Is Harry Potter and Narnia good for the church?

No, your implication is that the presence of violence, or even depiction of something bad is wrong. I refuted your implication with scripture itself.

Ridiculous. More unscriptural nonsense.

By your standard, depiction of anything recorded in scripure outside of scripture is wrong. You inconsistency becomes apparrant.

You are obviously unaware as to why. Crucifixion was common practice in the day. Every person entering a major city like Jerusalem would routinely have passed dead or dying crucifixion victims. There was no need to go into detail in scripture, because everyone was grossly aware of the detail. Today, few people are aware of the detail. In fact, most depictions of the crucifixion are artificially antiseptic compared to the truth (I'm not disparaging that fact, just making the observation). Knowing fully the detail of crucifuxion, which was incredibly violent, bloody, and gory, serves to do nothing less than give one a greater understanding of the gravity of Christ's decision to sacrifice himself for us.

Are you kidding? There are several pages devoted to documenting the passion.

 

No, I'm contending that the wise men were astrologers, not astronomers. NT-era astrology was abundant metaphysical. That doesn't mean that astrology is permissible, it is simply a fact of the day, and when you imply that they were astronomers, you're rewriting scripture to suit a manmade position.

 

**Personal insult removed** Boanerges--You're welcome to join in on a serious discussion when you take off the "condescending" hat.

[ December 09, 2005, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

Johnv wrote:
"No, I'm contending that the wise men were astrologers, not astronomers. NT-era astrology was abundant metaphysical. That doesn't mean that astrology is permissible, it is simply a fact of the day, and when you imply that they were astronomers, you're rewriting scripture to suit a manmade position."

My statement:
"Yes, John, the wisemen were astrologers that followed the star . . ."

 

Belief system? Now you're stretching. I don't evern care for the Message. I don't have a problem with it, but don't care for it. Different topic. Move on. Same with the Passion movie. Don't have a problem with it, but it's not replacement for scripture itself. You bring these things up because they're condescending, and in your brief existence on the board, you are quickly developing a reputation for being condescending towards fellow posters.

I was wondering how long it would take for the "l" word to be used. More ad-hominims from a mean-spirited poster. You've now decided that if you don't have a problem with the Passion, Narnia, of the Message paraphrase bible, then you must be a charismatic. Plus, all of the above disqualify a person from being a baptist.

Whatever, pharisee.

 

Pharisees denied the deity of Christ. Perhaps legalist would be a better term. If, that is, we are reduced to name-calling.

 

Okay, point taken, Bro Curtis. Thank you for your moderate tone.

 

Anyone know how old Harry Potter is?

 

eloidalmanutha you said, "And yes, any movie or passion play that depicts the crucifixion is wrong - because it is not necessary to improve upon and speculate on God's Word."

This is where I have to disagree with you.
Some people are visual learners.
Some people are audio learners.

There is no difference in someone portraying the passion in a play than someone describing it verbally.
Every preacher I have ever heard has described the crucifixtion with detail.
Some can even paint a mental picture with their words.
Some even include the part about splinters digging into Christ's back while he would raise up on his pierced feet to draw another breath.
No where in the bible does it state this, but preachers use it all the time.

What is the difference between describing it and acting it out?

 

tiny tim,

I don't believe it is necessary to describe in detail what Christ went through whether by words, pictures, movies, music, whatever. Salvation is not dependent on knowing the details, it is a false sense of acknowledgement of what Jesus did. The intensity of His suffering was not the physical, although I am not downplaying it - I am speaking of the importance factor - which is spiritual. Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, past, present and future to reconcile us to God.

The angel that ministered to Him in the Garden strengthened Him to endure, but the grief and agony that He knew He faced was the spiritual bearing of the cross of the sin of mankind. It is a fleshy carnal desire to "feel" His pain in what He endured physically. To be forsaken by God the Father because He was made sin for us, was by far the greater punishment.

If God does not see fit to describe all the minute details, why do we think we can fill in the gaps? Why do we think it's necessary to do so? Dwelling and meditating on the Scriptures was meant to be adequate for one to grasp the importance of what Jesus did. To me, the example of the Passion movie was obscene with its violence. That was not of God. He does not use this kind of display to proclaim the message of salvation. The glory of the cross is that we have been bought with an extreme price, but to dwell on the physical is maudlin and not what God desires, or He would have made a huge point of it, in my opinion.

 

eloidalmanutha, your comments are basically why some early Protestants, like Anabaptists, Puritans and Quakers, denounced even Christian artwork, like stained glass windows, tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, etc. Their loss, and yours, in my opinion.

 

I can see the point though about getting too focused on portraying Christ's suffering in detail. The Bible's focus is on His resurrection. And there is a tendency for us to focus on the crucifixion, and then the resurrection is almost anti-climactic. The extreme is then for some to go even farther in their focus, and feel that they need to enter into Jesus' suffering in some realistic way in order to "obtain" salvation.

 

Saw the movie tonight - great movie - highly recommend for anyone over the age of 10!

 

It is not a loss for me to leave all of that behind. It is the feely touchy warm and fuzzy glo that people need to "see" the Holy. For me, it is profane. It almost cost me my salvation. My opinion. If you need it, then go for it .......

 

Interesting. I had to force myself to view the trailers and clips so I had some clue what Narnia was going to do to people, especially children, who will be seeing it by the droves - it *is* a disney movie - fun family values after all. I about lost my cookies ........... glad you enjoyed it so much. People are really loving the violence on the silver screen all in the Name of God - I think it's called spiritual rape

 

Interesting. I had to force myself to view the trailers and clips so I had some clue what Narnia was going to do to people, especially children, who will be seeing it by the droves - it *is* a disney movie - fun family values after all. I about lost my cookies ........... glad you enjoyed it so much. People are really loving the violence on the silver screen all in the Name of God - I think it's called spiritual rape </font>[/QUOTE]Oh please... take your self-righteousness elsewhere. This thread is quite ridiculous. If you don't want to see the movie then don't. If you don't want to support Disney then don't. If someone wants to see TCoN, for entertainment purposes, let them do so. If someone wants to debate the Christian themes that are present in the movie, or the books, so be it, why does it concern you? No one is forcing you to see the movie, nor are they forcing you talk about it in church. If you do not believe in any form of entertainment, outside of reading the Bible, then only read the Bible. No one is stopping you.

 

eloidalmanutha, when I go see the movie with my family, you can stay home and pray "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Narnia-goer."