How I Examine a Film

When I'm examining a movie the first thing that I consider is whether or not it recognizes that the LORD is and that He is God. I'm not interested in buying and having my children watch the Beverly Hillbillies. I do not mean to pick on this show. I've only seen one or two and that a few years ago they may be better or worse than I know. I enjoyed them but I do not know of them ever reading or quoting the Bible, praying or attending church. So even if there were nothing else questionable I'd just not want them because if one is not for Christ he is against Christ.

If a movie accepts that the LORD is God then I consider if there are bad things in it which make it unacceptable to watch. If a picture is a horror film it is not acceptable even if it's somewhat Christian! There are some things which are a shame to speak about and how much more to portray in a film. It should be noted though that by sticking with movies that recognize God as God, most films with things that should not be viewed will be eliminated.

Though I'd reject many films because of the sin portrayed in them, most stories will have some bad antagonist in them and this is okay, for the Bible is full of stories of men's sins. But when bad things are portrayed I have two questions about how they are portrayed. First is it dealt with discreetly and tastefully? Second are things that are bad clearly recognized as bad and those that are good as good?

It seems to me that even if some sins are portrayed with some discretion and made to be bad a young child can still be disturbed because of not understanding the whole matter and so I think that I, as a father, need to be sure that I interpret what my children see for them so they know what's going on. And there may even be some very good movies which it would perhaps be wise of me to wait to let my children see till some older age.

I do think that the quality of cinematography, acting, music, and other aspects of a film are important. It is good to have an appreciation for good work, but I want to be certain that I do not care more about the technical aspects of a particular picture, than about the more important aspects.

Each family may perhaps have differing standards and varying ways of evaluating movies. This is altogether fitting and good, for each Christian is at a different place in sanctification and may have more or less issue with certain things. All Christians, however, should be conscious and intentional about what they watch and try to see that Christ would be happy with their films. We must avoid bad movies, but on the other hand I think we should have good movies in our homes. Films can communicate quite powerfully and a good sermon or documentary that is done well can greatly benefit a family. Some dramas are also very good and can help or encourage us like some of the Christiano or Sherwood films.

What About Pictures?

     God does not change and what is good and evil does not change.  Throughout history many groups of people have come and gone but all men are sinners and generally face the same issues just in different manifestations. For example, the Romans had violent games in the Colosseum for entertainment. We do not have that today, but many people are entertained by violent games on the computer. 
     Movies are something that most people today watch.  I do not know of any time in history before now when people had movies.  And yet, at different times in history people have had theaters (Acts 19:31), plays, pictures, and music.  Some have called a movie a "picture."  While all of the issues that relate to movies have probably been dealt with before, films seem to be more complicated because they bring together so many different issues.  There are pictures, words, music, and a story line; but they are also related to television, theaters, and a general captivation with entertainment.  Because they are so popular today everyone has to deal with them in one way or another. Some in the world seem to be fine with anyone viewing any amount of any movies, but the Christians I know generally have some standards for what movies they will watch and often how much time they will spend watching movies. Some think we should watch no videos in our own homes, but while I'm not going to discuss it now, I believe the medium of film is very legitimate to use.  People can watch too much and become like one who is sitting back and watching everything, but never doing anything, but I'm not going to discuss that aspect now either.  In this post I'd like to share some thoughts on evaluating the content of movies.
     I've noticed that different Christian families have different things that are key in their evaluation of movies.  Some are especially keen about violence and others about clothing.  One thing people are often careful about is bad language.  Each of these things is a moral issue.  I believe it is very important to properly evaluate morals in a film, but there is something more important than morals.  That is whether the movie is Christian or humanistic.  If a movie has no swearing and is somewhat moral, but completely leaves God out as if He does not exist, it is a humanistic film.  Some films treat life as if God exists and the Bible is His word. Of course we would think of the modern Christian films like Time Changer or Courageous, but there are also many other movies that do this, such as Sergeant York and some Roy Rogers.  But many films on the market acknowledge another god.  An example could be Star Wars which recognizes a "force" that is similar to Buddhism.  Some films acknowledge the state as god, but many just make selfish humans to be god.  The theology of a movie is more important than it's morality, because morality is determined by God.  If we do not the LORD as God we have no basis to maintain any morality.  Numbers 33:52 says, "Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places." (emphasis added)  Just as the children of Israel were not to tolerate the pictures of the heathen, we should not tolerate motion pictures that are heathen.  This includes Harry Potter, but also many other films that we may think are innocent. 
     For sake of time I'm not going to discuss anything further in this post.  Perhaps I shall have more to say another time. 
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Philippians 4:8

The Great Comission to Nations

      Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
     God has commanded us to preach the Gospel to every creature but He has also told us to disciple nations. There are three things that I would like to point out that we can conclude from the command to teach all nations.
     First, Christianity transcends nations. While countries come and go the church remains. One hymn puts it this way:
                  Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
                  But the Church of Jesus constant will remian,
                  Gates of hell can never 'gainst that Church prevail;
                  We have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail.
      Second, God sees people as being parts nations. Many in the world want to minimize national patriotism and instead replace it with alliegence to the earth. There are also some in the Church who do not want to think much of their national citizenship. While we are subjects of Christ's Kingdom, we still ought to love and be loyal to our own nation just as we should love our earthly family even though we are part of God's family which is far more important. God is the one who established governments and divided mankind into nations at the tower of Babel.
      Third, the preching of the gospel should have an effect on a nation as a whole. All the people in any earthly nation will probably never be saved but the commands of Christ and God's power will affect an entire nation when the great commission is carried out. The Bible will change the culture of any people who are taught it. The government of a nation will also be affected. A nation cannot follow both God's law and Sharia law.
     While nations are to be taught according to the great commission, we who are Christians are the one's who must do the teaching out of obedience to God.
                 
                    

Of Evolutions, Kinds, and Families



www.solvefamilyproblems.com



     According to Richard Dawkins, once upon a time aliens visited a planet we call earth and the seed of life and it has since evolved into numerous kinds of plants and animals.  But, we do not believe in evolution, our God is not a little green man!  He is the God of the Bible, who created the earth about six thousand years ago and has told us about it in His Word. 

     Genesis 1 tells us about God making the various kinds of plants and making them to reproduce after their kind.  It further goes on to describe God making all the animals on days 5 and 6 and causing them to reproduce after their kind.  We see this clearly demonstrated in farming.  There are numerous varieties of wheat and corn, yet they never evolve into another kind of plant.  Also, among cows there are many breeds and some look quite different than others; but they are all cows.  

      Intelligent evolutionists make accurate observations of animals varying and illogically conclude that animals can evolve into new kinds of animals though this is never observed.  As Christians, we also can see animals vary but believe that they must reproduce after their kind as God said in Genesis 1. 

     In Leviticus 19 God forbade the children of Israel breeding their cattle with a different kind.  There is specific application here for scientists and those working with plants and animals. There is also a general principle in the Bible that while life can vary a great degree we ought not to change life into something that is completely different from what God created it to be.  Our churches, governments, and families should follow God's original plan for them.

     The world endeavors to reinvent marriage into something completely different than what God created.  There can be great variety in marriages with different personalities, ages, circumstances, and other things yet we cannot define it differently than God does! When Jesus was questioned about divorce He went back to creation indicating that man ought not to change what God has established. When Paul was discussing the roles of men and women in church he went back to creation presupposing and confirming that we should not change the order God set up.

     

Fruitfulness

     The first command in the Bible, in order of importance, is, "Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength."  The first command in the Bible that you will find if you start reading at the beginning is, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." Since this is one of the very first things God told man it must be pretty important.

     It is essentially saying, "have children, have children, have children..." However, as I thought about this it occurred to me that being fruitful refers directly to having one's own children, multiplying is what happens when one's children each are fruitful and replenishing the earth is what happens when this happens for generations. God created mankind to have dominion over the earth but obviously Adam could not do this by himself so God gave him a helper and told him to have children.

     This means that couples ought to desire to have children and actively do their duty. When a couple decides to use any form of birth control to prevent or space children, whether they realize it or not, they are deciding to not obey this command, at least for a time. How many children should one have? All the children that God will give by right means! One should not disobey one of God's principles to have children like Abraham did. Some couples will be barren and some may only have one, but if God gives a couple twenty, that would be great!

     One of the implications of this command is that it is normative for people to get married. Furthermore, if God enables one to be prepared and able, it is better to marry young so there can be more years to have children.  Thomas Malthus (one of the bad philosophers from the 1800's) said that famines, disease, and war were good for mankind because they kept our numbers low. He also taught that couples should marry older so they would have less children. In contrast to this, the Bible speaks of the wife of one's youth and Psalm 127 speaks of 'children of the youth.'
    Just as God blessed man telling him to be fruitful God wants all to come to repentance and become sons of God. God told the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature. They could not tell all the world by themselves but as those they taught teach others the Church can multiply also.

P.S. To whom it may concern: while I enjoy blogging and think that it is a good idea, I feel that it takes some time that I could really use in other things while at the same time I do not think that I'm giving this blog enough time to do it well. Therefore I think I shall cease to post for a time. Perhaps I shall resume sometime in the future.

   

Man's Ideas or God's Word?

     Today we have an increasing number of satellites and people going to space. I assume we have more money being spent than ever and more men working astronomy related jobs. When modern astronomers make calculations they sometimes use a geocentric model and other times a heliocentric one, out of convenience.  From what I can tell, most PhD. astronomers and astrophysicists believe in some relativistic model of the universe.  Though there are some, even that work for NASA, who believe in a geocentric universe.  The general populace though, is taught of a heliocentric solar system.  In spite of this fact, polls show that about 1 out of 5 people in America and Britain believe that the earth does not move.
     We are often given the idea that the battle between belief in a geocentric or heliocentric universe, was fought and settled four centuries ago.  As I've studied though, I have found that even though the general attitude switched from a geocentric to a heliocentric model of the universe after Copernicus and Galileo, ever since the topic has still been debated, and for a couple millenia before that as well. 
     Introductory materials on this topic often contrast Kepler's Renaissance model with the Greek philosopher Ptolemy's geocentric model.  This is somewhat erroneous, because some of the best astronomers at the time of Copernicus were developing current geocentric models and and when Aristotle and Ptolemy were refining geocentrism another Greek astronomer, Aristarchus, developed the first recorded heliocentric model.  Yet, Jason Lisle says Ptolmey's model can predict planetary motion as well as Kepler's. I do not want to bore you with long tales about cosmology through the ages, I do not think it necessary to examine to many details since what people believed does not change reality and also since many of these astronomers were pagan Greeks, Babylonians, Indians, and Muslims.
     Before any of these models of the universe came out, people must have either believed that the earth was stationary while the sun moved or that the earth had motion which caused the sun to appear to rise instead.  I suppose it's possible that they just didn't think anything about it, but I think most of them just assumed that the sun was moving while the earth was still, because unless you are taught otherwise, that is the way things seem to be. 
     When we consider the heavens, we should think, "What is man?"  People form great models and philosophical systems, and then pass away as the grass.  All the while the earth remaineth and the sun and moon continue.  Man thinks he is smart, and studies things out (which he should do), yet we are minuscule beings compared to the universe.  On the other hand, the universe cannot contain God.  Godknows all and God was before there were any heavens or earth, and He only had to speak to create them. 
     As we look at scientific theories throughout history, they are constantly being modified and changed.  The only reason the science of our day appears absolute, is that we may not live long enough to see it change!  The Bible on the other hand, does not change, for God has preserved it and will do so forever.  If we really want to know for certain if the universe is geocentric, heliocentric, or accentric, we need to find what the Bible teaches, if it teaches something on this issue. 
     I've looked at Genesis 1 and I believe it tells of a geocentric universe.  But what does the rest of Scripture say?  Ecclesiastes 1:5 says, "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."  If God wanted to tell us that the sun moves around earth, would this not be plain enough?  Did God speak this way because of the people's beliefs while the Bible also tells of so many scientific truths that the people of the time were ignorant of?   If one looks at the verses before and after this verse they are speaking very literally, so what gives us the right to say that this one is not? 
     Psalm 19 says that the sun "is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race."  Is this a good description of a stationary object that you are moving around?  Any races I have seen, the ones racing are the ones moving, while the observers are sitting still.  II Peter 3:5 refers to the earth as standing like as Joshua says the sun stood when it stopped.  The end of Psalm 93:1 says, "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." 
     If you do a simple search in your concordance you can find numerous mentions of the suns motion, while you will find none indicating that earth turns on an axis or moves around the sun. You will also find a few verses which indicate that earth is not moving.  Is it sound hermeneutics to not allow these verses to indicate anything cosmological?
     The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. -Psalm 19:7-9
  
   

'Owr' and 'Maowr'

   After having a conversation yesterday at church about the previous post I thought that I should note a few things.  Before I do though, I'll  admit that I have a very limited understanding of science and even though the scriptures are plain enough for a child to understand they also contain depths which we will never fathom in our lives.
   In our language we use one word 'light' to refer to both the light waves (or particles) and also the point from whence the waves come. Ex. when he turned on the light there was light. This is no problem for we can normally understand the meaning from the context, but in the Hebrew there is two words for light. 'Owr' refers to light waves and 'maowr' refers to the light source.
   The light which God created on day one was 'owr'.  There was light but the source of it 'maowr' was not yet created until day four. All the light we see today has a definite source but obviously God could have used physics we do not know of yet. He could also have worked outside the laws of science which he made.
    God created this light and divided it so that it was light on one side of the earth and dark on the other and thus there could be evening and morning. God could have just caused the light to be divided like that without any point from whence it was coming. Or, He could have had or been a point from whence the light was coming.
    If God was a point from whence this created light was coming, as I postulated in the previous post, He was not shining forth in all His glory in our physical universe or all would have been consumed! God would rather have been sending forth light, without the sun, as He sent forth light with the pillar of fire or the light which caused Moses' countenance to glow on Mt. Sinai.
    Whatever the details are, I don't know enough (perhaps the passage doesn't say enough) to be dogmatic about what I have postulated. I do firmly believe that God created the earth stationary as a center around which the rest of the universe was created. I also believe that the sun is moving and the light did move around earth on a daily basis. The reason for this is that it fits all the scriptures perfectly and is a model which one could derive solely by studying the scriptures while the currently popular heliocentric or acentric models one would never find in the Bible unless he had first found it from some other source. When people decide to operate on human reason over what they think the Bible indicates in any area of life it can lead to serious problems especially over generations.