Godless Hollywood? Part IV

In Part I of this series I raised the topic of Christians in Hollywood. Based on responses to that, I promised to follow up with how Christians in Hollywood should behave, and here I asked what makes a good movie. Finally, here, let's look at what kinds of movies Christians should make, and what kinds should they watch.

Let's first look at two types of stories that get made into movies: the Platonic and the Aristotelian. (HT Ron Austin of Act One.) If you remember your Philosophy 101, Plato postulated an ideal world of "forms," the purest manner of existence for things we perceive day to day. We see a tree in this world; in the world of forms, an ideal, perfect tree exists. Therefore, something Platonic can be seen as idealized. A Platonic story seeks to teach and impart a moral lesson.

On the other hand, Aristotle, in his Poetics, says the purpose of story is to bring about catharsis -- to allow the reader or viewer to re-cognize (literally, to re-know what he already knows) the particulars of his life in the universal truths being revealed in the story. Aristotelian stories are very big on archetypes, whether it be Hercules or Rocky.

Two examples from the same historical event -- the Nazi Holocaust -- will help illustrate this point: Schindler's List, with its tagline "Whoever saves one life, saves the entire world"; and Sophie's Choice, with its tagline "There are some things we have yet to imagine." Both are Oscar-winning films, but Schindler's List is Platonic in telling the story of courage and self-sacrifice. There are great ideals to learn from this story. Sophie's Choice, on the other hand, is tragic, with no real lesson to learn other than, perhaps, sinful man's predisposition to incredible cruelty. But the powerful film is very Aristotelian because it provides catharsis. We experience shock, horror, pity and empathy as the story of Holocaust survivor Sophie Zawistowski (Meryl Streep) unfolds before us, and we recognize those same emotions in ourselves.

The problem is that many Christians seem to believe that the only form of storytelling is -- or should be -- Platonic. All stories should convey a positive message or some kind of Aesopian moral. And there's nothing wrong with that -- some of the time. After all, the story of Oskar Schindler is a strong example for us to stand up for the weak and downtrodden and to fight injustice in any way we can. The problem arises when the need to preach a message overwhelms the more basic need to tell a good story. Instead of having the positive message emerge naturally from the story, à la Schindler's List, it's pasted on or shoehorned in. Such stories, if they're not careful, tend to be peopled, not by three-dimensional human beings, but by two-dimensional characters mouthing platitudes. Their actions don't grow out of their character; they result from the need to have certain things said or done to help teach the lesson. As Thom Parham said, they're little more than high-tech flannelgraphs.

On the other hand, Aristotelian stories such as Sophie's Choice allow us to experience Sophie's life and the horrible choice she is confronted with. We experience horror, fear, outrage, empathy, pity and a range of other emotions as this story unfolds, and this makes us more aware of such things as we re-cognize them in the world around us. It allows an outlet for these feelings in the world of the story instead of in the real world. In such stories dialogue and actions grow naturally out of the situation and the characters' life stories, not out of any need to impart a lesson.

As Ron Austin writes in an essay called "The Hollywood Divide":

Christians have tended to be more comfortable with Platonic dramas. You often hear religious commentators criticize what seem to them to be excesses of the Aristotelian tendency: "Why do you want us to see such ugly things?" they ask. Or, "Why do you have to use such bad language?" They are asking, not unreasonably, for a story that presents a model of good behavior, particularly for a young audience. What they don't understand is that Aristotelian drama needs to confront us with the ugly and unpleasant if it is to take us to those dark places requiring purgation.

But whereas Platonic movies can tend to be preachy, Aristotelian stories can tend to dwell too much in the dark and ugly solely for the sake of being dark and ugly. A perfect example of the latter is the recently released No Country for Old Men. The Coen brothers have been among my favorite filmmakers -- Fargo and The Big Lebowski are simply brilliant -- but the brothers' tendency has always been toward the dark and ugly. No Country is brilliantly made with standout acting, but in the end it is just a hopelessly dark, nihilistic fable with an especially cynical ending.

My personal taste is towards the Aristotelian, mostly because such stories tend to be truer, but there are plenty of Platonic stories among my favorites, including Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. And then there are films like A Simple Plan, which is profoundly Christian and Platonic in illustrating 1 Timothy 6:10 while also being profoundly Aristotelian as we watch families and friendships destroyed by greed.

So what's the answer to the question that opened this? Christians should make and see both types of stories if they're excellent and true. If they have these two crucial factors, everything else should follow.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Ted Slater said the following at 3:11 PM on Dec 12:

Tom, thanks for providing a framework in which to evaluate movies.

In an upcoming blog post, could you address head-on the morality of not seeing a movie because the detriments outweigh the benefits?

In other words, a movie may contain a powerful message otherwise well-told, but because of some content (e.g., extreme sexuality, extreme violence, extreme language, extreme worldview) it's best for an individual, perhaps most individuals, not to view it.

A corollary might be: How does an individual best determine which movies *not* to see, though they are drawn to them after viewing their trailers? And how might individuals communicate in a winsome manner that others might be wise not to see a particular movie?

I guess I'm just concerned that some may expose themselves to harmful imagery and language and worldview simply because a movie includes a powerfully-communicated message.

2. kman said the following at 3:28 PM on Dec 12:

excellent- how would you define this word as you use it in your post?

Paul- I believe- speaks of things that it is shameful to even mention. So it would seem that some topics are just off limits to Christians no matter how platonic or Aristotelian they may be.

3. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 4:51 PM on Dec 12:

Fully agree! Excellent post!

4. Jacob Douvier said the following at 4:54 PM on Dec 12:

I am curious, Tom, what you think of "To End All Wars?" It is an excellently made film that conveys strong Christian themes, though it is not a "safe" film (the main characters are Scots and they cuss up a storm, plus there is R-rated violence). It is a very intense story that leaves me exhausted and pensive.

Also, Tom, can you think of any films that demonstrate a good balance of both categories or do you think it's even possible to do that?

5. Bethany said the following at 11:01 PM on Dec 12:

Great summary!

I would also highly recommend the book that the essay is published in--Behind the Screen: Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film, and Culture.

6. Jo said the following at 10:23 AM on Dec 13:

brilliant post, thank you for this. i learned something!

7. Tom Neven said the following at 10:53 AM on Dec 13:

Ted

Excellent questions. Can you wait a bit for an answer? There are a few other topics I've put on the back burner to try to finish this (ever-expanding) series. But you need to mention Paul in context. Here's the full context of the quote:

"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible" (Ephesians 5:11-13, my emphasis). Paul is not saying to run away and hide from evil things; if so, we could never finish reading the Old Testament. He's saying to expose them for the evil they are.

kman

Excellent would be just that: a film that is excellent in its presentation, story-telling, acting, writing ... etc. Something worthy to be praised. Significantly, something worthy to be praised can still have rough material (the books of Kings and Chronicles come to mind).

Jacob

To End All Wars is a great film, written by a fine Christian gentleman, Brian Godawa. Yes, there's some rough stuff in their, but it's part of what makes the story true. (The story is true in more sense than one, too, since the film is based on actual events in WWII.)

As for films that balance the two types, A Simple Plan, which I mentioned, is a good example. Be forewarned that there's a bit of rough language (not too much) and one extremely violent scene, but it's all goes to serve the truth of the powerful story. Another example that immediately comes to mind is Lost in Translation, which I recommend less enthusiastically, but which is still a good story. Another is Doctor Zhivago, (okay, maybe my judgment is a bit clouded on this since my first date with my wife-to-be was to see this flick -- in French, no less).

Gee, maybe we should open a movie adjunct to Boundlessline.

8. Denise Morris said the following at 11:31 AM on Dec 13:

This is a great post, Tom. Excellent demonstration of the "Christoplatonism" that our culture struggles with.

9. kman said the following at 2:05 PM on Dec 13:

Tom

I am wondering how to expose those things in the dark without mentioning them?(This implies that it is sinful for a Christian to do anything they know is shameful)-At least in the context of the post. Mentioning implies another person(s) is hearing whatever this deed is. Media is one avenue to do this.
Or could it imply that to simply talk about these things without a specific purpose- confession, repentence, witnessing etc is shameful int hat no good is coming out of it?

The rest of the context of that verse(s) is Christians living in the light. It sounds more like directions -for personal action. That the "living in the light" will expose those areas in our own lives that need correction.
He compares how those Christians were before (in darkness) and how they are now (in light). He gives instruction to have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness and it sounds like that is a personal directive that an individual applies to their lives.

-Paul is not saying to run away and -hide from evil things

1 Tim 6:11-12 Paul instructs Timothy to do just that and to pursue righteousness, etc.. though he doesn't mention hiding from it.

Again I think this verse sounds more like a personal directive.

Anyway that's my take on it- at this time :)

And thanks for getting me thinking about the verse some more! God's Word is wonderful, so much depth in so few words!

10. k. said the following at 9:54 PM on Dec 13:

Doctor Zhivago, in French? I like this guy! :)

One thing I'm a little unclear on is what makes something "true" as well as "excellent." Are we talking factual truth? Or truth in the sense of what's honest? Or true as in loyalty? (Or did I just overlook something in the post?)

11. Fred said the following at 12:31 AM on Dec 14:

"Paul is not saying to run away and hide from evil things; if so, we could never finish reading the Old Testament. He's saying to expose them for the evil they are."

What detailed descriptions of evil are in the Old Testament?

12. Tom Neven said the following at 9:31 AM on Dec 14:

C'est une bonne chose que je vu dedans précédemment en anglais, ou bien c'aurait été difficile quelques pièces.

13. Tom Neven said the following at 9:46 AM on Dec 14:

Some more thoughts:

I think Paul is speaking in a hyperbolic sense when he says, "For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret" (Ephesians 5:12). Kinda like, "Can you believe what those people do!?" I read it this way because Paul tells us in the same context to expose evil for what it is.

And the passage in 1 Timothy is instructing the lad to personally stay away from the things he's just mentioned. I would give the same advice. But learning about the destructive effects of greed through story is not the same thing as personally engaging in greed yourself. After all, Jesus used stories (parables) to teach his listeners about the results of bad behavior. The Old Testament is basically one long story about people doing bad things. We are not told to go and do likewise; we are to learn from it.

By true I mean true to life as we know it. (Of course, it could still be technically fiction.) The problem with a lot of stories is they're not true in the sense of the world being the way it is and people acting the way a person with their character and in that situation would behave. And this is true also of purely fantasy worlds: The characters in LOTR, for example, still live true lives in this sense because they live and breathe the way such a character would in Middle Earth. Even Golum is a true character, if you understand what I'm saying. Make sense?

Fred

I trust you're not trying to bait me by including the word "detailed" in your question, because I nowhere said or implied it. In earlier posts, for example, I said certain content should not be included in a movie solely for the sake of including it. But it's hard to tell a true story about a a sin-sick world without showing the consequence of sin. It's hard to show how sinners behave without, well ... showing how sinners behave. Not gratuitously, but truly, in the sense I mean above.

And the Old Testament is full of evil acts and other acts that would never get the family-friendly rating from some of our movie reviewers. Try explaining 1 Samuel 18:27 to the 4-and-5-year-old class at your church's Sunday school. Try summarizing the total story of Ahab and Jezebel for students without discussing the abject wickedness of the acts.

14. Ted Slater said the following at 9:59 AM on Dec 14:

For those who don't speak French, here's a babelfish translation of Tom's comment:

"It is a good thing which I considering English inside previously, or it would have been difficult some parts."

Frais!

15. Jonathan said the following at 10:39 AM on Dec 14:

I like this article, it also got me thinking...and there are a couple things I'd like to comment on.

First, in response to Fred, There are quite a few detailed descriptions of evil in the O.T. My friends and I used to joke a lot about something being "biblical" because there's so much in the Bible that basically shows us the depravity of mankind. In Genesis alone you see stories of drunkenness, incest, mass murder/genocide, rape, prostitution, deception, lies, disobedience, etc. And these are all committed by the patriarchs!

Second, in response to the article, I completely agree that there are quite a few films out there that contain graphic content (violence, language, sexuality) but have excellent messages. I think that it is impossible to make a blanket statement about the morality of viewing these films, but instead personal discernment often must come into play. For example, I don't have much of a problem with war-related violence or language in movies, but sexually charged scenes stick in my head extremely easily. However, my wife is very affected by violence very much but couldn't tell you about a sex scene 10 minutes later into a movie. So I think each believer needs to know what their limits are, and above all, they should be sensitive to the limitations of other believers (i.e. don't show Braveheart if you have over friends who can't handle violence). That's all!

16. Tom Neven said the following at 11:15 AM on Dec 14:

Actually, I wrote, "It's a good thing I'd seen it [the movie] previously in English, or else I'd have had difficult time in places."

Now that's assuming my admittedly pretty rusty French is still accurate. Maybe I really said, "My hovercraft is full of eels."

17. Rebecca said the following at 4:51 PM on Dec 14:

Please continue these discussions! This is an issue that I have gone 'round and 'round with family and friends. As a writer, reader, and story lover I find myself incapable of getting into stories that are not 'true' regardless of the content. If that internal consistency and authenticity are missing it sets off alarms in my conscious and subconscious that just kills the story.

BTW, it seems like there are two issues going on here: qualifications for what is excellent in film and wrestling with whether or not one should see a particular movie. I have wrestled with God over this one and it always comes back to what Jonathan said... a person needs to know her own weakness and the weakness of her companions and not lead herself or others into temptation. Rules and even guidelines seem to promote the idea that you can ride the boundary line and still be okay. Practicing discernment and being led by the Holy Spirit and a redeemed conscience is much harder, but I believe that it glorifies God and truly allows individuals to act in righteousness.

Again, Tom, thanks for the great posts!

18. Fred said the following at 6:29 PM on Dec 14:

Tom,

Of course I was trying to bait you.

What I was trying to say is that there is a difference between saying something happened and describing it in detail and there are ways to tactfully show and discuss the consequences of sin without making it R-rated.

If there isn't a discrete way of showing the consequences of sin is that a good enough excuse?

1 Samuel 18:27 isn't an evil act to begin with and for Ahab and Jezebel it's about saying something happened as opposed to describing how it happened.

Jonathan,

What do you mean by 'detailed'?

I was also wondering if it's right to watch things even though you're not really affected by them (or at least not consciously)? I can watch violence and not really be consciously affected by it but that's only because I've watched a fair bit of violence in the past.

19. kman said the following at 6:49 AM on Dec 17:

It would also matter if the movie made the sinful behavior attractive. The Bible never makes sin attractive. I've seen enough to know the bad guys are always "cooler" than the good guys. Which to me, seems like they are trying to make evil more appealing even though in the end the bad guy has justice done upon him. (a little LOTR reference for today ;) )

20. M. A. Woodward said the following at 7:05 AM on Dec 17:

Artsy people make me crazy. The idea that because a story has grit it is more true than a story without is wrong. This excuse has been used to grant cover for innocents to see all kinds of despicable visions that would otherwise never have found space in their minds. Experience real emotions in relationship with real people and quite tittilating yourself in movies that appeal to base elements.

21. xeres said the following at 1:25 PM on Dec 17:

Woodward,

I agree it is a fallacy to assume a story with more grit is more true than those without it. A very stupid one. However, I want you to articulate your views a little better because Christians who are called to be in the Arts might take your statements as an sign that you see Christians who are artists (musician, painter, dancer, etc) as going aganist God's will since they aren't in "full time ministry". Not that I blame them because most of the Protestant Churches treat artists and scientists like bums

22. Tami said the following at 1:27 PM on Dec 17:

To those interested in "Lost in Translation" -- as Tom says, it's a very interesting story told well, but be forewarned, it has one very graphic (and pretty pointless, from the perspective of the story as a whole) scene in it. If you zip through it I don't think you'll miss much.

23. Fred said the following at 5:23 PM on Dec 17:

Xeres,

"most of the Protestant Churches"?

I don't know if there is a more accurate way to put it because it sounds as though you're saying that nearly all protestants hate artists or scientists. (Unless you're deliberately making the same mistake Woodward made).

24. John said the following at 5:48 PM on Dec 17:

Did Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's list really have to be made the way they were?

I think that question was asked at the beginning of this series.

I'm not sure it has been answered yet.

Of course visuals and movies in general can have an impact on people, but I would say it is superficial and not long lasting.

Great movies have been made before CGI. We don't have to see people blown up to know how ugly war is. Would knowing it so well really diminish the likelyhood of such carnage, which I think is what Spielberg and Hanks said was one of the reasons for making the movie.

The bible does not give graphic details. In fact it is pretty vanilla about descriptions of events.

About the most gruesome thing I can think of happening in the bible was Christ's crucifiction and that did not have gory details. Especially nothing like Mel Gibson's RC propaganda film.

If you want to make a movie, make it excellent and leave out the squirting blood, F-bombs and skin!

25. Fred said the following at 7:26 PM on Dec 17:

John,

I remember a couple of gory scenes in the Bible, the guy with the tent peg through his head (Sisera?) and the fat king who was stabbed and the folds of fat enveloped the handle of the sword. But these are the only two I know of.

26. Rebecca said the following at 8:02 PM on Dec 17:

Don't forget the deprecatory Psalms calling for dashing infants against stone, Ezekiel's visions of the infant Israel lying in her own blood, growing up and having pretty graphic (albeit metaphorical) relations with foreigners... I can think of a few more, but honestly, I don't think there is any OT book that addresses Israel's political or spiritual situations that doesn't get some graphic imagery in there and it seems silly to march them all out.

I've mentioned this earlier, but I believe that one of the strongest encouragements to live a righteous life that I have experienced is seeing the degradation and foulness of lives lived for sin. Homeless shelters, poverty stricken families of prostitutes and druggies, the devastation of gang warfare... and most of that before I was out of my teens. The reality of sin is always the greatest deterrent.

27. k. said the following at 8:45 PM on Dec 17:

John - Actually, it sometimes feels as if the Old Testament is one big gore-fest. In Judges, a man dismembers his raped, murdered concubine and mails the different pieces to various parts of Israel. David kills 200 Philistines, cuts off their foreskins, and brings them to Saul. Dogs lick up Naboth's blood (and Ahab's too, I believe). Jezebel gets thrown out of a window, trampled by horses, and then eaten by dogs. And the list goes on.

The bible is many things -- but it's *definitely* not plain vanilla. :)

28. xeres said the following at 9:00 PM on Dec 17:

I meant to say most of the iconoclastic Protestant Churches.

29. Fred said the following at 1:17 AM on Dec 18:

Rebecca,

It's not about what is stated but what is described. It's the difference between a news report and a movie. A news report will state that someone was decapitated, a movie will show it happening.

I also don't see what the reality of sin has to do with movies. I don't think anyone needs movies to know the reality of sin.

30. John said the following at 4:57 AM on Dec 18:

I don't recall the bible saying, "and his brains splattered all over the tent, etc, etc."

Reading it and seeing it are two different things.

The bible is not gory in anyway. Like I said, the most gruesome act, Jesus' crucifiction, was not described in detail and we don't have pictures of it.

There is a reason the bible is entirely written, without visuals.

You don't have to touch the stove to know it's hot.

Do we need to see adultery and fornication to avoid it?

I think you know the answer to that.

The bible is not graphic, it is descriptive, but not graphic.

It is real, it talks about blood (which too few songs in church do) and the reality of sin and its consequences, but in no where does it read like a literary version of Saving Private Ryan and the like.

Again, visuals are different from readings.

31. John said the following at 9:11 AM on Dec 18:

Fred says it well!

32. John said the following at 9:21 AM on Dec 18:

Actually, the bible is NOT gory at all.

Halloween is gory, Friday the 13th is gory, Texas Chain Saw Massacre is gory.

The bible is not gory!

Nobody said the bible is plain vanilla. It's descriptions are plain vanilla. Please read carefully.

33. Jacob Douvier said the following at 10:26 AM on Dec 18:

John and Fred,

Where does Christian liberty fit in?

Regards,

34. Tom Neven said the following at 10:27 AM on Dec 18:

First, no one is advocating gore-fests a la Quentin Tarantino or Sam Peckinpah (so ably lampooned by Monty Python). But neither should we soften the impact of sin. You don't have to show the sex scene, but you shouldn't avoid showing the consequences of adultery and fornication.

Having said that, does anyone truly understand the horror of war by watching Rambo or Schwarzenegger? No. If that is your standard, then you don't truly understand. But speaking as a veteran, I'll say that Saving Private Ryan is the only war movie that scared me. Rambo and even John Wayne are laughable. (A popular bit of flak jacket graffiti in Vietnam was "John Wayne didn't know s***!")

And could we truly understand the horrors of the Holocaust if we didn't witness the casual brutality of the Nazis in Schindler's List?

Yes, some people rationalize seeing inappropriate material. I'm not doing that. There are plenty of movies I've refused to see. But neither should we be satisfied with pap that merely lectures about bad things without showing the real-world impact of them.

Remember, the essence of good storytelling is show, don't tell. You can show without being gratuitous, but mere telling almost always fails, especially in a visual medium.

35. k. said the following at 11:07 AM on Dec 18:

John - Tell you what -- read the whole bible through, and then we'll talk. :)

36. kman said the following at 12:07 PM on Dec 18:

Yes- Books and documentaries. I've seen enough documentaries on the Holocaust with real pictures/film and and interviews with the actual survivors of it to have a good idea of it's horrors. No need for Hollywood to inform us.

37. Fred said the following at 4:45 PM on Dec 18:

What I take issue with is using the Bible to support making violent movies when the descriptions in the Bible are more like news reports than movies.

As John said, Why do you think the Bible almost glossed over Jesus' suffering?

That's the other thing that's always bothered me. Do people have such a limited experience or knowledge of the world that they can only know things through movies? Coming from the second most sheltered person in the world, if I know enough not to need to see a realistic movie why should anyone else? (except the most sheltered person in the world).

Then there is the study that showed that exposing juveniles to prison life actually lead to increased delinquent behaviour.

"I meant to say most of the iconoclastic Protestant Churches."

Ah, ok.

Jacob,

I'm applying the same thinking to movies as Christians do to smoking. Most Christians (that I know) consider smoking at least wrong if not actually sinful (because of the damage it does to people's bodies). Exposure to sex, bad language, and violence is harmful to a person's mind.

"Fred says it well!"

As do you.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it appears you are justifying showing inappropriate material because it is realistic and shows the consequences of sin. To me it sounds like another form of the end justifies the means.

Although, (as much as it sounds otherwise), I should make clear that I'm not making doctrine on this issue, you have to do what you believe before God is right and you're right that it is a matter of degrees.

Like I said before, the one thing I really disagree with you on is using the Bible as justification. That's why I joined in.

38. John said the following at 6:08 PM on Dec 18:

Tell you what, there is no need to read the whole bible through, even though I have, because your assertions about it are wrong and anyone looking in the bible for justification to show sin are wrong as well.

Whether gratuitous or not, it is simply not necessary to put certain visuals into people's heads.

I love Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List, I'm just saying that the bible does not give the okay to "show" such things on a mass level.

For those who need it spelled out. I'm not saying the bible calls it sin or that it is sin to make such movies, but try not to justify it by using the bible as your example.

As Tom says, the bible "tells", it doesn't "show". It tells good rememberal stories, but not graphic.

The question may better be, are visuals the way to do it or should we stick to the written and spoken word?

Visiuals have their place, but how much place should they take up?

39. John said the following at 6:15 PM on Dec 18:

Chronicles of Narnia come to mind.

Not the best movie, but instead of showing Aslan eating the White Witch, gory, it leaves just enough to your imagination.

The Gladiator is another one. Though very graphic in someways, it almost always cut away as the sword and such pierced bodies and cut off parts.

40. Jacob Douvier said the following at 8:01 PM on Dec 18:

"I'm applying the same thinking to movies as Christians do to smoking. Most Christians (that I know) consider smoking at least wrong if not actually sinful (because of the damage it does to people's bodies). Exposure to sex, bad language, and violence is harmful to a person's mind."

Fred,
It's not so clear to me that all things are equally harmful to everyone. My grandfather smoked heavily for 50 years, and within 5 years of quitting, his doctor couldn't tell he'd smoked. Why does he not show any signs and the next fellow get lung cancer? They are different people. In the same way, I don't think foul language is a problem to me. I don't dwell on it or meditate on it or use it, but I know people who do have problems around it.
I understand that if something causes us to sin, we should avoid it. But not all things tempt all people. To each is given a different measure of grace.

41. Jacob Douvier said the following at 8:02 PM on Dec 18:

42. kman said the following at 12:09 PM on Dec 19:

Jacob D said:But not all things tempt all people.

True.But people and circumstances change. I don't think anyone who commits adultery imagines they would do so on their wedding day.

I've watched a TV show or movie and just "dirty" afterward. Example: I watched a show called Dexter at a friend's request, he wanted my opinion on it. It's about a serial killer that kills other killers.

To me it was just trying to make evil "good". It was some how justified that he murdered murderers. I wasn't tempted to go murder anyone but I felt somehow tainted mentally.

43. Fred said the following at 4:56 PM on Dec 19:

I can see your point but I don't see it as being good enough justification for watching something that is promoting sinful behaviour, just because it's entertaining. There is also the way that your behaviour may encourage others who are weaker to watch what they shouldn't.

Maybe you aren't affected by bad language so you can have a ministry in an area or with people that others couldn't.

44. Jacob Douvier said the following at 7:02 PM on Dec 19:

Fred, I don't think anyone is in favor of glorification of immorality, however, I am not sure that glorification and depiction of immorality is the same thing. Would I be correct in guessing that you're inclined in that direction?
Regards,

45. Fred said the following at 10:02 PM on Dec 19:

Hi Jacob,

It is something along those lines but my concern is that it makes it too easy for people to excuse glorification as depiction.

Fred.