It is so nice to see the gay media machine getting so much mileage out of those Christian dollars:
proceed with caution
http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2006/1/chadallen.html
http://www.gaychristianblog.com/
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2006/01/why_are_pastors.html
"The End of the Spear"
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by WHYME, Jan 11, 2006.
Page 11 of 14
-
-
Ah, but shouldnt the Christian's Standards be reflective of the Word of God. The Word of God is a mirror. It reflects the sin in a person's life and convicts. If a person does not feel sin is wrong, then that person must not be looking in the mirror of God's Word.
LadyEagle is sharing the standards set forth in the Word of God.
Are you? -
Interesting opinion of yours, though. So if you ask others who have seen it their opinion, and make a decision based on their recommendation, you're uninformed.
Look, if this movie offends you, then don't see it. I support your conviction 100% and applaud you for it. I also do not think less of you or your faith for it. Yet if I go see the movie, my Christian standards are being brought into question.
-
You, OTOH, are only applying the view to if someone recommends not seeing it. -
I would not go to a theater to see any movie or film that any liberal reccommended.
-
Here's God's standard, Johnv:
I Thess: 4:[7] For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
Now you accused some of us here of a double standard. I would reply that those who have a double standard are those who promote a Boycott of Disney because of the homosexuals on the one hand, but now promote a movie starring one on the other. That is a double standard.
Perhaps you have a different definition of what a double standard is. -
Any film company who claims to name the Name of Christ should abstain from every appearance of evil. Casting a homosexual "activist", knowingly, to play the role of a Christian missionary, who did name the Name of Christ, is a poor witness to that faith and the Name it proclaims.
BTW--AMEN LadyEagle!!! -
If the uptight, paranoid, retentive, legalistic, tinfoil hat wearing, "do it my way or you are gonna burn in hell," scripture twisting crowd is that fired up against something then it's gotta be good. Some folks just can't stand the thought that something other than their way is out there so they criticize it, condemn it, and condemn anyone that doesn't become THEIR sheep and follow them blindly.
Simple facts. The movie is faithful to the story. A homosexual is IN the movie. The movie is NOT about him, his life or his beliefs. If you clowns would quit bringing so much publicity to it, his views would never be heard by us or attached to this movie in any meaningful way. I am sure he would thank you for bringing his homosexual activist agenda to this forum. You are the best PR people he's got.
***Offensive paragraph removed***
[ January 24, 2006, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ] -
Johnv:
___________________________________________
Martin. -
ShagNappy, no one here is a clown and no one here is advocating beating up on kindergardners.
BTW, "I Can Only Imagine" is one of my favorite songs. -
ShagNappy:
______________________________________________
_________________________________________
______________________________________________
__________________________________________
Martin. -
Unless a movie is promoting a sinful purpuse, like pornography, choosing what film to see likewise falls into this category, though that an interpretive issue.
Since the movie doesn't promote a sinful message, that does not apply here.
Unless you're saying that Christians are forbidden from seeing anything that Chad Allen is in, it likewise does not apply here.
I disagree. You're sending a message that the movie was good, and that the actors in the movie were good. That's it.
They'd be laughing at us whether we saw this film or not. I don't lose much sleep over whether they're laughing at us, supportingus, denouncing us, etc.
I don't know anyone who has said we shoudl hold to any double standard.
-
-
If Paul were alive today, I am sure we would see him on the streets, preaching the word.
Questions such as this are a bit leading. Paul, like many others would not be like we are today. So one can not begin to compare how they would be in today's world.
I think if one were to look at any Bible-day person and ask what would they do if they were here? Then you will find they would, Live a Christian life, and Preach, Preach, Preach... not defend, defend, defend...
Jamie -
Johnv:
a) Chad Allen's view that this movie can bring christians and homosexuals together.
b) That production companies that claim to be Christians don't have to be accountable about who they hire.
c) That Biblical morality can be compromised in the name of making a good movie.
Sorry, I can't support those things.
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Sort of like the old hypocrite label. Many lost folks say the church is full of hypocrites and that is why they are not Christians. And, sadly, many professing Christians (via their bad behavior) live up to the label. They may call christians hypocrites but that does not mean we should give them reasons to. It is all the more reason to make sure they are wrong. Same in this situation.
_____________________________________________
Martin. -
JamieinNH:
_____________________________________________
Martin. -
_________________________________________
______________________________________________
-
I'll say this clearly and distinctly. No. IMO, those who think so are placing too much importance on such things. But that is their right if they wish to do so.
Then don't. I applaud your conviction 100%, and support you with my thoughts and prayers.
Again, your conviction, and I support it 100%.
The Good Samaritan parable was about morality, yet the Samaritan was as lost as they come, even being an enemy of God's chosen people.
All are sinners, lost or saved.
I do as well. But I adhere that to the contents of the films they produce.
I don't view this as an example of yoking.
Again, imo, this would only be hypicrisy if the content of the film were sinful. It doesn't appear to be.
No disagreement there, the topic of this film aside. But we need to address those areas individually. Many who are denouncing this film to the point where they're denouncing those who see it are frequent turners of a blind eye to the obvious areas of hypocrisy elsewhere. I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.
Good point there. But I thought the Disney boycott was stupid anyway, and hypocritical in its own right, not to mention self-righteous for more reasons that I can list.
I don't think they would be. Well, Falwell might. But FOTF had generally favorable vies of the Lord of the Rings films, and at lest one of the cast members is a homosexual activist.
Sorry Martin, et al, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise set forth. Doesn't mean I love ya all less or have less respect. It just means I respectfully disagree.
In Christ,
+Johnv -
ShagNappy:
Page 11 of 14