Tuesday, January 24, 2006
End of the Spear (followup)
This is a followup to this post--specifically Edward's comment.
Hi Edward, welcome to RF. Here's the gist of my argument:
1. Chad Allen wants to be known as a gay activist.
2. The missionaries were known for their sacrificial committment to Jesus Christ and the Bible.
3. Allen marginalizes the Bible both by his sexual preference and in his 'faith'; thereby flagrantly contradicting the message of the missionaries.
4. The distincition between the missionaries and the Allen produces a insufferable credibility gap.
An actor's credibility is very significant in casting for a movie. Do you believe John Wayne would make a good tinkerbell? "Slow down there partner while I sprinkle some fairy dust on you." Of course not.
For their own sake, a production company should take the whole person into account when measuring how the target market will gauage an actor's credibility for a certain role.
Edward says that I'm "throwing the baby out with the bath water and your missing a chance to experience and incredible film and at the same time send a message to Hollywood that these kinds of stories matter." Maybe he's right; or maybe I'm sending the message to Hollywood that their actor's lifestyle choices have consequences.
The lie that Hollywood (generally, not necessarily this production company) wants you to believe is that sexual preference is no big deal, that homosexual person is as normal as a heterosexual person, and there are no consequences of sexual lifestyle choices. I will reject this proposition in every form that it occurs.
For another injection of common sense, see Right Wing News on Brokeback Mountain.
Hi Edward, welcome to RF. Here's the gist of my argument:
1. Chad Allen wants to be known as a gay activist.
2. The missionaries were known for their sacrificial committment to Jesus Christ and the Bible.
3. Allen marginalizes the Bible both by his sexual preference and in his 'faith'; thereby flagrantly contradicting the message of the missionaries.
4. The distincition between the missionaries and the Allen produces a insufferable credibility gap.
An actor's credibility is very significant in casting for a movie. Do you believe John Wayne would make a good tinkerbell? "Slow down there partner while I sprinkle some fairy dust on you." Of course not.
For their own sake, a production company should take the whole person into account when measuring how the target market will gauage an actor's credibility for a certain role.
Edward says that I'm "throwing the baby out with the bath water and your missing a chance to experience and incredible film and at the same time send a message to Hollywood that these kinds of stories matter." Maybe he's right; or maybe I'm sending the message to Hollywood that their actor's lifestyle choices have consequences.
The lie that Hollywood (generally, not necessarily this production company) wants you to believe is that sexual preference is no big deal, that homosexual person is as normal as a heterosexual person, and there are no consequences of sexual lifestyle choices. I will reject this proposition in every form that it occurs.
For another injection of common sense, see Right Wing News on Brokeback Mountain.
Thoughtful Readers Speak:
<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.
Homosexuality is a sin. Paying money to a gay activist is the promotion of the sin. It is a compromise that dimishes the faith of Christianity with moral relativism. I just have a hard time with that.
You should really spend less time worrying about sexual behavior you deem deviant and more time worrying about actual problems. It's amusing how obsessed you people are about sex. It's like being in junior high again when sex was something exciting, yet taboo. But we're all adults here, and it's time to grow up. People have sex. Get over it.
This kind of thinking bothers me, JR. If we start focusing on what sins the actors themselves have committed instead of the actual story of the film, are we not missing something? It like that TV show The Book of Daniel. Everyone wanted to throw a fit about the sin that the characters commit instead of how we could use the show to jump start a conversation with non-believers and witness to others. If we keep focusing on these things, instead of what good we can use these shows/films for, we will never have anything to put on the screen. No one is sinless.
Yes, the production company could have picked someone who wasn't a homosexual but maybe they focussed more on what kind of job the man could do and what his acting skills could bring to the film than what he does offscreen. Do we scrutinize our doctors, lawyers, and friends as much as we are this one man?
Yes, the production company could have picked someone who wasn't a homosexual but maybe they focussed more on what kind of job the man could do and what his acting skills could bring to the film than what he does offscreen. Do we scrutinize our doctors, lawyers, and friends as much as we are this one man?
erica, i don't think jr cares who has sex; that's never been the issue (jr correct me if i'm wrong). thinking so simplistically might soothe your liberal conscious but it avoids addressing the issues that he brings up
now angel, you have a good point. jr could learn that these licenscious movies and shows could be good conversation starters with non-christians.
in the longer post i read yesterday, he does address the whole 'sinless person' issue by saying its more about the movie's credibility gap; so only a half a point for that one.
now angel, you have a good point. jr could learn that these licenscious movies and shows could be good conversation starters with non-christians.
in the longer post i read yesterday, he does address the whole 'sinless person' issue by saying its more about the movie's credibility gap; so only a half a point for that one.
# posted by 
: 3:31 PM
: 3:31 PM
Others on this blog have demonstrated that they DO actually care who is putting what appendage where.
I didn't know a thing about that loser actor until I read this. I'm a Christian and not gay. I think homosexual conduct, as all sex outside of marriage, is a sin. I could care less who plays any part in a good Christian movie so long as the job is well performed. Spreading the message is more important. The Bible is full of stories of God using sinful, non-believing, idol worshiping non-Jewish Kings and other leaders for his own purposes.
Since I don't care about the actors personally, I would just prefer that Christians put out good movies when they promote them as Christian films. We get more credibility by making good entertainment. It opens the door to more good Christian entertainment. That is more important than limiting the auditions, I think.
Post a Comment
Since I don't care about the actors personally, I would just prefer that Christians put out good movies when they promote them as Christian films. We get more credibility by making good entertainment. It opens the door to more good Christian entertainment. That is more important than limiting the auditions, I think.
<< Home
