In this blog, I wrote in August 2005 about a conversation I had with a Christian conservative. The post was titled Conservatives And Movies, and during this riveting conversation, this Christian conservative told me that he would only watch films that are appropriate for his teenage daughter to see. For him, the measure of a movie’s worthiness is whether or not it is suitable for his 12 year old. I tried my best to hide my bemusement at this, but I found it an entertaining notion that the height of this man’s maturity was Spiderman II.
I think, perhaps, we need to have this discussion again, after the uproar over the film Hounddog at this week’s Sundance Film Festival. Hounddog, directed by Deborah Kampmeier, is a Southern Gothic tale, the story of a girl played by the brilliant 12 year old actress Dakota Fanning. The girl is growing up in the 1960s South with her abusive father and alcoholic grandmother, and turns to the music of Elvis Presley to escape the trauma of sexual abuse.
The main controversy appears to centre around a rape scene in the film, a scene which has -miraculously- managed to upset some people who hadn’t even seen it. So, in the best traditions of this blog, I figured I’d assess the statements of the film’s critics and respond to them here. (It’s a duty, and someone’s got to do it.) But first, it’s important to describe the scene. Note that Fanning is never depicted in a suggestive or graphic manner in the film, let alone nude. Kampmeier says, “If you have a hand hitting the ground, Dakota screaming ’stop’ and you see a zipper unzip - that creates a rape.” So the scene is non-graphic in its depiction of rape; it is accomplished by the suggestion that rape is occurring in a manner which leaves no doubt that that is the case.
So. Let’s get to it.
Ted Baehr is the chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, the organisation behind MovieGuide, a movie review magazine for Christians. The Commission is also responsible for the annual Report To The Entertainment Industry, which identifies the ten best films for families and the ten best films for mature audiences from the previous year.
Baehr has remained fairly uncontroversial for the many years he’s been doing this, remarkably. But an insight of the man came last August when he made an appearance on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country in which he compared the Grace scene in Talladega Nights (one of my favourite comedies of 2006) to the Holocaust Museum’s use of sarcasm as an attempt to depict the film’s contempt of Christianity. Obviously he didn’t appreciate Ricky Bobby’s prayer to “Dear Little Baby Jesus, in your little golden diaper,” nor his insistence that he could pray to any Jesus he wants. Baehr then called fellow Scarborough guest Leeann Tweeden an “advocate for blasphemy.” (Hysterical blasphemy, if you ask me.)
Baehr makes news again this week as one of those outraged by Fanning’s appearance in Hounddog. He claims the movie breaks federal child-pornography law. He said that the law covers material that “appears” to show minors engaging in a sexual act. “Even if they’re not actually performing the explicit act, we are dealing with a legal issue here.” Baehr said Fanning is being exploited in the film, and that it should be considered an outrage. “Children at 12 do not have the ability to make the types of decisions that we’re talking about here. If we’re offended by some comedian’s racial slur, why aren’t we offended by somebody taking advantage of a 12 year old child?”
It seems a tad convenient that a guy who’s made a career out of protecting adults from adult material is finding fault with a movie that’s controversial because of a sex scene. For this reason, it appears that Baehr is using grounds of “a legal issue” as an excuse to attack this film. Would Baehr have been any happier with Hounddog had there been no “legal issue” surrounding it? I’m sure even he would acknowledge that he would not. So this whole federal law argument is moot, as, I would argue, is his argument that Fanning was exploited. One may as well assert that Fanning was exploited in Charlotte’s Web when she was asked to handle farmyard pigs. What’s the difference? To exploit someone is to use them unfairly. The young actress is, rightly, subject to the authority of her parents who were happy with the screenplays and present on the sets of both Charlotte’s Web and Hounddog. Moreover, Fanning appears to have a great degree of control over her own burgeoning acting career and is very articulate in saying so. It could be argued that if anyone is exploiting Fanning, it is in fact Baehr, who is using her to mount an attack upon one of her own films in order to support his ideology.
If it’s not because of the “legal issues” (and it’s not) and it’s not because Fanning is being exploited (and she’s not), then why would Baehr so vehemently oppose this film, and the rape scene specifically?
The answer provokes a question I asked in my previous entry on this topic. Is the act of watching a film morally equivalent to endorsing the acts depicted therein? It seems obvious to me that is is not. Nobody would claim that it is wrong to watch a Western in which John Wayne gets shot on the grounds that observing a portrayal of the act of murder would be to endorse the act of murder. No-one believes it wrong to watch a film about crime on the grounds that to observe crime is to endorse crime. So why do we continually see sexual content condemned by Christian conservatives on the grounds that it is wrong to merely observe human sexual activity portrayed in art?
Baehr would not go so far as to say that Kampmeier is endorsing, or wishing her audience to endorse, the act of rape. He probably doesn’t even believe that himself, which explains the excuses he’s offering instead for his opposition to the movie. But he is therefore opposing this movie irrationally. If there is no legal issue (and there’s not), and there’s no exploitation (and there’s not), and the film is not intended to endorse the act of rape (not even Baehr would suggest that this is the case) then on what rational basis is he objecting to the movie?
The basic answer is that he’s not objecting to the movie on a rational basis at all. Rather, Baehr is speaking for millions of Christian conservatives who simply do not like to see anything shocking, particularly with regard to human sexuality, in any movies, ever, for any reason. They consider all such reasons invalid, because they’ve inherited a theology (and therefore a general approach to life) which views sexuality as something that should remain between the two sheets of a marital bed at all times. They don’t see film as art, and they don’t see art as the valid exploration of anything and everything relevant to the human situation. It’s on this same basis that another Sundance film exploring bestiality, and yet another exploring masturbation, are rejected.
Kampmeier is dealing with an issue in this film that few others are daring enough to address. Representatives of the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network explained to Sundance attendees that, in the time it took the audience to watch the film, eight children under the age of 12 were sexually assaulted. This is not a pornographic movie. (Even if it showed 16 boobs, 3 bare butts and a penis, it still doesn’t make it pornographic.) It’s a film about sexual abuse; it certainly isn’t a movie to turn one on or get one off. It’s a disturbing piece of work dealing with the dark subject of rape and sexual assault, a piece of work that has been described as uncomfortable, disturbing and distressing. And that’s exactly what Kampmeier intended it to be.
But to be a Christian conservative, one does not need to deal with such subjects. In fact, such subjects are to be avoided at all costs! When was the last time you heard the word ‘masturbation’ uttered in a church building? Christians are terribly awkward about sex, and a few of their other hangups. I love how the Christian movie review website Plugged In Online splits into categories everything they find abhorrent in a film, including keeping a count of the number of shits and damns.
The interesting thing is that I’ve yet to encounter a Christian conservative that can respond adequately or coherently to any of these criticisms. I’ve yet to hear a valid answer to a question I asked in my previous post on this subject: “Is there some specific injunction in either moral or ethical theory or theology that makes sexuality beyond the reach of legitimate humour,” or beyond the reach of legitimate art? How much boob can be shown before you’d allow your 12 year old to see it? Why? At what stage must a camera switch off to make a love scene acceptable? Why? How much kissing, for example, should be shown? Why? And I’ve never heard a Christian give an articulate, cogent or consistent theory regarding their prohibition of ’swear’ words, or which words fall into a prohibited category and why, or whether the words are inherently evil or just contextually wrong, or whether in that case it is still prohibited to utter such words if nobody else is present to hear them, or why their use in acting roles is therefore not justified, or whether there is a consensus on the criteria for establishing certain words as ‘taboo’, or any number of other relevant questions.
Basically, asking a Christian conservative to give logical rationale regarding their theory of acceptable art is like chatting with your pet gerbil about postmodernism; the only thing it’s likely to illuminate is the futility of the conversation.
Alas, for logical rationale about the rape scene in Hounddog, it seems we could do no better than to listen to the words of a 12 year old girl: “It’s a movie, and it’s called acting. I’m not going through anything. And for me, when it’s done it’s done. I don’t even think about it anymore. It’s not a rape movie. That’s not even the point of the film,” said Dakota Fanning, reacting to the uproar about her work. Responding to those who went as far as to call for the arrest of Fanning’s agent and mother, she said, “When it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent, my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad. I can let other things go, but when people start to talk about my mother, like, that’s really bad in my opinion; that’s an attack, and that’s not fair. They hadn’t seen the movie.”
The Christian conservative I wrote about at the beginning said he wouldn’t watch any film that was unsuitable for his 12 year old daughter. Perhaps that’s why a 12 year old Dakota Fanning makes considerably more sense than he, Ted Baehr, and the droves of Christian conservatives who are so upset about Hounddog.
John Wright
29 responses so far ↓
1 Patrick // Jan 26, 2007 at 9:38 am
Quite right. These prats have no idea why they oppose it and there isn’t anything in the bible that could give them justification for their retarded sexuality. These sensibilities came after the time in which the new testament was written and therefore they aren’t biblical. Only when people start dealing with rape and sexual abuse is it possible to try and stop it.
2 Anthony R. // Jan 26, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I read on christian review of TALLADEGA NIGHTS calling the grace scene blasphemy and that it was offensive and made fun of christianity and shit, and I just can’t understand it. Thank god there’s a place on the web where people are still logical.
3 John Wright // Jan 26, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Patrick- Thanks for visiting. I agree… Augustine is one possible source for all this tomfoolery.
Anthony- I found the scene just uproarious. It’s clear to me that the film was actually mocking Ricky Bobby himself rather than Christianity. It was the misapplication of Christian theology that was the source of the humour, not the fact that he was praying at all. Some people can be so ridiculously pedantic about faith. Check the comments section here for a full insight. It deserves a post all by itself.
4 S Quinney // Jan 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I agree entirely with this article John. I can see why some people would react against a movie with a rape scene of a 12 year old, but, as you so eloquently point out, there is no rational reasoning behind that.
5 Stephen // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:48 am
I fairness if people are uncomfortable with something in a movie - a rape scene, or violence, or whatever, then that is their prerogative. My wife couldn’t watch a horror film or even a psychological thriller. They make her really uncomfortable.
It is when people try to make their personal preferences some point of universal morality then we need to run for cover, or, as we do here on LR - fight back with venom.
Good article John.
Stephen
6 John Wright // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:01 am
Stephen- My wife is the same way. And Hounddog is not a movie I fancy seeing myself — I’ve heard it isn’t a great film in any case. But the criticism against it by Christian conservatives is entirely irrational, as is their desire to ban everything they don’t like, when what they should really be saying is simply, “This movie isn’t for me.”
7 Jeff WA // Jan 27, 2007 at 8:21 am
Yes but John, even saying This movies isn’t for me is a cop-out. Sometimes it’s beneficial to stretch the mind and to challenge urself by confronting subjects in art that are uncomfortable to watch.
8 Stephen // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:15 am
Jeff…
I disagree…it’s perfectly legitimate to refuse to see any piece of art one is not comfortable with. Only people themselves know whether they are ready to see or hear something, and, of course, somethings are simply not worth seeing. For instance, extreme pornograpy is something I’ll never sit and watch. Is that a cop out?
Stephen
9 Jeff WA // Jan 27, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Its legitimate but not always beneficial. Staying in comfort zones is what created closed minded conservatism in the first place. Wouldn’t you like to actually learn more, challenge urself, see more, expose urself to thing that may be enlightening?
10 John Wright // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:48 am
I agree with both of you! Where there’s a benefit that may derive from seeing a film that may be outside of my comfort zone, I believe there’s an importance for me in seeing it. That doesn’t mean that I will see most of them, nor does it mean that I think there’s anything inherently bad about not doing so. But I agree with Jeff that it can be beneficial, and I agree with Stephen that it’s perfectly legitimate to watch whatever you want to watch.
I don’t see ‘entertainment’ as the only possible value of film. It seems to me that there are many reasons that one would make a film, and many reasons that one would watch one. I’ll give you an example. United 93 was a movie I went to see because I felt it an important reconstruction of the events of 9/11, with the result that people regained some righteous anger about what happened and a confidence in their steely resolve against terrorism. I explained in this post why I went, and why I was encouraging everyone else to go. The most pertinent sentence in that post with regard to this discussion was, “Libertarians like me aren’t in the habit of urging ‘everyone’ to do anything, but Islamic terrorists threaten everyone here personally. So I encourage all Westerners to go see United 93.”
When the current production of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged makes its way to cinemas, I’ll be harping on people to go see that, too. The reason is that there are certain things more than others that large portions of society would do well to confront. It would be legitimate for people not to see Atlas Shrugged, but very beneficial that they do. I regard the motives of Christian conservatives in the same way with regard to many films, Hounddog being one latest example. The subject of child sex abuse is one that Christian conservatives would do well to confront, regardless of how upsetting it may be for them. And, of course, when they wish to ban a film, as they do in the case of Hounddog, there’s a whole other level to the debate. In this post, I simply went to the source of all their twitchiness and pointed out how irrational it is.
That is not to say that there are not thousands of pieces of “art” that aren’t worth seeing, or that one’s comfort zone excludes on very good grounds. Stephen mentions extreme pornography, one good example. There would likely be little if any benefit to watching such, and whether it even qualifies as art is very questionable. That said, I believe more people would do well to take a rational approach to their own comfort zones which ask principally the question, “Why am I uncomfortable with this and am I wise to reject it simply because I’m uncomfortable with it?”
In the case of many Christian conservatives, they’ve never even thought that they should ask the question.
11 Anonymous // Jan 28, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Hi John
A flying visit.
BTW, that is a perfect example of a straw man argument ref the spiderman movie and your friend.
Are you really saying that there are no great movies classified for 12s and under? You are ridiculously mis-representing him.
I am currently quite curious about how so many liberals/secularists appear to claim such absolute truth on so many issues when I thought that was logically the domain of only those with religious texts?
So the guy wants to filter whats going into his mind, hey, live and let live, a little tolerance eh?
Why should you ridicule him to death for excercising this harmless preference in his own private life?
You give a much easier ride to people practising varying types of sexuality in their private lives so why the double standards?
Anyway, the real reason I dropped by was to share this with you;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
I think it may be a crucial missing link in your world view, a better id than post-evangelical at any rate!
Im not blogging that much at present so this is just a one-off.
best
PB
12 S Quinney // Jan 29, 2007 at 9:19 am
PB,
Still searching for that missing link?
With regard to this post, John is clearly critiquing the attitudes behind certain positions on art, and in particular, film. There certainly are good movies rated for 12-yr olds but it is the restricting oneself to movies with that designation, by adults, that is interesting and worthy of exploring. A 12-yr old rating (I presume this is in Britain since ours is a PG-13) is a rating as a measure of maturity. Any adult that has the maturity of a 12-yr old is worrying, if you ask me…. and I’ve know several adults that fit that description.
And by the way I don’t think there are any double standards evident here…. like Jeff says above, this blog is about maximizing freedom, but it doesn’t mean that John can’t have opinions about better ways to use that freedom.
Regards,
Quinney
13 John Wright // Jan 29, 2007 at 12:25 pm
PB- Thanks for dropping by. Perhaps you can give an answer to some of my questions in the paragraph that begins, “The interesting thing is that I’ve yet to encounter a Christian conservative that can respond adequately or coherently to any of these criticisms.”
Thanks for the Wikipedia link; I’ll check it out.
14 Rosalita // Jan 29, 2007 at 9:33 pm
John, nice article, and I agree, though I do think Stephen has a point that it is legitimate to watch whatever you like.
15 Anonymous // Jan 30, 2007 at 7:34 am
John
You said you were “bemused” because the “height of your friend’s maturity was Spiderman II”. That is needless abuse, there are loads of good movies in that category. It ties in with other abuse on this threat using language such as retarded, prats and pedantic to describe people excercising freedom of choice in their private lives.
You have avoided all the points I raised to you as per usual.
As for a coherent argument, rubbish in equals rubbish out, numerous biblical references I havent time to get right now.
That is not to impose or justify anyone’s personal standards in their own private life.
But cultural waves move by means of media upon minds; otherwise why would so many companies pay so much to ride those waves with advertising?
And there is a never ending stream of film directors and scriptwriters in the media explaining what kind of point they were trying to get across in their film and how.
A discerning mind recognises this and discriminates.
Check out the scetic link yet?
PB
16 John Wright // Jan 30, 2007 at 8:55 am
PB- You’re missing the point. The Spiderman reference isn’t there to claim that it isn’t a good movie! (I quite enjoyed it, actually.) It’s there because, as Quinney points out above, a “12″ rating is a designation of suitability for the maturity of a 12 year old, and it was this self-regulating glass ceiling that I was bemused to hear that he had imposed on his viewing. Is such stringent self-regulation legitimate? Absolutely. But it isn’t very beneficial, maturing, sensible, considered, wise or likely to be enlightening.
You keep referring to freedom of choice. That’s what this blog is about, if you haven’t noticed. Nowhere above do I suggest restricting or otherwise coercing the freedom of anyone to make their own decisions with regard to what they watch. But that doesn’t mean I believe all those decisions are good ones! In fact, as you’ve observed by now, I think these attitudes are the result of flawed, skewed theology, and you still haven’t defended that theology. So until you do, my mind isn’t likely to change.
17 Anonymous // Jan 31, 2007 at 6:19 am
John
When have you ever changed your mind?
If you want theology try;-
Psalm 101:3
1Cor 15:33
Phillipians 4:8
There are many appropriate refs about avoiding bad company, which I feel is very appropriate to many soap operas, jerry springer etc etc. they feel like you are in the middle of a row.
Who are you to judge that your friend only developing his mind and personality by watching films for over 12s? How silly is that?
One size fits all morality? You would be more convincing if you didnt sneer at him the way you did.
PB
18 John Wright // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:20 am
Ah, great! Bible verses! Now this is getting interesting.
First Psalm 101:3. “I will set before my eyes no vile thing. The deeds of faithless men I hate; they will not cling to me.”
Do you really believe that this verse prohibits the watching of movies that contain “vile things”? I presume you’ve never seen a Western, then, since they usually contain a bunch of murders, theft, lynchings, cheating, and more. By using this verse the way you want to, you actually prohibit reading much of the bible, which contains many a “vile thing!” So your choices are: (a) stop reading the “vile things” in the bible, and cocoon yourself from the real world which also contains many a “vile thing”, or (b) abandon interpreting this verse in this way.
Second, 1 Corinthians 15:33. “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.’”
First, art is not company of any sort. It is the portrayal of many things. Second, note that Paul is quoting from the popular Greek poet Menander - this quote is from a nonbiblical source. And he does so because the original translation here is “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” In the inquiry of the pursuit of truth, he is warning the Corinthian church that they shouldn’t communicate with evil people. It’s clearly got nothing to do with viewing art of any sort and is introduced by Paul in a warning against deception. (See the Henry and Calvin commentaries for some friendly agreement.)
Finally, Phillipians 4:8. “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”
Surely you’re not arguing that it follows from the above that whatever is dishonourable, whatever is wrong, whatever is impure, whatever is hideous - if anything is inferior or discreditable - should be AVOIDED? This interpretation leaves you open to the same criticism I made to your Psalms prooftext. And it’s a logical fallacy anyway. It does not follow that because people should think about good things that they also should avoid thinking about bad things. Sometimes it is necessary to do so just to confront them.
19 Feminine Feminist // Jan 31, 2007 at 1:07 pm
John, I applaud your last two sentences. If only the pain and evils of the world could be as easily shut off as a few scenes in a film. In my opinion, each to their own. I grew up in a context where everytime someone on screen said ‘Oh my God’, my parents insisted we switch the TV off for 10 seconds, lest we become accustomed to this “blasphemy”, and think it normal… I’ve since come to think that exposure to things which are difficult to watch is perhaps no bad thing.. although if anyone went to see The Aristocrats (a film which was the telling and retelling of what portends to be the vilest joke possible)… I should say that I walked out 2/3 of the way through…
20 John Wright // Jan 31, 2007 at 3:47 pm
FF- I have to be honest; it’s unusual for me to recieve the accolade of applause from a feminist! Thanks for the comment. I rather enjoyed The Aristocrats, actually, though it’s a raw film and certainly appeals only to a small minority of tastes. I ordered it because it was controversial. Like you said, “to each their own.” Nice blog, BTW.
21 Anonymous // Feb 1, 2007 at 7:13 am
John
You have two misconceptions.
I dont advocate cocooning from the world and in fact regularly watch 18 films, but am fairly choosy about the quality.
The bottom line of your argument seems to be that pouring anything into your brain repeatedly will have no impact on your thinking or character.
I am not going to argue any longer but I ask anyone with an open mind just to think about how true that might be.
Why do advertisers spend so much if I am wrong? Was Goebbels of no effect or use to Hitler? Was Hitler really that stupid?
It is my understanding that the change in entertainment over the past 30-40 years has shown a real increase in graphic violence and sex that has desensitised society to both and fuelled an increase in real violence and problems from sex outside marriage - eg single mothers, abortion, growing up without a father etc etc, young girls being used for sex by ruthless “boyfriends” etc etc.
1) Do you think repeated watching of vile things will have any or no affect on the character of an individual?
2) If you are immersed in a theatre or film with actors acting out evil then that scriptwriter is communitcating evil to you.
3) So you think that turning Philippians around and saying that thinking about evil things will have no effect on the individual? Really?
As i understand it there is quite a strong correlation between pornography use and rape by men. ie not that porn makes men rape per se so much as that rapists are usually heavy users.
Paul says in Romans;-
1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Your arguments actually lend credibility to the canon of scripture when in fact you say you dont believe in it. That takes us back to the wikipedia link
about the sceptics’ school of thought I think fits you pretty well at the moment. Have you studied it yet?
Perhaps the most salient point John is that you are so quick to say on every occasion what you do not believe in the bible, but do you really know what you DO believe in the Bible?
From previous conversations this appears to be a huge battle in your own mind between yourself and ????
2 Peter 3:16
2 Tim 3:7
2 Tim 4:3
Eph 4:14
Mark 13:31
Heb 11
best
PB
22 S Quinney // Feb 1, 2007 at 7:49 am
PB
I don’t want to be rude here but it seems to me that you’re confused on the point of your own argument. John replied to you that if the verse you provided from Psalms prohibits letting your eyes see ANY vile thing then it entails rejecting a great deal more than the odd violent movie: it entails rejecting EVERY vile thing! You didn’t reply directly about whether you are in fact abandoning your interpretation of that verse or whether you accept that ANY vile thing should not pass your eyes, including much of real life and much of the bible itself. You skipped forward saying you weren’t going to argue about it, and then did precisely that, except very incoherently. You say also that John advocates pouring anything into your brain and it having no consequence. As you’ll see from his earlier comments, that’s blatantly false. By the way, I’m not a Christian and so I don’t give a damn what the bible says. Also, I notice that none of the verses you give talks about swear words, which I’m sure you avoid, being a Chrisitan and all. Tell me, where does the bible prohibit swearing and how do you know which words fit the bill and why?
Regards,
Quinney
PS, I’ll understand if you find these questions too difficult and come up with an excuse not to answer.
23 Anonymous // Feb 1, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Swearing, Profane,was severely condemned in the ancient Church,and seems to have been a
common practice. Swearing, or foolish or wicked adjurations by any creature or daemon, by the emperor’s genius, by angel and by saint, were reprobated. Perjured persons were placed under special penance. Profanity is also punishable by the civil law of Great Britain, and by the laws of some of the states of the United States. Though those in government today have not the courage to enforce in these the last days.
Hebrew word merah, meh-ay-raw’; meaning an execration: which is found in the Bible many times
24 S quinney // Feb 1, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Anonymous-
1) Re: the early church and profanity. Prove it.
2) Re: profanity laws. The existence of laws don’t prove whether or not those laws are good or bad. In any case, appealing to freedom-crushing laws on a libertarian website won’t get you very far.
3) You still haven’t defined profanity nor set your criteria with regard to which words should be regarded as profane and which ones haven’t, or why your criteria should apply in the first place.
In short, you’ve answered exactly NONE of the questions posed in the above article.
25 Anonymous // Feb 3, 2007 at 3:21 am
Mr Quinney
I said that John “seems” to argue for pouring anything into your head.
I actually think he loves to argue an exaggerated point against almost any view for the fun of it - look at the relish with which he finds my scripture refs.
He LOVES to talk about scripture but says he doesnt believe we should have a bible. He describes himself as a type of new evangelical(meaning gospel) but does not believe in any gospel.
He is an expert (he thinks) in trying to deconstruct all traditional Christian thinking and yet never explains what constitutes his own faith.
But why become an expert in deconstructing a faith if you dont believe in its holy book and dont believe any of its traditional teaching?
He is writing a book on the seven secrets the church does not want you to know about Christianity (all seven of which all my friends believe) but cannot give any authority/source for his assertions as he does not believe in the bible.
There are too many contradictions in his thinking for him to be taken seriously on this topic, in my opinion.
I dont detect you have an open mind on the subject.
If you are really interested to think about it, reflect on the scriptures quoted and the questions posed ref Goebbels, advertising, rape etc.
The central difference between wanton violence and illicit sex in entertainment now is that both are increasingly common in any one piece and glorified as being good and right with very little emphasis on the real world consequences. Think of the many films/programmes now where violence and or sex virtually substitue for a plot.
By contrast the bible does not glorify or focus on illict sex and wanton violence but rather shows the human impact of same. it does not feign away from illustrating them occasionally but shows very clearly the human impact. Would meditating on child rape regularly be classed as “vile” and would it affect your character? Any police officer dealing with child porn would say yes. fact.
That is an extreme example to illustrate the point. But pederasty is becoming increasingly promoted by and tolerable in society. At the other end of the extreme, you, having no absolute moral anchor are vulnerable to relatavistic arguments promoting it. Sounds extreme, but try reflecting on this concersation in 10yrs and see how societal tolerance has changed!
Peter Tatchell, the leading uk gay rights campaigner argues for the law to allow a 14 you boy to have sex with men on his website. That is not to say that is his ideal lower age.
Anyone like to discuss the number of angels that might be able to dance on the head of a needle?
PB
26 S Quinney // Feb 3, 2007 at 8:02 am
Whatever persuaded me that I should try to have a rational conversation with you PB? You are completely unintelligible, as far as I can tell. I think you must live out of a thesaurus or something because I honestly can’t understand your use of the English language and what you’re saying half the time. I *THINK* you were trying to equate this movie with child pornography, when in fact this movie is an attempt to achieve the exact opposite of child pornography- to expose the evil of exploiting children, whereas child pornography exploits children. You’re saying this to try and defend the bible as a *special* case, but entirely miss the point and entirely ignore my previous comments.
Sorry, PB, I just can’t understand enough of where you’re coming from to continue this discussion. Maybe angels on a needle is a more suitable conversation for you to pursue.
27 Anonymous // Feb 3, 2007 at 2:11 pm
No Mr Quinnel
I was not equating this movie to chld porn, I have not seen it or even read any reviews of it so that would be a bit silly.
Sorry you werent able to follow my argument.
My point is simply that I think it is wise and biblical to be discerning about what you pour into your head.
PB
28 John Wright // Feb 3, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Quinney- Didn’t you know? PB’s thesaurus is legendary!
PB- You say: “I said that John ’seems’ to argue for pouring anything into your head.” But you’re still using that to make an argument so what’s the difference?
You say: “He LOVES to talk about scripture but says he doesnt believe we should have a bible.” Wrong; I say I don’t believe modern evangelicals can adequately defend the idea of a ‘canon’ of Scripture. The bible would still exist; it would merely be understood differently.
You say: “He describes himself as a type of new evangelical(meaning gospel) but does not believe in any gospel.” Wrong, again. I describe myself as a POST-evangelical. By definition, that means that I am no longer any kind of evangelical. And of course you’ve entirely made up the part about me not believing in any gospel. That’s just blatantly false.
“But why become an expert in deconstructing a faith if you dont believe in its holy book and dont believe any of its traditional teaching?” Perhaps the reason I’d denounce a faith I didn’t believe in is precisely because I don’t believe in it! (???)
I think after this PB we should all be aware of how little your belief system is informed by rational, critical processes and, therefore, how ill-equipped you are to analyse mine.
29 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2007 at 6:41 am
John
Sorry if that was a bit pointed.
But a post-evangelical is absolutely still a type of evangelical - or it would not use the term;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#.22Post-evangelicalism.22
If you really want to defend your position you should be able to answer two questions quite easily;-
1) What type of bible do you actually believe in?
2) What is the gospel you believe in?
PB
Leave a Comment