Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Many!!! Read the Erwin Lutzer book I mentioned.
But these days I'd rather watch the Twilight Zone, Star Trek from the 60's and so forth. Actually there is one Halloween type episode which does have a satanist, but she is pictured as a very evil person whom later dies. These days such types are pictured as good people and just like us in films.
Sadly many Christians have been deizentialized (SP) and see no harm in following the flesh.
Evangelist. I hope against hope that the gravity of what I am saying will come through in this post, despite the obvious absurdities that reveal how great is your error:
YOU ARE FALSELY ACCUSING YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST OF SIN...
...for watching Ghostbusters...while yourself watch Twilight Zone and Star trek, which contains repeated adultery and by your own admission...satanism.
...for Playing a board game that contains all of the same elements as LOTR, a Recognized masterpiece of Christian Fiction.
Since you love reading, and I think you mentioned having Grudem's Systematic Theology...Go re-read the chapter on the sufficiency of scripture. Here's some excerpts:
"Nothing is sin that is not forbidden in scripture either explicitly or implicitly."
"Whenever we add to the list of sins that scripture actually speaks to, there will be harm to the church and to the lives of individual believers."
***There is a difference between saying, "I don't believe I should do ________ because it may cause me to stumble, or makes me uncomfortable, or I'm not sure about it and want to be careful." and saying "All Christians everywhere must not do _____________, because it is always a sin."
You cannot say the second without clear scriptural warrant. When you do you cause false guilt to those who try to follow the man-made rule, but have trouble doing so...and false confidence & superiority for those who succeed.
Please re-consider they way you speak about your fellow believers.
-Andy
Many!!! Read the Erwin Lutzer book I mentioned.
I disagree. Speaking of Star Trek from the 1960's I have every episode and can't find. Single instance of sex. Kirk did have girlfriends but he did not have sex with any of them. Regarding Twilight Zone Henry Bemis was a incompetent Bank Teller whom did not know how to stand up for himself nor focus on his job duties and nearly got fired. His wife dominated him due to his personality weakness and incompetence and she was a strong woman. No this relationship was not healthy, but no immorality, alcohol, or drugs was in it.
Twilight Zone is pretty clean as far as morality goes. Can't say it's perfect and yes some bad theology which came from a Christian Science worldview, but then again some speculation on Hell.
For example one man has a Hell in which he has to experience death from the horror of those he killed for all eternity. While this is all speculation and we do not know this, but I would say that episode hit hard on how wrong it is to do such things and that HELL awaits those whom continue this way. No not perfect theology, but morality wise good.
So the lesson learned. If you were a German that gassed Jews, perhaps when you go to Hell for all eternity you will experience the gas chamber and continue to die and die and die for all time.
Most of us probably don't need to read the book. You are too young to have lived (as a teenager) through the hysteria of the church regarding “Satan’s attack” through music and other media of the 80’s. I sat through countess youth programs against D&D (does anyone even play D&D anymore?) and listened how a Queen song played backwards said “It’s fun to smoke marijuana” (never mind that it might be fun to smoke marijuana). Anyway, the overall result was than when many of us became adults and discovered the falseness of many of these claims we distanced ourselves from the church. What they were doing, in effect, was not setting themselves apart to God but distancing themselves from God’s children by pushing fellow believers away.
The principle of discernment and standing as a light in a dark world was commendable (and biblical). But the cultic devotion that resulted created a downward spiral that degraded the gospel message and distracted the church from its mission. Their “light” was not that of the gospel, but it was an extraordinarily self-centered light…it was “me-centered” doctrine. Now, I have never played D&D (and I’ve never tried pot…if you’re wondering), but there are many instances where churches have stood upon weak foundations and caused damage to their witness and brethren. If you care to look down, I believe you will find yourself on such a foundation.
I disagree. Speaking of Star Trek from the 1960's I have every episode and can't find. Single instance of sex. Kirk did have girlfriends but he did not have sex with any of them. Regarding Twilight Zone Henry Bemis was a incompetent Bank Teller whom did not know how to stand up for himself nor focus on his job duties and nearly got fired. His wife dominated him due to his personality weakness and incompetence and she was a strong woman. No this relationship was not healthy, but no immorality, alcohol, or drugs was in it.
Twilight Zone is pretty clean as far as morality goes. Can't say it's perfect and yes some bad theology which came from a Christian Science worldview, but then again some speculation on Hell.
Think Lutzer will ever acknowledge that he used disproven stories in his condemnation of D&D?
I disagree. Speaking of Star Trek from the 1960's I have every episode and can't find. Single instance of sex. Kirk did have girlfriends but he did not have sex with any of them.
Seriously? You use one of the morality plays from Twilight Zone to somehow justify that it's okay?
You're using the same tactic that you want to believe others are using about D&D!!!
Not a single acknowledgement of what I posted refuting Lutzer's premise. Only more defense of what you personally want to believe.
You are too easily influenced by the books you read, Evangelist. You need to learn to think critically for yourself. (and let me predict: the response to this will be either "go chase a rabbit" or some defense of how he actually is a critical thinker)
Where's the emoticon for "disappointed"?
In 1998, I worked for Air Force Space Command. We had some preachers come through our church who were writing books about the Y2K bug, and thundering from the pulpits about how nuclear missiles were going to launch themselves. The first time I heard that, I laughed out loud in the church service. I managed to control myself the next time or two, and just tuned it out after that.
Where are those guys now?
Think Lutzer will ever acknowledge that he used disproven stories in his condemnation of D&D?
The original Star Trek presented an extremely atheistic worldview. The assumption was “God is dead" or would be in the future - but it is a show of its times. And I cannot believe that you are honestly saying that there were no sexual situations in Star Trek (x-rated...now pg-13 rated... sex scenes…of course not, given that era). But Kirk was far from a choir boy.
BTW. that Henry Bemis episode was my favorite Twilight Zone.
The original Star Trek presented an extremely atheistic worldview. The assumption was “God is dead" or would be in the future - but it is a show of its times. And I cannot believe that you are honestly saying that there were no sexual situations in Star Trek (x-rated...now pg-13 rated... sex scenes…of course not, given that era). But Kirk was far from a choir boy.
BTW. that Henry Bemis episode was my favorite Twilight Zone.
I doubt it. And Lutzer certainly didn't board that train alone....it all sort of died out. It was foolishness (good intentions, but unbiblical foolishness). As it snowballed I think that people started to realize just how far from the gospel they were venturing. Thankfully Evangelist6589 is just rekindling thoughts of a time past and this is not a trend hitting the church again. The biggest problem with the situation was not pointing out potential social ills. It was that many (if not most) of the claims at that time proved false. No one ever stood up and said "we made a mistake." As an example, it may be difficult to take Evangelist6589 seriously on other issues if they know his stance here is false? It was a lapse in discernment in the 80's...it is a lapse now.
Oh boy. Really?
Check out the episode "Wink of an Eye". Kirk enters his quarters with a woman. They begin kissing next to a bed. Next scene we see Kirk sitting on the edge of the bed pulling his boot on. Gee, I wonder what happened in between?
Bread and Circuses. Kirk is a prisoner on a planet with a society much like the Roman empire. He is to be executed the next morning but his captors decide to allow him to "live like a man for a few hours more" and provide him a girl for the night. They show Kirk drinking wine with the girl, camera pans to an oil lamp that has a full flame. Next scene the oil lamp is out and Kirk is getting out of bed alone.
There are more.
If you can't figure out that Kirk was having sex in these episodes, which you've seen over and over again, well, I guess it's no wonder you think D&D, a game you've never played, is "satanic".
[Still waiting on a definition of "satanic", BTW.]
I have seen those episodes and plan to watch them again to verify. Bread and Circuses probably my fav but Wink of an eye very good as well.
But also remember Kirk was not a believer in Christ so he acts on his fleshly nature.
I have seen those episodes and plan to watch them again to verify. Bread and Circuses probably my fav but Wink of an eye very good as well.
But also remember Kirk was not a believer in Christ so he acts on his fleshly nature.