Belly sin...

[Mathias_Ice]

Wow, you guys(all you guys) are all over the place on this one. Which is to be expected and is appreciated from such a diverse and, for the most part, intelligent group.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is not ironic that Tolkien was a Christian, it is ironic that he was a very devout Christian. A lot of authors (in Christian-dominated countries) that write evil occult stuff are Christians.

This isn't ironic or should it surprise anyone. People who profess to be Christians find themselves on opposite ends of just about every spectrum imaginable. There are "Christians" who support abortion, the Pope believes evolution to be fact, the Anglican church believes it is okay to promote practicing homosexuals in their denomination, there are denominations that believe music is bad, some believe only rock music is bad, some do not believe in the Virgin Birth, etc., etc. There is even division among, what was the term... Fundamental Christians, an example being Dr. James Dobson and Richard Lamb being on different sides of Alabama's Judge Moore debate.

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Third, this sort of massive fingerpointing at non-Christians misses the point of the Christian faith entirely. I seem to recall Christ saying something about removing a plank in one's own eye before going speck-hunting in others'...

Context, my friend, context. The context of what Christ is saying here is talking about believers correcting other believers. He is cautioning that all are sinners and all deserve death. He goes on very soon after to caution against "throwing pearls to swine." Only by discerning the swine can we avoid wasting our pearls.

This is from a different thread but I figure I'd plug my response in here as it seems to fit the general theme of things:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mathias_Ice:
Ah, good old Disney.When I was a kid you could trust them for good, clean fun. And now, like 99.9% of all American corporations, the bottom line and political correctness is all that matters.

Gotta love general Christian tolerance...

---

As a Christian, I am to be tolerant, that is loving despite everything, of all individuals. I am also to "Hate what is evil." Christ's work on the cross frees the Christian from sin, it does nothing for the sins of corporations, Groups or countries.

So, having said all this, I believe the most important thing to being a Christian is to glorify God. Does everything I do live up to this, hell no. Fortunately, my God is a gracious and forgiving God. Do the works of Tolkien, Lewis, and/or Rawlings glorify God? This seems to be the issue. I would say the first two do through the allegory and symbolism they use, while I'm not sure about Rawlings. I have only read one of the Potter books and I personally wasn't all that impressed with either the story telling or the story. I did hear a snippet from an interview with Rawlings (mind you, on a Christian radio program) where she was talking about her books introducing kids to the occult. When considering whether to expose your children (or yourself for that matter) to anything, what the Christian needs to determine is if that movie, book, music, TV show or what ever, glorifies the Lord. While the web page mentioned at the beginning of this thread may help with determining this, the best thing to do is to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to give you discernment in such matters. Of course there are some Christians who don't believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today's Christian. Go figure.

It's interesting that this type of topic has come up as I have been thinking a lot lately about discernment. More on how Christian leaders champion certain issues and whether this effort by these leaders is glorifying God, or whether the efforts and considerable resources of these leaders would be better spent on something more "God glorifying."

Maybe all this should go to a new thread, or not, but I would appreciate feed back from all.

[Mathias_Ice]

Oh yeah, and I have no idea what a belly sin is.

[Fyron]

Why did you quote a post that has nothing to do with this discussion? Context, my friend, context!

[narf poit chez BOOM]

read that report just now. if disney knew that people where engaged in 'simulated sexual acts' - more or less verbatim qoute - i don't see how they can justify it.

context? this thread has context?

[ September 13, 2003, 00:50: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Erax:
Fundamentalist mother - blah blah blah
Schoolteacher - blah blah blah

While I agree that the reaction of some religous types is way over the top regarding Harry Potter, this hypothetical teachers logic isn't exactly sound either. If your child wanted to become a mermaid after reading H.C.A. no matter how hard they tried they could never be a mermaid. On the other hand it is entirely possible that an inquisitive child wanting to find out more about witchcraft could find some more detailed sources on the subject and could potentially get into some very serious, and very bad stuff. There is a significant difference between fantasy and the occult. Even if you believe that "serious" occultism is all a bunch of superstitious garbage, there are some very odd people that take it very seriously. Probably not the kind of people you want your kids hanging around.

[ September 12, 2003, 12:53: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Mathias_Ice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why did you quote a post that has nothing to do with this discussion? Context, my friend, context!

Um, seemed to me both Posts (IF's and Woundwort's) were saying the Christian has no right to judge. Seemed very similar context to me.

[Fyron]

My statement had nothing to do with rights to judge... it was mostly about the hypocrisy of the many Christians that preach tolerance but aren't really very tolerant themselves (which was quite appropriate in the context of the thread it was made in).

[Mathias_Ice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My statement had nothing to do with rights to judge... it was mostly about the hypocrisy of the many Christians that preach tolerance but aren't really very tolerant themselves (which was quite appropriate in the context of the thread it was made in).

Maybe this belongs back in the other thread but here we are with it so I will continue (especially as I have already quoted the post in question.)

To be tolerant of an individual is a good thing, it is very Christian to "love thine enemy." To be intolerant of sin is also a good thing. Back to "Hate what is evil."

Maybe you can explain to me where the hypocrisy is. The referenced article was not condemning any particular person, it was speaking out against a sin (homosexuality) and the perceived promotion of that sin by a corporation (Disney.) And I was merely referencing the article to pine of a seemingly more innocent time. I fail to see any hypocrisy, of course this plank may be in my way!

[Loser]

Originally posted by Mathias_Ice:
"Hate what is evil."

Quick question: where do you get that you should hate at all?

Hate is like an acid, it damages not only the object it is applied to, but also the vessel in which it is kept.

Anger, anger I can understand. That is usefull. But hate takes so long, changes so many things. Why?

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Mathias_Ice:
Um, seemed to me both Posts (IF's and Woundwort's) were saying the Christian has no right to judge. Seemed very similar context to me.

Not quite. Everyone has moral criteria by which they judge things (movies, in this case). But it's not so black-and-white where you can say "This movie contains depictions of 'x', therefore this movie is to be avoided." This sort of self-defeating criteria (at least from a Christian perspective - see my original post) is what I'm arguing against. There is a difference, for example, between the violence in Band of Brothers and the violence in Freddy vs. Jason. The one realistically portrays the violence of war as part of portraying the men of E Company and the war's effect on them. The other - well, if it had any real point other than tittilating horror freaks and making money, somebody wiser than me will have to explain it to me. But I hope the kinds of distinctions I'm making are clear. And I wholeheartedly agree with the numerous people on this thread who have argued for parental responsibility in dealing with films and TV. Labels are no substitute for parental guidance and discussion.