"The End of the Spear"

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

 

Exactly. Your standard, not God's standard.

 

Ah, but shouldnt the Christian's Standards be reflective of the Word of God. The Word of God is a mirror. It reflects the sin in a person's life and convicts. If a person does not feel sin is wrong, then that person must not be looking in the mirror of God's Word.

LadyEagle is sharing the standards set forth in the Word of God.

Are you?

 

I haven's seen it. It appear to be a quality with a good message. That's why I'm likely to go and see it. Though, I have decided not to take my youngest son, since it is PG-13 and he is 9.

Yet if Falwell or Dobson said "don't go see it", you wouldn't be accusing those who take their comments under advisement as being uninformed.

Interesting opinion of yours, though. So if you ask others who have seen it their opinion, and make a decision based on their recommendation, you're uninformed.

Yes. But you've decided what constitutes as being reflective of the Word of God in this matter.

Look, if this movie offends you, then don't see it. I support your conviction 100% and applaud you for it. I also do not think less of you or your faith for it. Yet if I go see the movie, my Christian standards are being brought into question.

No, LE is sharing her convictions concerning the Word of God. I support her 100%.

Yes. But do not condemn me because my convictions are not the same as someone else's.

 

Sure it would. If they recommend it, and people see it based on that recommendation, it's the same as if they saw it and were recommending to refrain from it.

You, OTOH, are only applying the view to if someone recommends not seeing it.

 

I would not go to a theater to see any movie or film that any liberal reccommended.

 

Here's God's standard, Johnv:


I Thess: 4:[7] For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

How do you know what I would or would not do? That isn't the point. Falwell and Dobson have both been made aware of the homosexual activist chosen for the lead role. They preferred to promote the movie anyway.

Now you accused some of us here of a double standard. I would reply that those who have a double standard are those who promote a Boycott of Disney because of the homosexuals on the one hand, but now promote a movie starring one on the other. That is a double standard.

Perhaps you have a different definition of what a double standard is.

 

Any film company who claims to name the Name of Christ should abstain from every appearance of evil. Casting a homosexual "activist", knowingly, to play the role of a Christian missionary, who did name the Name of Christ, is a poor witness to that faith and the Name it proclaims.

BTW--AMEN LadyEagle!!!

 

If the uptight, paranoid, retentive, legalistic, tinfoil hat wearing, "do it my way or you are gonna burn in hell," scripture twisting crowd is that fired up against something then it's gotta be good. Some folks just can't stand the thought that something other than their way is out there so they criticize it, condemn it, and condemn anyone that doesn't become THEIR sheep and follow them blindly.

Simple facts. The movie is faithful to the story. A homosexual is IN the movie. The movie is NOT about him, his life or his beliefs. If you clowns would quit bringing so much publicity to it, his views would never be heard by us or attached to this movie in any meaningful way. I am sure he would thank you for bringing his homosexual activist agenda to this forum. You are the best PR people he's got.

***Offensive paragraph removed***

[ January 24, 2006, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

Johnv:

==No, I don't think so. The issues that you speak of are morally neutral (ie..not sin). Things like playing cards, swimming, eating meat, things like that. There is nothing sinful about those behaviors however some might be troubled by those behaviors. Those are the kinds of things that people have to be "convinced" in their own mind about. In this case we are talking about "sin" and supporting "sin". And make no mistake about it; pay to see this movie and you have supported Mr Allen. If you see this movie then you have also, and more importantly, made the statement that "christian" production companies can hire anyone they wish (all Biblical morality put aside) to play in "christian" films. By seeing this movie you have also sent a message to the homosexual activist community that Mr Allen is part of that Christians are not that serious about the "sin" of "homosexuality". That we can somehow over-look it. I assure you they are laughing at christians who support this film. Be they Jerry Falwell or Focus on the Family. Next time those people come out against a homosexual movie, show, or theme this will be thrown back in their faces. I assure you of that. What is worse? They will deserve it. We can't hold such double standards (its ok for Christian companies but not for secular companies).

___________________________________________

==Correct me if I am wrong but does not the Bible also condemn those who support those who are in sin? Romans 1:32. Yep, it does. This is about Biblical morality. This is about supporting what is sinful.

Martin.

 

ShagNappy, no one here is a clown and no one here is advocating beating up on kindergardners.

BTW, "I Can Only Imagine" is one of my favorite songs.

 

ShagNappy:

==So this is how modern evangelicalism describes Christians who stand up for Biblical morality and refuse to compromise? Let's ask the question: Would Paul have paid to see this movie (were he on earth today)? I think to ask the question is to answer it.

______________________________________________

==A ACTIVIST homosexual is one of the stars of the film. That is slightly different. This is not just "a homosexual" this is a high-profile ACTIVIST homosexual. Would you support this movie if Ellen were the star? How about Boy George? Elton John? There is no difference.

_________________________________________

==The fact that the movie is not about him is not important. He is one of the stars, and the production company knew of his lifestyle and views. This production company claims to be "christian", the movie is about a "christian" missionary. Therefore they must be held to the Biblical standard. Just like a Christian bookstore (etc) is about who they hire. If Disney, or New Line, had made this movie I doubt there would be as wide-spread approval of it. In fact, if that were the case, I am sure that many who now support this movie would be calling for boycotts. As for Mr Allen's views never being heard...well he has been on Larry King long before this movie was filmed. Anyone who pays attention to these issues knows who Chad Allen is. So you are 100% wrong on this point.

______________________________________________

==Actually he is thankful to the "christian" production company who put him in this role and all the christians who see the movie. Why? Because he has said that he views this movie as a way to bring christians and homosexuals together. So by supporting the movie they are supporting his goal (at least in his mind).

__________________________________________

==This is about the SIN of homosexuality and compromise in the modern evangelical world. This is a very serious issue.

Martin.

 

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. But I am curious if you know what "appearance of evil" means in scripture. Your'e applying it in a manner that suggests "stay away from anything that looks like evil".

Unless a movie is promoting a sinful purpuse, like pornography, choosing what film to see likewise falls into this category, though that an interpretive issue.

Since the movie doesn't promote a sinful message, that does not apply here.

Unless you're saying that Christians are forbidden from seeing anything that Chad Allen is in, it likewise does not apply here.

I disagree. You're sending a message that the movie was good, and that the actors in the movie were good. That's it.

They'd be laughing at us whether we saw this film or not. I don't lose much sleep over whether they're laughing at us, supportingus, denouncing us, etc.

I don't know anyone who has said we shoudl hold to any double standard.

Yes it does. However, it is the men who have decided that seeing this film is supporting sin.

 

Okay, my respect for you just went up 10 points. That's one of my favorites too.

 

I don't think he would. But, I also don't think he would be spending any time on the computers defending his stance.

If Paul were alive today, I am sure we would see him on the streets, preaching the word.

Questions such as this are a bit leading. Paul, like many others would not be like we are today. So one can not begin to compare how they would be in today's world.

I think if one were to look at any Bible-day person and ask what would they do if they were here? Then you will find they would, Live a Christian life, and Preach, Preach, Preach... not defend, defend, defend...


Jamie

 

Johnv:

==So you think that the fact that the star of this "christian" movie is a homosexual activist is not important? Like it or not supporting this movie is supporting:

a) Chad Allen's view that this movie can bring christians and homosexuals together.

b) That production companies that claim to be Christians don't have to be accountable about who they hire.

c) That Biblical morality can be compromised in the name of making a good movie.

Sorry, I can't support those things.


__________________________________________

==First I would not watch anything with Mr Allen in it. Second this is about Biblical morality and a company that claims to hold to that morality. I expect lost people to be sinners. However I also expect christian individuals and companies to hold to Biblical morality. That means no compromise in the morals area. We can't be, as it were, unequally yoked. Mr Allen views this movie as a way to bring Christians and homosexuals together (ie...to marginalize the differences). By supporting this movie certain Christians are helping confirm his view (whether they mean to or not). Mr Allen wants Christians and homosexuals alike to support this movie.

_________________________________________

==Not when you have Mr Allen saying that he hopes this movie will bring Christians and homosexuals together (etc). It is much more than what you say.

_____________________________________________

==I agree but why give them reasons to laugh?

Sort of like the old hypocrite label. Many lost folks say the church is full of hypocrites and that is why they are not Christians. And, sadly, many professing Christians (via their bad behavior) live up to the label. They may call christians hypocrites but that does not mean we should give them reasons to. It is all the more reason to make sure they are wrong. Same in this situation.
_____________________________________________

==When Jerry Falwell (etc) boycott Disney because of "Gay Day" and then support "Every Tribe" when they star a homosexual activist in their big "christian" movie is indeed a double standard. Like I said, if Disney had put out "End of the Spear" with homosexual activist Chad Allen playing one of the lead roles people like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson would be tripping over each other calling for more boycotts (and rightly so). The fact that they are supporting this movie is a double standard.

Martin.

 

JamieinNH:

==Paul used the writing methods (etc) of his day. If he were alive today I am sure he would use computers and the internet (heavily). He would reach more people, faster with computers and the internet.

_____________________________________________

==I fully agree. But you would also see him on the web. I think Paul would view the web as a valuable tool for the Gospel. I can safely say this because he did use all avenues he could in his day to spread the gospel (short of compromise of course).

Martin.

 

Again, it's not about him or his lifestyle. It's about missionaries and what happened to them. The movie is not promoting homosexuality. It's telling a true story and it remains faithful to said story. You guys are the ones making it about homosexuality.

_________________________________________

Uh, yeah it is. You thinks it's not important because it puts another hole in your already leaky boat.

______________________________________________

Actually, it's about a movie about missionaries getting killed and what happens afterwords that people are trying to convince folks is actually about a homosexual agenda.

 

I'll say this clearly and distinctly. No. IMO, those who think so are placing too much importance on such things. But that is their right if they wish to do so.

Then don't. I applaud your conviction 100%, and support you with my thoughts and prayers.

Again, your conviction, and I support it 100%.

The Good Samaritan parable was about morality, yet the Samaritan was as lost as they come, even being an enemy of God's chosen people.

All are sinners, lost or saved.

I do as well. But I adhere that to the contents of the films they produce.

I don't view this as an example of yoking.

Again, imo, this would only be hypicrisy if the content of the film were sinful. It doesn't appear to be.

No disagreement there, the topic of this film aside. But we need to address those areas individually. Many who are denouncing this film to the point where they're denouncing those who see it are frequent turners of a blind eye to the obvious areas of hypocrisy elsewhere. I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.

Good point there. But I thought the Disney boycott was stupid anyway, and hypocritical in its own right, not to mention self-righteous for more reasons that I can list.

I don't think they would be. Well, Falwell might. But FOTF had generally favorable vies of the Lord of the Rings films, and at lest one of the cast members is a homosexual activist.

Sorry Martin, et al, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise set forth. Doesn't mean I love ya all less or have less respect. It just means I respectfully disagree.

In Christ,
+Johnv

 

ShagNappy: