Jump to content

The Invisible Man

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

1,948 profile views

The Invisible Man's Achievements


Member (5/5)

  1. Well said. This is not Christianity. Bell is preaching a false gospel and will lead his flock straight into hell.
  2. My five favourites: 1. Curse of the Werewolf 2. Dracula (aka Horror of Dracula) 3. Quatermass and the Pit 4. Plague of the Zombies 5. Kiss of the Vampire
  3. I used to be a big Argento fan, but he hasn't made anything decent since "Opera" (aka "Terror at the Opera") and that was over twenty years ago! I have been pondering whether or not to add "Mother of Tears" to my rental list for old time's sake, but the reviews have been so dreadful. These days it seems only Juno is a fan... Note to J.R: "Inferno" (the second film in the Three Mothers trilogy) is Argento's masterpiece. The dialogue is terrible, the acting is patchy and the plot is nuts, but there really isn't anything else like it. It's that rare bird: an arthouse horror movie. Expect to be either bored or dazzled.
  4. A good question. It's not something that I have ever considered. Is it idolatrous to picture God in our mind as the lion Aslan? Hmmm... I'm thinking that it must be, but I seriously need to sleep on it.
  5. I would argue that the second commandment is a warning against both pagan practises of animal worship and animal representations of God (so, for example, it is forbidden to depict Christ symbolically as something like a fish or a lamb). We have learned a lot since then, particularly how images were used in the early church. WE have examples as far back as the 2nd century. I was fortunate to get to see an exhibit of Christian art from exactly this time period that Calvin denies exist last spring in Forth Worth. Truly amazing works of art! There is an excellent catalog from the exhibit. The whole idea of a purer church that did not use images doesn't hold water. I don't have the sufficient time or smarts to ascertain if Calvin is right or wrong about the early church. I find the second commandment to be clear regardless. Because it is impossible for a true Christian to think about God without worshipping him in his heart, it is always sinful to depict God in a painting or a film, etc. That way lies idolatry.
  6. No, I'm not a red-letter Christian, but I do believe that the Bible is far more than the work of mere men. I believe it to be a supernaturally received text, that the men who wrote it were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that the more one studies the Bible, the more the Holy Spirit opens one's heart to its truth. We are supernaturally persuaded as we read. Calvin calls this phenomenon "the self-authentication of Scripture". This is why every Christian needs to read their Bible daily.
  7. I naturally regard the word as paramount and sacred. Christ didn't leave us his fleshly body, he left us his words, and the only authentic gospel is one spread through those words. Images carry no such authority because they are the works of men. Images always debase Christ. To depict Jesus in a movie is to depict a false Christ and to present a false gospel. I realize, however, that you and I can never agree on this, so I won't labour the point further. In reply to Jim: I give no credence to relics.
  8. But Christ is ALWAYS fully God. We cannot split him in two and ignore his divine nature - that's precisely what movies do, and why watching them is sinful. But we don't know Christ's actual face. Scripture is silent on his physical appearance.
  9. I personally regard all depictions of Christ as sacrilege. I used to feel the same way that you do until I read Calvin on the subject. This quote from "The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Explained and Proved from Scripture" by Thomas Vincent is also helpful:
  10. No, I wasn't goofing around, but I appreciate that I could have expressed myself better. I was trying to make the point that such a cartoon, by its very nature, would trivialize Christ's message and suffering. Yes, I feel the same way about all such movies. When I was a child, and long before I came to be a Christian, my grandmother had a picture of Christ above her bed. The image was rather striking and I am still haunted by the face in that picture today. I can even see the face in my mind's eye right now as I write this: the kindly smile, the penetrating blue eyes, the flowing brown beard... It comes to me unsummoned. But the man in that picture wasn't Jesus, and to dwell upon that face is idolatry (as the second commandment indicates). That picture has caused me harm, and it makes me wonder how many others have been harmed similarly by product like "The Passion of the Christ", "The Miracle Maker" and "Jesus of Nazareth"...
  11. Christ is the God-Man. He is not Astro-Boy. The second commandment is constantly swept under the rug in our entertainment-obsessed culture.
  12. Absolutely not. To watch such a film would be an insult to God.
  13. It's starting to look like the Masters of Cinema release is the one to choose.
  14. Douglas Groothuis, the author of "Truth Decay", is confused by the film and mentions Jeffrey's review on his blog.
  15. theoddone33 wrote: "All of these movies were popular, for different reasons. None of them were "terrible"... all very well made with varying levels of depth. In general, if a film wins best picture it's probably not a terrible film." Per-leaze! "Titanic" makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane". theoddone33 wrote: "Jeffrey's review was very negative about the movie's philosophy, from my reading. Yet the artistic quality of the film is well worth 3 1/2 stars, regardless of whether you or I interpret the film to be talking about something we agree with. It's not being honest to imply that great art which happens to be anti-Christian or ignores Christianity is not great art... so I'm glad that CT was honest about the film and gave it a fairly high rating." If a film were to present the Holocaust as a positive thing for the world and had Citizen Kane-like artistry and production values, would it still be given a maximum rating? Is art beyond good and evil? Personally, I tend to reject films that present an anti-Christian worldview. Consequently, I find myself watching less and less these days and am frequently flabbergasted at some of the stuff that Christians embrace. A while ago I came across this piece by John Frame and I have found it to be helpful: John Frame theoddone33 wrote: "I think you're just being argumentative now. Sorry if that's not your intent, but it's how you're coming across to me. You realize the implausibility of this statement, I'm sure. Jeffrey's reading of the film clearly doesn't align directly with mine, but it's almost offensive to me that you'd imply that he doesn't know what he's talking about." I seldom read CT and was merely responding to the posts in this thread, so I didn't realize that Jeffrey wrote their review. I agree with you that my comment appears insulting, so I apologize to Jeffrey for that. To be clear: I do think that Jeffrey has a tendency to overstate the case regarding the Christian content in secular movies (e.g. Indiana Jones), but I don't doubt his ability to read a film. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to be overly argumentative. I was simply trying to counter your point that the lady seemed to require some sort of higher education in order to have a valid opinion. Personally, I think the lady could be more right about "No Country For Old Men" than most of the people on this board, so I am sympathetic to her anger if not her brusque and snarky tone. theoddone33 wrote: "I agree, a film can be masterfully made and still lack ethics. But most people don't give out star ratings based on ethics." I do (not that my opinion actually counts for anything). If a film appears anti-Christian to me, I mark it low accordingly - which is why Alan reprimanded me a while back for going nutzoid with my one star ratings and why I no longer rate films on this board.
  • Create New...