Evan Almighty (The Movie)

I do not want them to learn from Brokeback Mountain. That is the last thing they need to learn about or that needs to be shown at the theaters.
Faithgirl

 

since when was Passion For Christ a Cathlic film???
Faithgirl

 

accc\ording to what I read James Dobson said this movie waas okay. would I see it?? no.
Faithgirl

 

From its roots to the vine.

Mel Gibson, the Roman Catholic director/writer is not your average Roman Catholic. He is a pre-Vatican II Catholic. He thinks the Roman Catholic leadership erred when they strayed from the Latin Mass.

Mel was influenced by the Roman Catholic Sister Ann Emmerich who wrote the book The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The things that occur in the "Passion of the Christ" that do not occur in The Holy Bible are often found in the Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Ann Emmerich was a Roman Catholic nun who saw visions and wrote them down in her book. She was also reported by her supporters to be a stigmatic.

The movie itself is filled with Roman Catholic theology, to include the extra-Biblical stations of the cross, and a violent thrashing of Our Lord that lovers of Jesus Christ have no business being entertained by. In addition, the display of this alleged Jesus' nakedness towards the end of the movie is heinous beyond measure.

The movie has an emphasis on Marianism to prop up the Roman Catholic goddess worship and matches with Mr. Gibson's beliefs.

I can't find the quote but even Mr. Gibson said that he was surprised by the evangelical Christian support of the movie considering the Marianism in the film.

It is only fallen away Protestant and Baptist Christian churches that would support this film, encourage its membership to attend it and take one step closer to walking with the mother of harlots.

 

So, you are in favor of banning movies?

 

Absolutely. From a secular point of view, a community has the right and obligation to keep their posterity from the moral degradation that comes with these works of amusement. These films lead to a world view that lends its populace to violence, sexual promiscuity, drug use, homosexuality and other behaviors harmful to the people of a nation.

From a Christian world view, these movies are one of the primary contributors to individuals turning their back on God and away from a Biblical world view to a worldly one. The "Christian" movies are typically filled with bad theology and extra-Biblical, anti-Biblical teachings. In addition, the idolatry of images is mentioned often in the Bible and with television and movies we are in an age fraught with image idolatry. The sheer amount of time alone that people spend being amused is enough to be concerned about the damage being done to the spirit of Christians and non-Christians alike. Throw in the fact that the messages being taught in these films, are predominantly antichristian and you have a double whammy.

Finally, keep in mind that this nation has a history of censoring or banning movies. Even today, we have a baseline of a type or types of movies that are banned or censored. In the past that baseline was set a lot higher and with the passing of time that baseline gets set lower and lower. Thus, each generation sees filth that the previous generation would not have seen because our standards continue to degrade. Thus, the issue is not necessarily about whether or not we should ban movies, the issue is about where are standards should be relative to banning them.

 

Banning movies is called censorship. By banning movie we are telling a person that they are not smart enough to decide what movie is okay for them to see. We need to ask His wisdom in what we do or do not see.
Faithgirl

 

The government of the United States censors movies and other imagery today, do you desire that they stop?

 

By banning a movie is taking the ability of everyone infolved of better communicating with us. If you didn't like what they said, or don't even want to hear it, you go to a film which brings out the opposite message to humanity. That would more easily separate the polulation into groups of good and evil and then we can just isolate the latter on greenland for all I care!

 

Very much so.

 

Are you thus comfortable with child porn, snuff films etc. being distributed freely?

 

Not at all.

 

So are you equating a PG movie (which is approved by the very liberal Dr. Dobson) with child porn??

 

I was responding to Analgesic who was recommending that the government not be involved in censoring movies.

However, there is an equating this PG movie to Child Porn regardless of whether or not a liberal psychologist approves it. Like many things, such as modest dress, we are talking about baselines of standards and what imagery is obscene vs. what imagery is not obscene. In Evan Almighty he walks out of his house naked and a postal worker sees him naked, though the full nakedness is not shown.

There is a point in the trailer where two sheep appear in Evan's vehicle and he yells "sheeeeep". The suggestion here is he is yelling this, rather than a certain swear word and Christians and non-Christians are supposed to find this humorous? There is a point in the trailer where there is a dog biting the genitals of Evan. This is not funny, it is crude. If you get into the Biblical elements you have a human being, Morgan Freeman, portraying the Godhead. This was heinous when George Burns did it, when Jim Caviezel did it and we can add Morgan Freeman to the list.

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." - Acts 17:29​

Today, the last remaining baseline for objectionable material seems to be child porn (though this is breaking down), snuff films, bestiality (though suggested bestiality has been allowed), necrophilia and such things that we still find heinous today. There was a time in America where suggested nakedness or suggested carnal relations were considered obscene and were not shown in movies. There was a time when adult consensual pornography was banned. There was a time where sodomite pornography was banned. These baselines have been overcome by the world and today we have Christians thinking a blasphemous "religious" comedy is swell and worthy of closing church services in order to be amused. With standards like these, I loathe to see what our standards will be tomorrow.

 

Media which depicts harm being done without consent should indeed be illegal, not because of their content, but because the media was not legally created. Everything else is free speech.

 

Who here would be comfortable with filth being distruted? I know I would not.
Faithgirl

 

I leave a movie if I don't like the language in it.

 

I saw Bruce Almighty back when I was going through a bit of an "emergent church" phase.

Mostly, I wanted to see it because I knew it was a rip off of an old Isaac Air Freight skit and I was a big fan of those guys.

I realize now that there were tremendous problems with that movie, from a Biblical point of view and wouldn't go today if I had it to do over again.

I really had no desire to see the second one.

The plot of the second movie uses the flood for comic fodder. Think about it. It's the most terrible day in history, the day that God poured his wrath out on sinful mankind as a foretaste of the judgement to come. Is that really something we should be laughing at? Hollywood can laugh, I tremble.

And how is there another flood anyway when God has promised that He wouldn't send another flood?

I know I sound just like the folks here I used to do battle with, but maybe they were right. Maybe Ernie Brazee had a point.

 

It's all about consent and not content? Even if the depicted content is illegal?

If we have a movie such as Bram Stoker's Dracula that depicts bestiality, no problem because the actors consented?

If we have a movie such as Hounddog that depicts a 12-year old Dakota Channing in a pedophilia rape scene, no problem because Dakota and her mother think it's alright?

How about Nicole Kidman in Birth? This movie shows the 40 year old actress in a bathtub with a 10 year old boy.

How about the Saw, Hostel and Captivity movies that depict what can best be described as "torture porn"?

None of the above is free speech. It is not someone trying to make a political point or express their views accept for potentially that they think bestiality, pedophilia, rape, torture and death are things that Americans should fill their minds with. This is obscenity which was not protected "speech". If they want to speak or write that they believe these things are acceptable, then no punishment should come to them. However, intentionally wrecking the minds of human beings by these visual depictions (pretend or real) should be prosecuted as obscenity.

Getting back to Evan, his exhibitionism and the postal workers voyeurism is not funny. It is just a light form of the obscenity described in the movies I listed above.