End of the Spear - cont.

AMEN!!!

 

It's been my prayer every since I heard he was gay, that seeds had been planted and that he'd come to the Lord through working on this film. He's not going to come to the Lord from people banging him over the head w/the Bible. Yes, I know the Bible says it's an abomination and I HATE the sin of homosexuality--b/c it's destructive and against what God intended. I pray he sees the love of Jesus and is drawn to him through the witness and testimony of the believers that did this movie.

I feel as long as he's breathing--there's a chance for him to come to the Lord.

 

I'm curious, for those who stand against the movie because of the gay actor - (I haven't seen the movie yet, but assuming it is a faithful retelling of the missionaries story) would you feel the same if a straight actor, say Tom Cruise, was playing the lead? Obvoiusly a striaght guy, but definately not a Christian. Would that make any difference? Or what if the actor professed to be a Christian, but was part of a denom that differs greatly from the Baptist beliefs? What if he was Catholic? What I'm asking is where do you draw the line? Is it important the the actor have perfect theology, or is it important that he have the acting skills to tell the story?

If you saw the movie and didn't know the actor was gay, would it still make a difference in the story? Would you still get the point of the movie? I suspect that the over-the-top reaction by many Christians will do far more to publicize Chad Allen's lifestyle than anything Chad Allen ever says or does.

 

The true child of God is to take a stand against sin, not condone it.

The movie should not be seen by the christian for the simple fact that it has ungodly scenes in it.

A young Waodani girl seen nude, children nude swimming, women's breasts partially uncovered.

C'mon folks, just based on the nudity alone, another company had made a movie with it, you would be yelling about how sinful it was. But because a supposed christian movie company puts it out, there is nothing wrong with it?

Where does one draw the line?

 

The nudity was very minor. I took my kids and did not have a problem with it. All their breast were completely covered and the young girls was undeveloped. I see more sensual things everyday at the Wal-marts or on the superbowl cheerleaders.

 

Then I would also suggest that you stay out of Walmart and don't watch the Super Bowl.

 

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

 

True. However, it's false to presume that anyone who sees this movie is condoning sin.

How do you know? You haven't seen the film.

According to all who have seen the film, it is not as you claim. There is no sexual content whatsoever in thes escenes, and the nudity "nudity" of children is not graphic.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, you're one of these folks that cannot discern between nudity and sexuality, and then accuse those who can discern of worldliness. There is more nudity in the 1978 film "Superman" than in this movie, from what I understand.

I don't think you're equipped with the tools to draw the line here.

I don't care about the "gay media machine". Those Christians who have seen it give it generally positive comments. That's sufficient for me. It would be wrong of you to accuse those who choose to see it of feeding the gay media machine, or some such nonsense (I don't think you're necessarily doing that, btw).

 

And once again following a different dresscode than the one practiced in Western Civilization is declared sinful.

 

Nakedness is nakedness whether in Equador or in America. God clothed Adam and Eve becuase He did not want them running around nude, Nor did He want their children running around nude.

Why film nude children. As I said before, if it had been a film that was not associated with missionaries at all, many who are advocating it would be throwing their fists in the air in rage.

 

I have been on the mission field in Africa and experienced a culture where the women sometimes go topless. I have also been sitting in the home of an African Christian family and had the wife open her blouse and feed a crying baby right in the middle of our conversation. I've seen it happen on public streets and on buses etc.

Do I stare at these women and allow myself to be tempted into lustful thinking and sin? No I look away and take my thoughts captive to Christ as the Bible tells me to do.

You all are making way too big a deal about this issue. Please let's see a little Christian maturity here instead of acting like evangelical Pharisees with a handy list of do's and don'ts.

 

"Nakedness is nakedness whether in Equador or in America."
"
To the contrary, one's definition of nakedness is a cultural thing. Those Waodani women most certainly know the concepts naked&clothed.
It's just that in their concept of being clothed breasts don't have to be covered.

 

"Then I would also suggest that you stay out of Walmart and don't watch the Super Bowl."--------------------------------------------------------

Sounds cultish. I tink I'll just ignore you from now on. I am always haveing discussions with young folks about not leaving the church for the Emerging Church and such, but this is why they go. I don't think I will be able to stop them anymore. They change to an extreem to get away from an extreme.

 

There are many people, both Christians and non-Christians, who have no idea what sacrifices have been made by missionaries throughout the years. This movie gives such a quality depiction of these loving people and their work, that I hope it will be seen by millions who may somehow be inspired to be bold for Christ in their own way.

 

Yet when Adam and Eve were clothed, it was just the two of them. So you can't use this example to claim that God didn't want them running around nude. Otherwise, all of us married folk that walk around nude in the privacy of our own homes in the presence of our spouses are sinning.

Scripture calls for modesty. It doesn't define modesty, however. There are places in the world where nudity is considered having no belt, or having your back exposed. In Papua New Guinea, there are several, places where all topless, but no one is beltless. They are not sinning.

I can't help but notice that so far you have not acknowleged your error about the depiction of nudity in the film. That obvious lack of acknowlegement speaks volumes about your credibility in this matter.

But, in regards to this question, the better question is: Is it forbidden to film nude children? Let me know, because I have videos of my girls frolicking in the bathtub at the ages of 7 and 4.

I think you're wrong on this. If it had not been about missionaries, few would be opposing this film.