|
Post by Josh on Feb 20, 2015 11:13:10 GMT -8
Some of the recent facebook chatter about 50 Shades of Gray has brought up the subject of Christians boycotting things. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Feb 21, 2015 2:49:33 GMT -8
Since I became a Christian I have always wondered at Christians boycotting things, especially since the ultimate boycott is shown in Revelation when God's people can no longer buy or sell. A planetary boycott placed on those who stand up for truth.
Boycotting. How can you boycott anything you do not like when Christians are to love their enemies? They are to show love. If you do not like something Proctor and Gamble are into at the corporate level trying to organize and instigate a boycott of their products in the name of Christ is both worthless, because never enough people do it to harm the bottom line of a corporation, and even if it could why would do Christians crave such power? Why do they have such a need to bring anything or anyone to their knees? Did Christ try to boycott the Roman empire for their atrocities? It sounds silly on the face of it. Some would say the obvious - we live in a free country not a despotic empire. You can only boycott an empire at the penalty of death. Hey, if principle means anything, then boycott away and hope to back down an empire. Stop paying taxes. God is, after all, supposedly on your side. But Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Obamacare, especially the individual mandate, is an abomination against Republicanism, Americanism, freedom, liberty, and the rule of Constitutional law. Why do not Christians call for a boycott against the government to stop paying taxes?
What should Christians have in common with Disney, anyway? 'If you do not change your policy of homosexuality we will no longer attend your amusement park.' Really? It makes professed Christianity look petty and foolish. What does a fantasy-land have in common with Christ's church and kingdom?
The Roman Catholic Church is a state power. It is a nation now. When it ran boycotts during the dark ages kings and queens shook to their knees rattling. What do such things have to do with the Lamb of God? It is not the Lion of Judah. It is the breath of a dragon to coerce through force of any kind. It is one thing for Christians to stand up. It is another thing to attempt to bring someone to their knees, NOT to Christ but, to a power which is the antithesis of Christ's kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 2, 2015 9:52:45 GMT -8
Since I became a Christian I have always wondered at Christians boycotting things, especially since the ultimate boycott is shown in Revelation when God's people can no longer buy or sell. A planetary boycott placed on those who stand up for truth. Well, obviously, from my eschatological perspective, I see that as something past not future.
Boycotting. How can you boycott anything you do not like when Christians are to love their enemies? They are to show love. If you do not like something Proctor and Gamble are into at the corporate level trying to organize and instigate a boycott of their products in the name of Christ is both worthless, because never enough people do it to harm the bottom line of a corporation, and even if it could why would do Christians crave such power? Why do they have such a need to bring anything or anyone to their knees? Did Christ try to boycott the Roman empire for their atrocities? It sounds silly on the face of it. Some would say the obvious - we live in a free country not a despotic empire. You can only boycott an empire at the penalty of death. Hey, if principle means anything, then boycott away and hope to back down an empire. Stop paying taxes. God is, after all, supposedly on your side. But Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Well, one can express disapproval and still show love. In fact, we are called to do so. As to whether a boycott actually succeeds in harming its target, there have been times in history where that has worked. William Wilberforce and other abolitionists boycotted sugar made on plantations to some effect, I believe. But I don't think it really has to effect the "bottom line of a corporation" to be effective anyway. It might just be a way to stir up societal consciousness or conscience on a particular issue. I don't think it need be a power grab by Christians either. My only concern with boycotts are whether they give Christians a bad name for no good reason, or whether they mark us out as showcasing the beauty of the gospel. Obamacare, especially the individual mandate, is an abomination against Republicanism, Americanism, freedom, liberty, and the rule of Constitutional law. Why do not Christians call for a boycott against the government to stop paying taxes? Well, I think you answered this yourself above. Jesus instructed us to pay our taxes, even to autocratic state often hostile to God (such as Rome)What should Christians have in common with Disney, anyway? 'If you do not change your policy of homosexuality we will no longer attend your amusement park.' Really? It makes professed Christianity look petty and foolish. What does a fantasy-land have in common with Christ's church and kingdom? Hah. I agree with the first sentiment. Yes, that sort of thing does make us look petty and foolish I think. But, what does fantasy have in common with Christ's kingdom? A whole lot, I think. Fantasy themes and narrative are often pointers to the truth. The Roman Catholic Church is a state power. It is a nation now. When it ran boycotts during the dark ages kings and queens shook to their knees rattling. What do such things have to do with the Lamb of God? It is not the Lion of Judah. It is the breath of a dragon to coerce through force of any kind. It is one thing for Christians to stand up. It is another thing to attempt to bring someone to their knees, NOT to Christ but, to a power which is the antithesis of Christ's kingdom. Well, I'm sure glad a group of Christians in Britain brought slavery to its knees in the early 1800s through political means among other things.
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Mar 5, 2015 5:54:40 GMT -8
Since I became a Christian I have always wondered at Christians boycotting things, especially since the ultimate boycott is shown in Revelation when God's people can no longer buy or sell. A planetary boycott placed on those who stand up for truth. Well, obviously, from my eschatological perspective, I see that as something past not future. ***I would have to ask when this planetary boycott took place and who was the second beast of Rev. 13 which backed the first beast of 13 and what was his name and number and mark of authority?
Boycotting. How can you boycott anything you do not like when Christians are to love their enemies? They are to show love. If you do not like something Proctor and Gamble are into at the corporate level trying to organize and instigate a boycott of their products in the name of Christ is both worthless, because never enough people do it to harm the bottom line of a corporation, and even if it could why would do Christians crave such power? Why do they have such a need to bring anything or anyone to their knees? Did Christ try to boycott the Roman empire for their atrocities? It sounds silly on the face of it. Some would say the obvious - we live in a free country not a despotic empire. You can only boycott an empire at the penalty of death. Hey, if principle means anything, then boycott away and hope to back down an empire. Stop paying taxes. God is, after all, supposedly on your side. But Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Well, one can express disapproval and still show love. In fact, we are called to do so. ***Not knowing what was suggested to boycott, my understanding of the depraved movie in question seems hardly anymore depraved than much of anything Hollywood pumps out all the time. I hope the boycott suggestions were not to boycott Hollywood. Have mercy, on so many levels that would be... tragic and laughable. As to whether a boycott actually succeeds in harming its target, there have been times in history where that has worked. William Wilberforce and other abolitionists boycotted sugar made on plantations to some effect, I believe. ***It took Wilberforce 46 years of his life in politics to see the Abolition of Slavery Act go into law and he died three days after the law passed in 1833. The sugar boycott was a 16 year enterprise carried out by anyone and everyone against the slave use in the British West Indies. While Wilberforce himself became a professed Christian under the guidance of John Newton (Amazing Grace) and that propelled his desire to see slavery abolished, the boycott was not a singular Christian enterprise. Like I said if Christians want to stop buying a product because the producer is involved in immoral activities, so be it. But to do so with the idea of bringing a business to its knees, which the sugar boycott was, is not a Christian principle found in Scripture that I am aware of. The bottom line was money. The pressures of money loss led to the 1807 anti-slavery Trade Act. The fact that the boycott succeeded is not an endorsement of it from a Scriptural perspective, is it? Principle and method are not necessarily spiritual brothers. But I don't think it really has to effect the "bottom line of a corporation" to be effective anyway. It might just be a way to stir up societal consciousness or conscience on a particular issue. ***Might you have any examples of that in Christian history? I don't think it need be a power grab by Christians either. *** The Christian political movement (which I believe is an oxymoron) is almost always involved in boycotts of my remembrance. It is not always a power "grab." I did not say that. In principle I said Christian boycotts, those instigated and promulgated by professed Christians, always seem to be about bringing Goliaths to their knees by virtue of the "power" inherent in the enterprise. "We'll show them." My only concern with boycotts are whether they give Christians a bad name for no good reason, or whether they mark us out as showcasing the beauty of the gospel. ***Indeed. I would ask here, as well, when such a boycott instigated and propelled by Christians showcased that beauty. Obamacare, especially the individual mandate, is an abomination against Republicanism, Americanism, freedom, liberty, and the rule of Constitutional law. Why do not Christians call for a boycott against the government to stop paying taxes? Well, I think you answered this yourself above. Jesus instructed us to pay our taxes, even to autocratic state often hostile to God (such as Rome)What should Christians have in common with Disney, anyway? 'If you do not change your policy of homosexuality we will no longer attend your amusement park.' Really? It makes professed Christianity look petty and foolish. What does a fantasy-land have in common with Christ's church and kingdom? Hah. I agree with the first sentiment. Yes, that sort of thing does make us look petty and foolish I think. But, what does fantasy have in common with Christ's kingdom? A whole lot, I think. Fantasy themes and narrative are often pointers to the truth. ***How does Disneyworld exemplify the way, the truth, and the life? Is there not a difference between a biblical concept of parables as metaphors and fantasy-induced theme parks? I have become convicted over the years that the basic "good versus evil" model has been abused to allow an awful lot of what was seen as worldliness by Christians, from just about any fellowship of doctrinal beliefs, in times past, a place in the front pew today. The Roman Catholic Church is a state power. It is a nation now. When it ran boycotts during the dark ages kings and queens shook to their knees rattling. What do such things have to do with the Lamb of God? It is not the Lion of Judah. It is the breath of a dragon to coerce through force of any kind. It is one thing for Christians to stand up. It is another thing to attempt to bring someone to their knees, NOT to Christ but, to a power which is the antithesis of Christ's kingdom. Well, I'm sure glad a group of Christians in Britain brought slavery to its knees in the early 1800s through political means among other things. ***What I would like to see is the biblical support for the policy of boycotting as a people, as a religious faith, as a body of believers in Jesus Christ; our perfect example in all things. I am not a believer in the end justifies the means. That is a Jesuit doctrine and policy. The current controversy over American torture of alleged Islamic terrorists is embroiled in that policy.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 5, 2015 19:53:11 GMT -8
I really don't get your insistence on having to have a biblical precedent for something like boycotting. At the same time you say these kinds of things, you support participation in democracy and voting out of Christian convictions, which, in practice has no biblical precedent. That's because the bible provides the principles that we use when we have to innovate methods (the specific actions that flow from the principles) suited for our unique time and place in history.
The sugar boycott was an example of stirring up social consciousness, and I think it's also an example of showcasing the beauty of the gospel's insistence that in Christ there is "no Jew or Gentile, slave or free..." Or, boycotting 50 Shades of Gray, is potentially an opportunity to showcase healthy biblical views of sexuality, if it's accompanied by thoughtful appeals.
All that to say, I rarely go in for boycotts because I don't think they are usually very effective. But if I think there might be a chance to stir up conscience on an issue, I may support one-- especially if it's not just about what NOT to do, but also about educating toward an alternative. And yes, I think some kind of general boycott of "Hollywood" would be foolish- throwing a lot of baby out with bathwater.
Let me back up here for a moment with a question. If I were to say in general that the fantasy genre, say, through the lens of the Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings (as opposed to Disney), has inherent power to point people toward deeper spiritual realities, would you agree?
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Mar 6, 2015 6:49:42 GMT -8
I really don't get your insistence on having to have a biblical precedent for something like boycotting. At the same time you say these kinds of things, you support participation in democracy and voting out of Christian convictions, which, in practice has no biblical precedent. That's because the bible provides the principles that we use when we have to innovate methods (the specific actions that flow from the principles) suited for our unique time and place in history. *** As discussed in another thread Americans have the historically unique position of being citizens in a Constitutional Republic. The Bible can speak only in principle to such a citizenship for no such thing existed in biblical times. How an individual American chooses to exercise that freedom and liberty is an individual, private matter. How Christians, as a faith group, choose to exercise public boycotting power seems another issue to me, and fraught with needless dangers of, not only being misunderstood but, portrayed as hypocritical bigots, especially in today's American hedonistic multiculturalism. Are Christians called to change cultures and practices by materialistic boycott? I do not see the biblical principle for that. We are to witness what we know and experience and give information for the Holy Spirit to use to work on hearts and convert people to Christ.
The sugar boycott was an example of stirring up social consciousness, and I think it's also an example of showcasing the beauty of the gospel's insistence that in Christ there is "no Jew or Gentile, slave or free..." Or, boycotting 50 Shades of Gray, is potentially an opportunity to showcase healthy biblical views of sexuality, if it's accompanied by thoughtful appeals. ***Perhaps I am missing something here. If I understand the movie's premise as it has been portrayed in media, why on earth would Christians call for a boycott of a movie intrinsically void of anything a Christian would want to see in the first place? People did use sugar in the British boycott mentioned. Then the merchants began selling sugar from India, which did not use slave labor to produce it. So, people bought sugar from India marked as such. That is why it took 16 years to get up enough steam in the overall boycott to effect a change; a change that was based on financial pressures, not simple, Christian truth.
All that to say, I rarely go in for boycotts because I don't think they are usually very effective. But if I think there might be a chance to stir up conscience on an issue, I may support one-- especially if it's not just about what NOT to do, but also about educating toward an alternative. And yes, I think some kind of general boycott of "Hollywood" would be foolish- throwing a lot of baby out with bathwater.
Let me back up here for a moment with a question. If I were to say in general that the fantasy genre, say, through the lens of the Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings (as opposed to Disney), has inherent power to point people toward deeper spiritual realities, would you agree? ***No. Definitely no inherent power, and no influence at all, realistically speaking. I believe there is a difference between spoken or written parabolic metaphor used to reveal biblical truth, and visual, Hollywood fantasy counterfeits used to make money. As I said in the previous post, the simple idea of good versus evil gets abused to no end in attempting to make things "spiritual" in nature.
Let me ask an obvious question. If the two productions you mentioned had what most patrons would consider unattractive people in all the roles of the "good" side, would the two productions have been successful in any way?
Hollywood is mass production center of counterfeit reality, let alone fantasy themes. Acting, in and of itself, is a counterfeit activity, is it not? It's a lie. You can only be who you are, not someone else. And why would people want to portray evil? Why would they want to place their mind in such a state as to be convincing at it? How can that be good for the actor, let alone the audience? The entire premise is the antithesis of biblical purity in all things. Whatsoever things are true, ... think on these things.
That is why I am totally against human sinners attempting to portray Jesus Christ. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any human being to correctly and accurately portray the sinless, spotless Son of God. To do so is the epitome of futility and it is a counterfeit. Especially trying to portray events that took place 2000 years ago from basic, scant written scenes. That is what I feel is the danger of fantasy in particular and Hollywood in general. The written word allows the reader to conceptualize. The visual movie/tv program is someone else's conceptualization of something. The filter of the Holy Spirit is not there. Hollywood could not care less about the Holy Spirit. The industry is an abyss of glorified sin, constantly pushing the envelope of immorality on screen.
Russell Crowe as Noah? Seriously? Christian Bale, who basically believes Moses was an emotional nutcase, portraying the meekest man alive, an archetype of Christ? Really? A lion that dies on a platform but, resurrects (yes, I got it), walks off the platform, then walks back onto it in triumph with all the lights behind it, big music? I almost fell out of my chair laughing. My wife read the books to her children. When the movie came out she wanted to see it. She was quite disappointed. I was not familiar with the books. The movie, if it actually stayed true to the book (apparently not), told me the book was not worth the read. If the death of the lion is supposed to bring to people's minds the death of Christ ... did it? Or must those who understand the gospel explain to the nonbeliever, or child, what the book/movie is supposed to mean? I have a difficult time believing anyone without a spiritual bent to their thinking would see the gospel in that movie. I know of no impact it had on society in that vein. You may tell me otherwise. If people want to watch movies for whatever reason and want to be entertained, that is their choice. Saying such productions can be equated with true spiritual realities is something I find it rather impossible to conceive, based on the weight of evidence. That is why the idea of Christians boycotting anything out of Hollywood seems a complete oxymoron to me.
If Christians want people to know what biblical sexuality is, to raise conscience on the matter, let them say so in various ways not designed to bring another entity to its knees. THAT is what a boycott is for, or it is not really a boycott, by definition. It is a use of material, financial coercion or force to intimidate to bring about change. I do not see Christian principle in it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 20, 2015 16:22:26 GMT -8
First off, I was actually not really referring to the movie productions of LOTR or Narnia. I was just thinking of the stories as the authors intended. I would agree that when Hollywood takes something on, much spiritual gravitas is usually lost in the process. But I don't think everything. Anything true, excellent, or praiseworthy found anywhere can ultimately point a person back to God if pursued devotedly.
I think this whole chunk deserves to be the start of a new thread. Hope you don't mind, but I'm gonna start one here: aletheia.proboards.com/thread/4155/acting-counterfeit-activity
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Mar 24, 2015 4:29:21 GMT -8
"Anything true, excellent, or praiseworthy found anywhere can ultimately point a person back to God if pursued devotedly."
This is an interesting concept. I am unclear what you mean by "pursued devotedly."
If something is ambiguous in a film why would a person pursue it devotedly to find out more about the truth of the biblical God? If something in a film is point blank you might cause someone to think about a pursuit of truth if the Holy Spirit has some truth to work with. But, that becomes the actual problem with films - truth or lack thereof. Hollywood cannot tell the truth, or will not tell the truth.
|
|