that era and also that you refer to trying to convince people they are unsaved. I thought that was the Holy Spirit's work. My opinion is that I John gives a guideline for who's saved and who is not, but is not opening up the position of us making that decision. I believe that we are to present people with the truth and leave the rest up to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, but I don't think I need to convince anyone about their relationship with God. I can no more see in their heart than they can see in mine. I think that I John gives a good reference for praying for people for salvation because one has to wonder about their relationship with God when they are living in open, known sin.

Michelle Shuman