Powerful Video!!

Larry:

It's called, an "ILLUSTRATION." It is REPRESENTATIONAL ART with a message. Sorta like (I think you MIGHT be familiar with) a PARABLE. Was Jesus' glory seen in the Good Samaritan? Was God's glory evident in the Father of the "Prodigal Son?"

Comparing the vision of John to this drama misses the entire point and intent of the drama -- just like comparing Jesus' appearance in John's Revelation vision to the representations of His character in the Parables is.

Methinks you have misunderstood and misportrayed this drama intentionally -- to justify whatever kinds of worship you practice -- and to condemn the practice of others. And if so, that's unbecoming og a child of God.

 

Is it? Why is it that in discussions, facts and ideas are lost and "opinion" is immediately thrown out when someone says something you disagree with? You have presented no evidence to the contrary. You have given no reason why this should be taken seriously by anyone, much less an unbeliever or struggling believer. You still, in spite of my many requests, have yet to offer a biblical basis or rationale for it.

How's that relevant? The issue at hand is the gospel, not the length or the number of acts. The gospel isn't there.

 

Were all parables the Gospel presentation? Why do all dramas have to portray the Gospel?

 

THANK YOU!

I'm not crazy!:tonofbricks:

 

It has nothing in common with the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, or any of Jesus parables, at least so far as I can tell. And no one here has presented an argument for any similarity.

It may well be an illustration, but the point is that it is a bad one. And no one has offered any evidence to the contrary.

But does it miss the point of the gospel? Do you believe it is possible to mean well, and still fail? Do you believe it is possible to say a right thing in a wrong way? Do you believe it is possible to trivialize a message and distract from it by presentation of the message?

You could not be more incorrect. I trust you have not misunderstood and misportrayed my comments intentionally, to condemn the practice of others, because that's unbecoming of a child of God.

Of course, you see how that argument can work both ways. Rather than attacking someone else, why not engage the conversation. Tell us how this rightly represents the majesty and glory of God and the gospel.

 

Yes, it is.

 

They don't. But people have been claiming that this is a great tool for the gospel. IT's not. The parables were not all about the gospel, but they weren't cheesy either. My issue is not with skits, though they are not my preference. My issue with cheesy skits with no clear message that detract from the beauty of the gospel.

 

That's all you have? Charges and assertions? Why not engage the conversation Dan? You are so convinced I am wrong, but you have yet to give a reason that has to do with anything other than your preference. I have asked you time and time again to give a biblical basis for your position, and you have failed to do so.

I ask you what I asked someone else: Do you believe it is possible to mean well, and still fail? Do you believe it is possible to say a right thing in a wrong way? Do you believe it is possible to trivialize a message and distract from it by presentation of the message?

How do you believe this fits in with a serious consideration of 1 Cor 1 and 2 and 2 Cor 4?

 

Okay....you think it is bad, and cheesy. But weren't you throwing around harsher accusations earlier?

Since I've performed this skit (without the dancing!) nearly a hundred times, and have seen a lot of people respond, then I say, it can be used. Because I've used it. It has worked. Just because you struggle to identify the different characters, and what is going on, doesn't mean that people who don't know Jesus struggle with understanding what it means. I'VE FREAKIN' USED THE THING AND WATCHED PEOPLE GET IT!!!

You are basing your OPINION on your PREFERENCE and your supposed LONG STUDY, but have not actually DONE ANYTHING that shows it is useless.

 

I agree with you that it is not a Gospel presentation (except the very beginning when Jesus breathed life into her), but disagree there is no clear message. The message was crystal clear to me, and to anyone who may have lived the life depicted.

It seems you have issue with the "cheesiness" of the drama. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The drama was geard towards christian youth, as the problems depicted (cutting, eating disorders, inappropriate relationships, seeking "success", etc.) are ones dealing mainly with today's teens.

 

Not that I know of.

As I asked earlier, is utilitarianism a good judge of acceptability? I don't think it is, and I think the Bible doesn't think it is, and that is part of Paul's argument in 1 Cor 1 and and 2 Cor 4.

What did they get though? And would they have gotten the same thing had we followed the pattern of Scripture?

I never argued it was useless. After all, God did use Balaam's donkey, David's sin, and a host of other things. So the fact that God may have used it doesn't mean a whole lot. I am basing my view on what I see in Scripture compared to this. And you have done nothing to dissuade me. You have continually refused to talk about Scripture. Why?

I have asked some very basic questions about philosophy of communication and about Scripture. Why not simply address those rather than attack me because I differ with you?

 

Because we are talking about preference. You don't prefer this method/tool, I say it isn't a bid deal. Obviously, I've also contended that it is best with actually explaining the gospel. This is a picture, it is not suppose to be a theologically detailed account of your particular soteriology. It is a picture of how we are created, we sinned, God took our sin away through the death of Jesus, and that can bring us to him.

There is nothing in the bible about using it, or not using it. I have nothing to prove to you, after all, you can't prove to me that it is unbiblical. You've just talked about it's cheasiness, then you quoted Revelation for some reason. The fact of the matter is all of our ways of explaining the gospel are going to be flawed. Whether we use drama, words, pictures, songs, videos, books, blah blah blah. All we can do is be faithful and trust that the Holy Spirit will use it. There is nothing in the Bible specifically against the use of drama, and I've used it and seen that God can, and will, use it if it is appropriate to the setting.

 

The fact that the cross of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18), or that Paul said he didn't preach using "clever words" (1 Cor. 1:17) does not mean we aren't to use creative ways of communicating the gospel. I think that is two different things. The message is going to be foolish whether people reject it in words, drama, music, or whatever. It is not used to be clever, but it is a method of education, of teaching.

There is no excuse for believers to not use talents, and creative ways, to communicate the gospel.

 

In your mind, you believe that it has distorted the message. That is your opinion. I see what you are saying from 2 Cor. 4, but again, I have seen this particular skit (actually...the one without dancing) be effective. Rather than distort the message, I personally know people that it helped clarify the message. Again, it is a way of communicating effectively.

 

Dan,

It is not good for me to spend time going back and forth with non-answers, or answers to questions that I haven't asked. I ask again, please address the relevant issues.

This is not about using creativity for the presentation of the gospel. It is not about using stories or illustrations or even drama (though that would be a good conversation to have since many of the people I mentioned earlier have made stout arguments against it. I don't necessarily agree, but disagree very cautiously.)

Again, perhaps you could address the questions I asked.

 

No, I will not shut up! :laugh:

I'm actually glad that I wasn't the only one that interpreted it that way. And I got to thinking that I may have viewed it that way because like you said, I was that girl too at one time and God brought me back to Him.

 

I am the one who stated it was a "tear jerker". Frankly, this reply is disturbing. NOW GO EDIT YOUR WORDS

You need to read Gal 5:22
(and you can edit this post too if you want)

 

You asked, "is utilitarianism a good judge of acceptability?"

I kind of responded in my remarks on Corinthians. To answer your question, no, it isn't the best judge. My point is that this is a way to try and put the message into a picture; and it isn't specifically condemned in Scripture.

I guess I see where you are coming from, because we can all sit back and critique its accurateness all day. However, its purpose isn't to be a detailed picture...but it is basic, and simple. People connect with it, especially when coupled with an explanation of the gospel.

 

I am not sure why it is disturbing or why should I edit my words? And how does Gal 5:22 apply here? Doesn't love demand that we speak the truth about issues, even when others disagree?

 

Fair enough. You say it isn't specifically condemned in Scripture. But is that really a good test either? Aren't we supposed to use our minds to understand what kind of things the Scripture would apply to today? I have no problem with the message in pictures. We need to be careful not to trivialize it. We should also recognize that saying something is bad or wrong is not a judge of motives or sincerity. It is a statement about ideas.