STARTLING! LARRY BOOKER'S Latest Message!!!(wait til you see this!!!)

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Timmy

If there were a movie of the entire Bible, accurately depicted in every detail, should a Christian watch it?

I'll raise a glass to that.

The Puritans and Moralists of today would surely object. Too sanitary to be littered with that junk.

[SeekingOne]

Originally Posted by Timmy

If there were a movie of the entire Bible, accurately depicted in every detail, should a Christian watch it?

VERY good point! We do not own a TV, but it is not because we think the TV is evil. We don't own a TV because we believe we would not have the discipline to NOT watch it often. We feel we would spend more time watching good programing, both clean entertainment and educational shows, more than reading scripture and books that encourage our walk with God.

We do watch DVD's, but if there were a DVD set that played out the entire Bible, I would NOT be able to watch some of the scenes and honestly would NOT want it in my home. I know there is information there that has a purpose, although I am not so sure what purpose some of it is, but I would not want to watch someone actually pretending to commit sexual sins. (I guess if they just implied what happened, without having to put images in my head, I would consider owning it. It is one thing to read what David did and quite another to see him in bed with another man's wife doing "things" that should not be seen by others.)

I have a medical book that explains different medical problems and possible natural solutions to those health issues. I keep it in a drawer. There are pictures and descriptions that I don't want visitors or children seeing and reading. Does that mean that I will not look at those pictures or read natural solutions if I need to help our family or a friend? Just because I don't choose to look now does not make it bad.

I guess I am saying that, just like graphic stories in the Bible, there are times that a movie might be the right thing to watch for one person and not for another. If you can read the Bible, with all the violence and such, then if a movie serves a purpose and has things you wouldn't do, but doesn't make it seem that things against the Bible are good, then I would consider watching it.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Timmy

If there were a movie of the entire Bible, accurately depicted in every detail, should a Christian watch it?

how much of it would be "R" rated and how much would be "X" rated?
just wondering what some here would think?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Sam

how much of it would be "R" rated and how much would be "X" rated?
just wondering what some here would think?

Song of Solomon aside, none of the writers got all Nicolas Sparks with it, giving you a play-by-place. In fact, the Old English interpreters say silly things like "he knew Eve his wife." And, "he laid with her."

[Jeffrey]

The point of the Biblical stories wasn't to tantalize or evoke erotic thought. Those weren't the center of the story. So I wouldn't think the movie version would overly commit to those details either.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Song of Solomon aside, none of the writers got all Nicolas Sparks with it, giving you a play-by-place. In fact, the Old English interpreters say silly things like "he knew Eve his wife." And, "he laid with her."

So, how would a movie depict those scenes? It's pretty clear (usually) what is meant. A lot of that could be tastefully depicted, sure, but nonetheless, what you would have on screen is something that a lot of Christians would quickly condemn, if it were in any other kind of movie.

And then there's the violence and gore! Yikes!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So, how would a movie depict those scenes? It's pretty clear (usually) what is meant. A lot of that could be tastefully depicted, sure, but nonetheless, what you would have on screen is something that a lot of Christians would quickly condemn, if it were in any other kind of movie.

And then there's the violence and gore! Yikes!

"tastefully" but not sanitized

[TomSlage]

Wow, so much to say, so much to say. Jeffrey I agree with you that this thread is amazing in that it's been going on for nearly 3 years.

I can certainly see we are at least from different "tribes" (for those that recognize the reference to a Larry Booker book). I cannot even relate to most of the reasoning going on here. First I want to address you, Pelathais, on these comments:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your statement about "weak leaders" is, I think, off base. Our weakest leaders have been those who refused to recognize the importance of principles and have allowed unprincipled measures to be forced upon us.

And are you not just making my point for me? The cornerstone principle of separation from the world is engaged in a full-frontal attack by the acceptance of television and movies. Didn't John tell us: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."?

The rampant spread of Hollywood values through the medium of television can NOT be denied. The sad thing is that the Church is no exception. Our young women struggle to keep up with the worldly fashions and constantly try the reins of a holiness dress code. Our young men seek to emulate the look and attitude of worldly playboys. Our married men constantly evaluate the mother of their children by the standard of the temptresses on the screen.

I can hear the reply, "But if someone doesn't have principles against those things they'll do it whether they have a TV or not." Agreed, but can you willfully, agreeably sit down and watch a female provocateur and not degrade your spiritual defenses against adulterous thoughts? Can a 16 year old girl not feel the outright assault on the preacher's standard of modest apparel when she sees the nerdy, unpopular girls in the high school drama depicted as wearing similar attire?

To say that "principles" are the focus of ALLOWING television is completely non sequitur. I've heard people make similar arguments about seat belts; "I know not wearing a seat belt puts be at risk of death so I don't wear it to ensure I drive safely." Mind boggling.

Originally Posted by pelathais

The history of the Apostolic Faith movement has been replete with examples of leaders laying down principles and masquerading their efforts with shrill cries of "holiness."

Unless you're saying that all opponents of television are hypocrites hiding some gross immorality, I agree with you. Hypocrisy is perhaps a chief reason Hell will be filled with Apostolics. But your real argument seems to be, "Let's lower the bar to such a degree that we can more easily be true to what we believe." WHAT?? Honesty is a admirable, but none of us have no right to make such a call. Is not the Lord our Master? We do what HE says, and we have NO say in the matter ourselves. The Word of God is our measuring stick.

Originally Posted by pelathais

If even one of them had summoned the courage of a Luke Skywalker, Peter Parker or even the Welsh Choir at Rorke's Drift (Zulu, Paramount-Embassy Pictures, 1964) then we wouldn't be facing the mass of problems that beset us today.

Speaking earlier of non sequitur. I have NO idea what point you're trying to make here.

I know this is a marathon post, but I want to address this quote too:

Originally Posted by Timmy

If there were a movie of the entire Bible, accurately depicted in every detail, should a Christian watch it?

We know as much as we are supposed to know. If God wanted women and children to physically view the disembowelment of Eglon at Ehud's hand, he would have allowed them to be present. Instead we have a strongly worded account that is enough to get the point across; God dramatically delivered Israel from their oppressors.

The Passion of the Christ is another example of this. Do I need to know exactly how much blood and guts was involved with the Roman crucifixion of Jesus to appreciate it? No, and a thousand times no. It becomes gratuitous. The fact that one of the bloodiest, most gore-loving directors in Hollywood made the movie is enormously telling. If I needed that anti-Semite to expound the beauty of Calvary to me in order to grasp its meaning I would have a relationship with God about an inch deep.

C'mon people, please. Be realistic here. I fully believe that married sex is holy and "undefiled", but if I WATCH footage of married sex I am a lascivious sinner bound for the Lake of Fire. I have preached from the seemingly explicit verses of the Song of Solomon, but if I watched footage of the relationship between those lovers I would be watching pornography.

I fully believe that the Israelites performed the will of God in the slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaan, but for me to revisit that and watch a recreation of that slaughter would be gore-porn. The scriptures are there for our learning. Television is there for our flesh.

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by TomSlage

The Passion of the Christ is another example of this. Do I need to know exactly how much blood and guts was involved with the Roman crucifixion of Jesus to appreciate it? No, and a thousand times no. It becomes gratuitous. The fact that one of the bloodiest, most gore-loving directors in Hollywood made the movie is enormously telling. If I needed that anti-Semite to expound the beauty of Calvary to me in order to grasp its meaning I would have a relationship with God about an inch deep.

Just curious...have you ever watched "The Passion of the Christ"?

[Jeffrey]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by TomSlage

And are you not just making my point for me? The cornerstone principle of separation from the world is engaged in a full-frontal attack by the acceptance of television and movies. Didn't John tell us: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."?

What does it mean to "love the world?"
Interestingly enough, John goes on to ellaborate what he is talking about that people are selling their lives out for -- and it's all within a few verses of this one.

For you to insinuate I have a passion for things that are anti-Christ because they are content in a story is demeaning.

The rampant spread of Hollywood values through the medium of television can NOT be denied. The sad thing is that the Church is no exception. Our young women struggle to keep up with the worldly fashions and constantly try the reins of a holiness dress code. Our young men seek to emulate the look and attitude of worldly playboys. Our married men constantly evaluate the mother of their children by the standard of the temptresses on the screen.

Not just Hollywood either. It's all around us. All media. All communication. All advertising. Our young women confuse the word "modesty" with "covering up" while exchanging that for tight skirts, over-the-top fashion experiments and all because they have no concept of godliness because they are spoon-fed rules. They aren't sinners. They are spiritually immature.

I can hear the reply, "But if someone doesn't have principles against those things they'll do it whether they have a TV or not." Agreed, but can you willfully, agreeably sit down and watch a female provocateur and not degrade your spiritual defenses against adulterous thoughts? Can a 16 year old girl not feel the outright assault on the preacher's standard of modest apparel when she sees the nerdy, unpopular girls in the high school drama depicted as wearing similar attire?

Well, since I'm from a "different tribe" (popular for separatists to say), I think the problem is your pastor's "standard" in the first place. If you can teach her that she can be part of her world, without being of it, that's a victory in itself. She may wear designer fashions, and even do her hair like Jennifer Aniston, but that doesn't mean she's "of the World." We confuse the forest for the trees, and most of our girls are great tree inspectors, with little experience in a forest.

To say that "principles" are the focus of ALLOWING television is completely non sequitur. I've heard people make similar arguments about seat belts; "I know not wearing a seat belt puts be at risk of death so I don't wear it to ensure I drive safely." Mind boggling.

Actually, the meaning is not non-sequitur, nor does it need to be. Creating a prohibition because of concerns regarding some programming on television is really more of a boggling of the mind. Do you read books? Internet? Do you watch any videos?

I can respect your opinion to keep a television out of your home, if that makes you more comfortable. However, to generalize all television programming with separatist snobbery is something different.

The meaning is that while television can be dangerous, so can a computer, so can a public library, a cell phone, behavior in private -- the goal is to let the Spirit train, and to be led by principles of love. This is an umbrella that governs our conscience in all areas. If we are too weak for any of them, then sit it out. But to point at others and decry their immorality because of it just stinks.

Unless you're saying that all opponents of television are hypocrites hiding some gross immorality, I agree with you. Hypocrisy is perhaps a chief reason Hell will be filled with Apostolics. But your real argument seems to be, "Let's lower the bar to such a degree that we can more easily be true to what we believe." WHAT?? Honesty is a admirable, but none of us have no right to make such a call. Is not the Lord our Master? We do what HE says, and we have NO say in the matter ourselves. The Word of God is our measuring stick.

He may have spoken to you about this, but he hasn't to me. He's told me not to become entangled with fornication, adultery, lying, cheating, be an honest man, love my neighbor, love my wife, love my children, reach my city, etc. If the Word of God is your measuring stick, then you must admit that you are taking your liberties to support any corporate gathering of people to become enslaved by prohibitions.


Speaking earlier of non sequitur. I have NO idea what point you're trying to

We know as much as we are supposed to know. If God wanted women and children to physically view the disembowelment of Eglon at Ehud's hand, he would have allowed them to be present. Instead we have a strongly worded account that is enough to get the point across; God dramatically delivered Israel from their oppressors.

You seem big on argumentation and logic, but this one falls miserably short. "If God wanted them to see it they would have been there." Really? So this concludes, that obviously, God doesn't want them to see it and in fact, forbids it? That's logical to you? Stories were the most common form of media at the time. A good story teller was a popular man. I'm not so sure the details were spared because of our sanitized, Puritan, Western views.

The Passion of the Christ is another example of this. Do I need to know exactly how much blood and guts was involved with the Roman crucifixion of Jesus to appreciate it? No, and a thousand times no. It becomes gratuitous. The fact that one of the bloodiest, most gore-loving directors in Hollywood made the movie is enormously telling. If I needed that anti-Semite to expound the beauty of Calvary to me in order to grasp its meaning I would have a relationship with God about an inch deep.

Have you seen the movie? Probably not

And it's not about "how much blood and guts" as much as the whole film intent on taking you there. Taking you to that place. No different than some of the altar call closings I've heard, and lightyears better than many of the Easter dramas I've seen. We are sharing in that moment. It's realness moves the story from a romanticized abstract into a very real, historical event. You don't need to see it, but for those of us who did, we were touched by it... no matter what judgements you have for Mel Gibson...

C'mon people, please. Be realistic here. I fully believe that married sex is holy and "undefiled", but if I WATCH footage of married sex I am a lascivious sinner bound for the Lake of Fire. I have preached from the seemingly explicit verses of the Song of Solomon, but if I watched footage of the relationship between those lovers I would be watching pornography.

I fully believe that the Israelites performed the will of God in the slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaan, but for me to revisit that and watch a recreation of that slaughter would be gore-porn. The scriptures are there for our learning. Television is there for our flesh.

You really believe that? A movie that insinuates the people had sex (they do some kissing and the scene cuts), or something similar, and now I'm hellbound? That's how secure you view your salvation?



What is Song of Solomon was not supposed to be sermon material? What if it were to teach a society what passionate love correctly looked like? Why sermonize from it?

When you say "flesh" I assume you say anything not spiritual dimensional. Surely, you have flesh feeding. Pleasure that refreshes us without destroying us is a legitimate pleasure. We are, after all, still pretty well locked to this earth. We have a downpayment of the future, but are living in the now. Having a laugh, enjoying a story or otherwise being entertained are not unpardonable sins. And I don't know where you get that TV has no "learning value." But you don't have one, so it's hard to make that claim.

The stories of God were not just for academic exercise. They were a way of life, a way of communicating the story. The point is, we have a double-standard. Those stories would utterly fail our sanitary inspection.