Posted on 01/24/2006 7:51:17 AM PST by No Fool
In total agreement. There's nothing wrong with a big church as long as they become big by boldly preaching the gospel and not by trying to appeal to whatever the public wants. I think we have to remember that to most people, the gospel message will be offensive and a turnoff. Only God's grace will open their hearts to the gospel's saving truth!
An excellent response. There is no need for all of the actors in a Christian film to be Christians. And, in fact, there is no guarantee that the actors who call themselves Christians are in fact following Jesus. The question should be: Does the final product convey a Christian message?
here, here, Barbara... ditto to everything you wrote...
I had less of a problem with Chad Allen portraying Nate & Steve Saint and more of a problem with the lack of the missionaries being portrayed as missionaries (at least like the ones I know). I did not see a Bible or missionaries in prayer at any time. I left feeling like the missionaries could just have easily have been Peace Corp workers. Their spiritual lives (which is a DAILY walk) was non-existant in the film. Heavy emphasis on humanitarian works (food and medicine). The word "saved" was used once. The plan of salvation was never given except for one veiled attempt from one indian to another. Beautiful movie, but very weak in sharing in the gospel. Born again Christians will understand the context, but will an unsaved world?
"At the same time we need to love these people, and love does mean telling someone they are in sin and endangering their soul."
Well put brother. Also, bear in mind, that if one persist in unrepentent sin, then one can not hear G-d or see G-d. To rebel against G-d is to separate yourself from him (definition of sin.) Does this mean that the homosexual will lose his soul? We have all fallen short of the glory of G-d. But we must repent and recognize our need for G-d before we can have a relationship with him. The fallacy of homosexual acceptance is that it denies the W-rd of G-d. It is almost impossible for someone to hear the voice of G-d if they are in open rebellion to him. Most of us try to make G-d in our own image (or what we see as our image, not as we really are!) They remember the G-d of Love in the Person of Messiah, but they forgot that G-d is also (and must be) a G-d of justice. All of our sins will be judged, either in this life or after this life; but always by our faith. Our acceptance of the sacrifice is sufficient to pay for our sins--but what does judgement mean? A poor example might be like the Judge in a courtroom--he assigns judgement to fit both the punishment for the crime, but also to reprove the person so that they learn and do the crime no more. As a father, you discipline your child out of love, not out of anger or pleasure--because you realize that if you don't, that little image of you will grow up to be without morality because they have not been taught goodness. What makes homosexuality such an affront to G-d? It denies his existence. A person should turn from this lifestyle because they can not get the blessings of G-d otherwise. Most of the modern churches are selling fire insurance. But what is hell? Hell is to be separated from G-d. What is Heaven? Heaven is to be with G-d.....Many have sought to invoke the Golden Rule as a sign to accept anthing and everything--but if you read what He really said, the Golden Rule means to treat others as you would want to be treated yourself--not a license to accept G-dlessness. In other words, in the spirit of the golden rule, if I commit a wrong, I would hope that someone would tell me in the spirit of love--not just blow me off so as not to offend me.
the gist of His remark was that ALL are sick (all have fallen short) but that the tax collectors and prostitutes knew they weren't on the right road as opposed to the priests, etc didn't think they they needed the spiritual help to begin with
They hired actors to appear in a movie...not local theatre. For him to have been given a platform, he would have spoken his own text. I just don't see how you read into this, a direct effort to dysangelize the flock so to speak.
Do you think they delved into questions whether some of the women had had abortions? Perhaps some of them are "loose" too. What if one of the actors were an atheist? What if we find out one of the actors has cuckolded their spouse and is in the process of getting divorced..that's a "public" action.
Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagreeing...This is starting to sound like christian conspiracy theory...don your foil hats!
They cast a gay man in this film?
I can't support it then....they clearly are not standing up for what is right. They are essentially enabling the man.
Christians do NOT compromise on truth.
These filmmakers chose to UNEQUALLY YOKE themselves and disobey God's word.
I was going to see the film. No more.
Hate the sin and love the sinner is not Biblical.
We pick on homosexuality a lot because it is in a list of sins that will lead to one being outside the kingdom of God in the NT.
Also, Scripture says sexual sin is worse than other sins.
Homosexuality is not a small sin, and anyone who is homosexual will go to hell. Period. You simply CANNNOT be gay and be saved. It is impossible. That is why it is so serious to spread the Gospel to gays.
Instead of doing so, the makers of this film chose to reward him for his lifestyle and give him more work.
Do not ye be unequally yoked with unbelievers, barbara.
Your disregard for theology also partly explains why you have come to the emotion-based position you have come to instead of a Scripture-based position.
Yes, we are to love homosexuals and not treat them badly. But, this is different. They not only treated him well, they failed to show him of the need of repentance. That is PART of the Gospel, miss. You have to not only show the love of Christ, but OUR UTTER DEPENDENCE ON HIM AND COMPLETE FALLEN NATURE.
They did not do so, but instead gave him a job and enabled his lifestyle by giving him more money.
We are not just sick, we are dead.
We do not need medicine, we need a Resurrection, and Christ is that.
Yes but so is any kind of Lust, all I am saying is you cant minister to someone by saying 'look how much better I am than you Im not Gay and youre going to hell'. You need to say to them, 'you and I need God's saving grace because we are sinners'. Dont mistake this for me being weak on Gays in the church Just as I would not let an adulterer or a fornicator have a place in ministry nor would I allow a homosexual.
Also, Scripture says sexual sin is worse than other sins.
Yes but when Christ teaches of sin does he use use sex or money?
You simply CANNNOT be gay and be saved
You can not be trapped in any sin and be saved! We all sin but to be trapped in unrepentant sin is death.
That is why it is so serious to spread the Gospel to gays.
And abortion doctors, and adulterers, and rapist, everywhere.
Instead of doing so, the makers of this film chose to reward him for his lifestyle and give him more work.
I never stated my position on this, I agree with you that I probably would not have picked him to be in the film for that exact reason. But nor would I have picked a divorced guy living with his girlfriend..
I really don't think you read the essays. I pretty much responded to all that.
Dan
I concur. Did you read my post (#45)? How did you feel about this aspect of the movie? Taking a step back, would you, if you were lost, understand the missionaries motivation (sharing the Good News)? Am I being obtuse?
PS: There's an article update on the Woadani in World Magazine this week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.