I've seen Saw 1. And that was enough for me, and reading from detailed reviews of 2, 3, 4. It is not something I want to continue to watch. Seeing limbs and body parts get ripped off in horrible ways, gore and blood squirting everywhere... Violence in movies in one thing, but there is a limit to where they can go "to far" with violence, were it becomes just sickening to watch. That is what Saw is known for.
I don't like giving my location to people, or even my city. Unless, of course, I know them personally.
So, before you bash a movie telling everyone how wrong it is, Iâ€™d recommend you watching the movie for yourself. Donâ€™t judge a book by its cover until youâ€™ve read it for yourself. Unless, of course, youâ€™ve seen the movie. Which based on your huge negative review, I doubt you have. Maybe you have though.
We see the detrimental changes one character undergoes as he chooses to seek revenge on those he feels have wronged him. The Dark Knight is not what I would consider a movie to shun from watching. It is dark movie, yes, there is violence, but not necessarily in the way you are insinuating and exaggeratingâ€¦especially having pluggedinonline comparing it to the saw seriesâ€¦that a little extremeâ€¦ The movie is dark in that it shows the truly evil nature of the villains and how a person can become corrupted by continually making bad decisions. But Batman is ultimately the hero of the movie and he chooses to make huge personal sacrifices for the people of Gotham.
I wouldn't consider any of that a horribly objectionable "evil" or anti-Christian film. You make it sound as if the movie should be shunned. I agree that the Lord's name should not be taken in vain. I'm sure most Christians have boundaries for the movies they will watch. However, all Christians have different limits that we set, that differ from individual to individual. Where to draw the line is important and involves a great deal of discernment on our parts. Also people will not always agree on where the line should be drawn.
I would first like to say that the quoted pluggedinonline review is not accurate. Pluggedinonline at times over-exaggerates on how they describe e things. Comparing them to the Saw series is completely ridiculous.
I take it basically, that essentially, you are saying that The Dark Knight is an evil film and Christians shouldn't be watching it. But I do object to your labeling of The Dark Knight as a movie with a "violent and dark or maybe even a (evil) messageâ€ť, and should be avoided at all costs. The movie actually has several positive messages throughout this fantastic film. Batman goes so far as to willing sacrifice everything he holds dear (his reputation, his chance at a relationship with the woman he loves, etc.) to protect the people of Gotham. The people of Gotham also demonstrate and strongly show a heightened sense of morality when they are tested with a kill or be killed "experiment" set up by The Joker. Lt. Gordon continues to set a good and positive example for the citizens of Gotham as a trustworthy and honorable police officer. And eventually turns into Commissioner Gordon.
Please note that while I am accused of poor study skills, philosophical error and lousy rhetoric, the blog in question is not authored by me. This was clearly indicated multiple times in the opening lines of the blog (one might question one's interpretive skills). However, I am no doubt guilty by association in that I stand by the author, Pastor Steve Mitchell of Garden City Grace Brethren Church, Roanoke, VA. It should also be noted that young Bible College students with lots of academic theory and little experience in the trenches of Gospel warfare would benefit from their own advice; â€śhumbly repent from your attacks and grow in conviction of truth.â€ť Furthermore, if you are going to argue that someoneâ€™s rhetoric is poor, or that quotes have been mishandled, it is helpful to provide examples of those instances to substantiate your rhetoric.
Ryan, I respectfully submit that your reply is nothing more than an ad hominem attach on Pastor O'Neal. You have attacked by insulting the speaker and making accusations. If you have a personal knowledge of Pastor O'Neal that would substantiate your insinuation that he is ignorant of proper Biblical hermanuetics, philosophy, or rhetoric, then by all means bring that to light. Using ad hominem is not only fallacious reasoning, it is disappointingly unchristian behavior.
You have accused the pastor of abusing scripture, a serious charge indeed. However, you have not substantiated your claim to any degree. I'm certain that Pastor O'Neal would be most eager to reason with you from scripture, should you afford him that opportunity by being gracious enough to present specific concerns/scripture references.
You appeal to this pastor for humble-mindedess...please reconsider your own standing in this regard (Matt. 7:3-5).
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
Aidan, Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I have a few comments and questions. God is the source of divine revelation and we are saved by His grace. Do you believe that He reveals himself only through Holy Scripture? Are your comments regarding sola fide infallible?
edl: Try to think of it this way. If we reject sola scriptura, then either (1) divine revelation can be had from some other source, or (2) salvation requires more than divine revelation. If (1), then what other source? Is it reason or logic? Hardly, because logic isn't capable of giving us any substantive first principles; it only works with what it has. As for reason, it's demonstrably unreliable because, as Kant understood, it often sends us down dead-end streets. Reason is no less mischievous than emotion, and its natural tendency is to run amok. What about mystical "experience" as a source of revelation? The New Age trades heavily on this notion, but what assurance do we have that we can take any putative "experience" at face value? How do we know that it is of divine origin? To say "I know that I know . . ." implies a claim of persoanal infallibility. If (2), then what else other than divine revelation can trump divine authority? If it can't, then it's redundant and there's no point in considering it. As for sola fide, it's ubiquitous in the letters of Paul. The emphasis on works in James is not inconsistent with sola fide. A careful reading reveals that works are the result of faith, not the cause of it. It's the distinction between justification and sanctification.
Chuck, I'm sorry, but I cannot find any mention of "Scripture Alone" or of "Faith Alone" in the Holy Bible. James 2:24 does mention "that a man is justified by works and not by faith only." 2 Timothy 3:15, while it does describe the importance of Scripture, does not prove the doctrine of "Scripture Alone."
Chuck, Nevertheless, Paul is using an extra-Biblical tradition to instruct Timothy. When Paul says to Timothy, "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures . . .", to what books of the Bible is he referring? Thank you for your thoughtful answers.
We can't forget the warnings of verses 3-5. The Roman Catholic Church forgot them and heresy after heresy has been added over the centuries.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Tim 4:3-5)
Consider the context of your quote my friend. The Apostle Paul references two individuals of extra-biblical antiquity as examples of usurping the authority, power, and message of Godâ€™s servant Moses. His purpose in doing this is to expose the false teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus who had strayed from rightly dividing the word of truth into profane and idle babblings like those of the popes and their counsels. Previous to his mention of Jannes and Jambres he reminds pastor Timothy to â€śrightly divide the word of truthâ€ť (2 Tim 2:15), and then just after the historic illustration he affirms the total sufficiency of Holy Scripture saying:
From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.(2 Tim 3:15-4:2)
Chuck, In 2 Tim 3:8 Paul uses Jannes and Jambres defiance of Moses as an example when teaching Timothy about men who defy truth. I cannot find a reference to either of these men in the Old Testament. Is Paul using a Jewish tradition to teach Timothy? Thank you for your comment. edl