"The End of the Spear"

[Boanerges]

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

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
I DO expect Christian films and producers of Christian films to set a Godly standard which does not include hiring homosexual activists to play in their movies. I DO expect well-known evangelicals to take a firm stand when there is sin or the appearance of evil in the camp.

Exactly. Your standard, not God's standard.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Then please list for us all the ways in which this movie is not, as you say, conforming to the world.

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.

The uninformed are likely to say, if Jerry Falwell recommends it or if James Dobson recommends it, there must be nothing wrong with it.

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.

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Ah, but shouldnt the Christian's Standards be reflective of the Word of God.

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.

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

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

Are you?

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

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
As far as letting each be convinced in his own mind, that argument won't hold an ounce of water when there are famous evangelicals persuading flocks of sheep to go see it, i.e. James Dobson and Jerry Falwell.

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.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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

 

[LadyEagle]

Here's God's standard, Johnv:


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

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.

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.

 

[Linda64]

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!!!

 

[ShagNappy]

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 ]

 

[Martin]

Johnv:

This is not an issue of conforming to the world. It's an issue of letting each be convinced in his own mind.

==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).

___________________________________________

On the contrary. It's your standard, not God's standard, that you're expecting everyone to follow.

==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.

 

[LadyEagle]

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.

 

[Martin]

ShagNappy:

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.

==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.

______________________________________________

Simple facts. The movie is faithful to the story. A homosexual is IN the movie.

==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 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.

==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.

______________________________________________

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.

==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).

__________________________________________

Now, why don't you go beat up some kindygartners and tell 'em they are going to hell because they sang "I Can Only Imagine" at Sunday School!

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

Martin.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Linda64:
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.

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".

Originally posted by Martin:
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.

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.

In this case we are talking about "sin" and supporting "sin".

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

And make no mistake about it; pay to see this movie and you have supported Mr Allen.

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

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".

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

I assure you they are laughing at christians who support this film.

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.

We can't hold such double standards (its ok for Christian companies but not for secular companies).

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

Correct me if I am wrong but does not the Bible also condemn those who support those who are in sin?

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

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
BTW, "I Can Only Imagine" is one of my favorite songs.

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

 

[JamieinNH]

Originally posted by Martin:
Let's ask the question: Would Paul have paid to see this movie (were he on earth today)?

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

 

[Martin]

Johnv:

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.

==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.


__________________________________________

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

==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.

_________________________________________

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

==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.

_____________________________________________

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 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.
_____________________________________________

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

==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.

 

[Martin]

JamieinNH:

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

==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.

_____________________________________________

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

==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.

 

[ShagNappy]

Originally posted by Martin:
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.

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.

_________________________________________

The fact that the movie is not about him is not important.

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

______________________________________________

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

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.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Martin:
So you think that the fact that the star of this "christian" movie is a homosexual activist is not important?

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.

Sorry, I can't support those things.

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

I would not watch anything with Mr Allen in it.

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

Second this is about Biblical morality and a company that claims to hold to that morality.

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.

I expect lost people to be sinners.

All are sinners, lost or saved.

However I also expect christian individuals and companies to hold to Biblical morality. That means no compromise in the morals area.

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

We can't be, as it were, unequally yoked.

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

I agree but why give them reasons to laugh? Sort of like the old hypocrite label.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

 

[Martin]

ShagNappy:

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.[/QOUTE]

==So it is perfectly ok in your view for a "christian" company to make a "christian" movie and star an activist homosexual. In your view that says nothing? It does not bother you at all?

_________________________________________
The fact that the movie is not about him is not important.

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

==Let's stick with the facts. Mr Allen stars in this "christian" movie (see above). He recieves money and exposure from this movie. It helps his cause and his view. It is a very important fact that he is in this movie (no matter what the movie is about). This is about Biblical morality and christians who seem to think it is ok to compromise it. That is not acceptable. If you think that is legalism (or whatever) then you can think that. However I stand by my firm assertion: this is moral, Biblical compromise. It is a spiritually and morally dangerous slippery slope. I am sad that so many evangelicals can't, or won't, see that. Again, though, I stand by my other statement as well. If Disney had made this exact movie........

______________________________________________

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.

==That stars a high-profile homosexual activist. Don't leave that out.

Martin.