Christian..???

[Nightwinger]

This was on my AOL front page.

Is it just me or do we still have ALOT of homelss and starving people that
could sure use the time and energy that people spend on this stuff....

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/movies/article.adp?id=20060202093709990003


PLEASE, do not get me wrong. I'm sure there are many many fine Christian
people that do ALOT of great things. And they go unnoticed.

But the one comment that...."it would be like Madonna playing the Virgin Mary". What kind of MEAN comment is that!!!!!

I always thought the best way to show ones-faith,belief or moral fortitude. Is
simple to live ones life as an example.

It's called ACTING. I'm sure there has been some actors that haved played or
voiced animated characters of HIGH vurtiue and might had some 'difficulties'
in their life. But just because it's not public knowledge.........

Cheese and crackers. When will people JUST relax !!!!!! ***He said,tensely.*** :laugh:


On the other hand.......................

.................I do question how it became public knowledge before the film
is released about the actor being a BrokeBack Mountain man. So I do hold
the director in a small amount of suspision as well. :)

[Daredevil]

So are they promoting job discrimination among the film industry? ?

[daveyyojimbo]

Consider the source is all I can say.

[Confessor]

One of the main points that I gathered from the article was not so much the actor's lifestyle choice, but rather, his rabid advocacy of it:

"He wrote that Mr. Allen's homosexuality was not so much the problem as was his open activism for g.a.y. causes, and that if a drunk who "promoted drunkenness" had acted in the movie, "I'd be just as mad."

I can see their point, which is, it seems, that a private company with a core set of values that define it (Bible-based Christianity) have, as the lead actor in a recent (Christian) production an actor who is not only g.a.y. (no real problem if that is all there is to it), but an open radical activism for a lifestyle that is not Biblical (the validity of the Biblical position isn't the issue here....that's for another thread on another board).

The issue is, how wise is this private company (with a specific core set of beliefs) to select an actor in the highest profile position in this film with activism for this lifestyle that in every sense runs in counterdistinction to its principles. How does that selection further the cause of their (Bible-based) belief system, which in the end is a prime goal.

On the other hand, God works in mysterious ways that many times do not stand up to HUMAN reasoning. So if the "decision maker" responsible for selecting this actor for this role made the decision after genuine, diligent, thoughtful and open (to God) prayer, then who are we to challenge that? I don't know if the one who chose him did that or not. But if he did, then perhaps God would use this actor's experience during the film making to speak to his heart and turn him around. Who knows?

Only God sees all of the "big picture" and we are limited by our own myopic human eyes. So in the end, our job is to see that we (as actor selector, whatever) are acting in accordance with God's will (diligent prayer in a Biblical context). So in the end, this doesn't bother me really one way or the other. For all those who are bothered, may I suggest you pray that this actor's experience allow God to touch him in a way that turns the actor to Him?

(Sorry for the longwindedness. ;) )

[cblakey1]

why didn't they just get that freak-ass Kirk Cameron to play the role and make everyone happy?

If the fundies feelings are hurt so much, they can always call Pat Robertson to make some faux xtian statement threatening or damning the company to hell for what they did.

It's a movie.. Some actors are g*a*y.. Get over it!

:banghead:

[rychehitman]

Once again!


Who cares! Whatever you do in your bebroom and who you do it with is no ones business! If you are a consenting adult, and no one is harmed in the process...why should ANY sexuality matter!

Why must some people be "openly ***"....how about just being who you are and not having your sexuality be how you are identified? They dont put "openly hetero" under other actors names!


and PAt Robertson is WHACKED! I love hearing hiscomments..they just make him seem more and more like your crazy grandpa! :laugh:

[Confessor]

Again I think the main point (of some who share the beliefs of this film company and are questioning the actor choice) in essence was NOT to argue the rightness or wrongness of a particular lifestyle choice, but rather, how well does this lifestyle choice of the lead actor in the film reflect (well or poorly) the message & core beliefs reflected in the film (and film company).

So for example if a group believes that only brunettes are good, that group might ought not make a film with a blonde as the lead protagonist b/c it is in direct counterdistinction to it's core beliefs, right or wrong, even if the lead protagonist were to wear a brunette wig.

One could argue the merits or detriments of being a blonde (or brunette) all day long, but that's NOT the point of this story. So that discussion would be better suited in another thread/story/format.

[bomen]

once again, I see majority pap looking for "oneness" and "correctness", maybe w/exception of Confessor, he at least also draws the line consistently.

Making it simple takes away all emotion: The Book is either 100% right. Or 100% wrong. Period. You makes your choice, you live (or die) with it.

*sigh* I know, I know, it's all soooo much less offensive when we're talking statues, ain't it....:D

[Tony Coca]

Thats why Religon sucks.Just believe in God.

[cblakey1]

Thats why Religon sucks.Just believe in God.

:eek:WOW:eek:This statement coming from Coca?

Amen, bro!

I like to stay clear of the cult mentality myself! :buttrock:

[JadeGiant]

Thats why Religon sucks.Just believe in God.

well said TC

[Confessor]

I guess the path is too thin to stay on the point....

.....which was NOT whether a particular lifestyle choice is right or wrong....

.... but rather whether or not it is wise for a business that has a core set of beliefs to have as its primary protagonist (in this film), an actor who holds an extreme opposite opinion and rabidly promotes activism for that lifestyle. That is the issue.

[Tony Coca]

I guess the path is too thin to stay on the point....

.....which was NOT whether a particular lifestyle choice is right or wrong....

.... but rather whether or not it is wise for a business that has a core set of beliefs to have as its primary protagonist (in this film), an actor who holds an extreme opposite opinion and rabidly promotes activism for that lifestyle. That is the issue.
oh there's a point to this.

If the guy can act let him do the part.How many straight men or woman have done *** sceens before.Religous belief should have no merit on wheter or not a person gets the role in a movie,or for that matter any job.

And always remember God said Love your Brothers no matter what.

[galactus]

once again, I see majority pap looking for "oneness" and "correctness", maybe w/exception of Confessor, he at least also draws the line consistently.

Making it simple takes away all emotion: The Book is either 100% right. Or 100% wrong. Period. You makes your choice, you live (or die) with it.

*sigh* I know, I know, it's all soooo much less offensive when we're talking statues, ain't it....:D

Not to start an argument, but how on earth can the ENTIRE "Book" be right or wrong, especially when everything in it is open to interpretation?

The main thing I have found with very religious people (be it Catholic, Muslim, Jewish...) is that they basically take no reponsibility for their actions. Everything is You Know Whos will. Anthing which happens is You Know Whos decision. We as people simply need to sit back and allow You Know Whos will to take its course. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Faith ,which guides you in making your OWN decisions, is a good thing. Faith, as a reason to NOT make any decisions on your own, is frankly scary and dangerous.

[Confessor]

oh there's a point to this.

If the guy can act let him do the part.How many straight men or woman have done *** sceens before.Religous belief should have no merit on wheter or not a person gets the role in a movie,or for that matter any job.

And always remember God said Love your Brothers no matter what.

That's a very good post that makes your point well and is focused on the idea of whether the actor's lifestyle choice should be the deciding factor on whether or not he gets the role.

I really don't have a solid opinon on this one, for once. But I will say that the only difference b/w a normal secular company and this one is that this one is a Bible-believing Christian one, in which the message and the goal of business is (in addition to making a living) to live out in their product (films) the personality of Christ in a way that draws viewers to Him. So the bar is set a bit higher.

On the other hand, and in support of your comment about God saying to (may I paraphrase) "love your neighbor as yourself":

On the other hand, God works in mysterious ways that many times do not stand up to HUMAN reasoning. So if the "decision maker" responsible for selecting this actor for this role made the decision after genuine, diligent, thoughtful and open (to God) prayer, then who are we to challenge that? I don't know if the one who chose him did that or not. But if he did, then perhaps God would use this actor's experience during the film making to speak to his heart and turn him around. Who knows?

Good post, TC.

[Confessor]

.....The main thing I have found with very religious people (be it Catholic, Muslim, Jewish...) is that they basically take no reponsibility for their actions. Everything is You Know Whos will. Anthing which happens is You Know Whos decision. We as people simply need to sit back and allow You Know Whos will to take its course. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Faith ,which guides you in making your OWN decisions, is a good thing. Faith, as a reason to NOT make any decisions on your own, is frankly scary and dangerous.

I haven't run into this much (these folks who take no resp.), but I agree that that is rather sad. We should all take responsibility for our OWN actions no matter what, be we secular-minded or spiritually-minded (I dont care for the word "religious"....I think thats a negative in the connotation of today's culture). We should not be unthinking victims to ["Gods will" or "woah-is-me my poor circumstances" or "my brain's just wired this way" or whatever]. But rather, deal with the cards we're dealt and make the best decisions we can, but.....

.....if we are christian, then we should "let God be in control", yes, but that means being fervently open to Him via prayer and knowledge of his Word (Bible), and then make OUR decision based on His will. A christian, when faced with adversity, should lean on God (after all, he wants our dependence on Him, essentially) for strength and take a bad circumstance and use it for spiritual growth and to advance His cause.

You make good points, G.

[bomen]

,in it is open to interpretation?.

that's the point. it's not open. at least not to the one who inspired its writings.

The main thing I have found with very religious people (be it Catholic, Muslim, Jewish...) is that they basically take no reponsibility for their actions.
Now who's making accusations? :D a) I'm not religious. I'm Christian. Religion is Man getting in the WAY of Christianity. b) I have and take full responsibility for my actions and decisions. So too will you.

Everything is You Know Whos will. Anthing which happens is You Know Whos decision. We as people simply need to sit back and allow You Know Whos will to take its course. Faith ,which guides you in making your OWN decisions, is a good thing. Faith, as a reason to NOT make any decisions on your own, is frankly scary and dangerous
none of this is scripturally accurate. All of it is 'feel good' inclusiveness.
Which is ok, except in the end, THAT won't save you.

Once again, sorry all. But here's another Mental Bumper Sticker: if I'm wrong, I simply have had a great life, morally sound, good to all, and I die and go to sleep or whatever the self-help age think.

If I'm right, that implies others are wrong. And that is where folks need to read up, study up, pray up, and make informed decisions, not worldly decisions.

The gate is narrow.Few will find it. Make sure.

I'm done on the soapbox, if you agree, thanks, if not, please don't take offense, we all have the decision, guess we will agree to disagree.

[Confessor]

B--

You make your points nicely. But how I took G's comment there was no that he was making any accusations at all. But rather, he was giving his experience with some "religious folk" and them being so passive in their religiousness that they take no active role in the direction of their life.

On a side note, I think a nice summary of a lot of us who are Christians is that, frankly, many of us are largely ineffective in advancing the Cause. That's pretty sad. A great easy read on this for believers AND NON-believers is "The Screwtape Letters" by CS Lewis. I re-read this now and again to remind me of that. It's not preachy in the least and is very observational and informative on many of the complaints that secularists (validly) make.

Ghandi once said it very well....that is, the state of many in the Faith today:

"I like your Christ. But I don't much care for your Christians."

Sad but true (and I am including myself as well and how I find myself acting many times). Sometimes Christians do worse than being "simply" ineffective. Their actions/words/demeanor, etc. actually drive many away from Truth.