By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission
Watching The Cry Hollywood on God TV recently, I had thought that it wasn’t necessary to revisit the event. But the misuse of history in the pulpit bothers me, and now that video of the event is now finally online on demand, I fear that I can point to an example of it.
The Cry Hollywood, which I blogged on during the run-up to the event was apparently a success as organizers of the event have been mentioning, both online and in subsequent sermons, how much of a permanent impact it seems to have had.
Most of the attendees and participants would have taken part on the level that you or I might have. Hollywood badly needs Christ and gathering to pray about its issues, talk about what may need to be done and encouraging those who are involved in the industry is central and essential.
I think that is what attracted Ted Baehr to the event. He is the main force behind the Movieline organization and has been trying to do good work, from a conservative Christian standpoint, for 40 years now. He seems to have a good heart and useful skills, and is worthy of respect so I want to be careful to state that up front.
But what was said should perhaps have elicited a cry of “Cut! We need a retake!”
Baehr was invited to spend a few minutes talking about the “history of Hollywood”, and as he was talking I found myself saying “hang on…” And the participants walked away from the rally acting on what I fear is a wrong understanding of what really happened in Hollywood.
You shouldn’t have to read Hollywood history for fun, as I like to do, to avoid pitfalls from the pulpit.
His remarks are in the 4th Vimeo segment of The Cry Hollywood, starting at 30:40, which you can see here.
But I will be quoting extensively in case Baehr’s remarks go pfft, as has been known to happen on the internet.
He begins by noting that Christians have always had an interest in using entertainment for God. But then a counter impulse developed, and Pope Innocent the 3rd “removed the mystery plays”. [Per Wikipedia, that pope banned clergy from acting in them, but that would be much the same thing.]
He continues on for a few minutes, and then at about 33:53 he starts talking about the movies. And, as I am a bit of a silent movie buff, that’s when I started to think to myself, “Hey wait a second…”
The earliest filmmakers were friendly to the Gospel, Baehr says. “They were making movies about faith and values. The first Passion Play [film] was made in 1897. The first nativity story was made in 1898…” he said.
Quite correct, but a reference book I have at hand says that the first hard-core porn movie was made about the same time. Tares were growing among the wheat.
Baehr continues “…and by 1915 60 per cent of the movies were being shown in churches…”
Sixty per cent of the films were being shown in churches? Are there contemporary historical references to that? Are there arguments pro and con from that time about churches being used in that way? Sixty per cent of the box office totals accruing to churches would fly in the face of any Hollywood History I have read,
The next thing that he said stopped me in my tracks. Even if the fact itself is right—which I failed to spot in Terry Ramsaye’s definitive history of early film, A Million and One Nights, which was commissioned by Edison—he is horribly misinterpreting what was supposed to have happened.
He says this:
“Edison tried to give the rights, the [Edison] patents to the motion pcture camera to the local presbytery but, Faytene, they didn’t want it. They thought it was a toy. They thought it couldn’t do any good.”
How can anyone who has been in Hollywood as long as he has be unaware of the Motion Picture Patents War?
If you’ve seen the film Nickelodeon, in which the film makers have to head for what would become Hollywood because of Thomas Edison, you might know a little of what I am talking about.
Basically, the invention of movies was very confusing because the film materials required and the technology required came into existence at about the same time. So there are several claimants to be the “inventor of movies”.
I don’t think it was Edison, myself, but he managed to get the American patent for the motion picture camera. But then something interesting happened, Similar but sufficiently different technology was invented so that Independent companies, who weren’t using Edison’s cameras.
What was Edison’s response? He tried to form a monopoly trust resting on his patents, trying to totally control movies for himself and his cronies—the Motion Picture Patents Company.
That’s why so many movies companies came out West, by the way. Far away from lawyers, and bruisers who could break your camera or your head. Nice weather and pretty close to Mexico, just in case.
The Edison trust’s main weapon was the courts. As the above Wikipedia entry notes, it didn’t go well for them. First, in 1913, the need to pay royalties on Edison patents expired. Then in 1915 a US court ruled that the Edison monopoly company was “Going far beyond what was necessary” to protect the use of patents”, giving the independent companies breathing space. This, along with other factors, led the companies involved in the trust to fold after the end of the First World War.
What does all this mean? That what Baehr said about what Edison intended to do seems barely credible.
Is there any evidence that Baehr can point to? I have my doubts, as Edison creating a monopoly and fighting like a tiger to maintain the monopoly are not the actions of someone who would be happy to give his patents away to a church. They are the actions of someone going “Mine! I want all this for myself.”
It could be possible that Edison made the alleged offer to a church after the court decisions that broke his monopoly. If that should be the case, then Edison was offering his rights because they were of no value to him.
In any case, for Baehr to say that Edison’s offer was something powerful and a great opportunity that the church frittered away is quite wrong. The twenty year patch of movie history regarding to the fight over patents, which Baehr should have a nodding knowledge of, would prove that any church would Edison’s patents would not have had the commanding, monopoly position that Baehr’s comments imply that they would have had.
I don’t think he intended to mislead his audience, but he did.
After Baehr’s remarks, in Part 5 of the video, the audience went right to prayer with the organizers praying sorrowfully that they repented for giving up the “[Edison] camera.” I found myself talking back to the computer screen: “That’s so wrong…” And I’m not an expert on Hollywood history, but Mr. Baehr is supposed to be.
What else did MR. Baehr say? Here are some highlights.
He goes on to imply that Christians dropped the ball when it comes to radio in the US too.
“I know the first radio station was done in a church in Pittsburgh by the junior pastor. And the senior pastor thought it was a toy…”
Hmm, KDKA in Pittsburgh is credited with being the world’s first commercial radio station. If we go back to the very beginnings of KDKA, Wikipedia has an entry on the person who basically started the station before it was a full-blown radio station.
Wikipedia says:
““Frank Conrad (1874 – 1941) was a radio broadcasting pioneer who worked as the Assistant Chief Engineer for the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,. He began what are considered the first regular radio broadcasts from his Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, garage in 1916, and is responsible for the founding of the first licensed broadcast station in the world: KDKA…..At 23 he began working in the Westinghouse Testing Department, where he developed such inventions as the watt•hour meter. Conrad was awarded more than 200 patents throughout his life.”
“Conrad first became interested in radio in 1912 when, in order to settle a bet on the accuracy of a watch, Conrad built a radio in order to hear time signals from the Arlington, Virginia Naval Observatory. He then constructed, in his garage, a new transmitter, licensed in 1916 as 8XK, whose signal could be heard throughout the Pittsburgh area…..”
It’s odd that Baehr goes from an inventor to the operator of the first radio station. Is Marconi not Christian enough for his thesis?
Baehr continues:
“Television was invented by a Christian up in Idaho just be watching the mowing of the fields.”
[Although Philo Farnsworth only invented many parts of the first TVs this seems correct.]
“I don’t believe that they invented any of this” added Baehr “I believe God gave it to them to ‘take ever thought captive’ for Him, and to worship through the power of creativity and of entertainment.”
God would certainly want these things used to bless and bring people to him, but I’d like to think that he doesn’t mind sharing. Taking “every though captive” may have dominionist overtones, depending how you interpret it.
He returns to the history of movies.
“So in 1915, the movie theaters said ‘if you’re going to show movies in churches, we’re not going to let you show them in theaters…”
I think that what Baehr is getting at that the film companies were insisting that churches buy a license to show films, as happens today..
“And then you got into the Roaring 20s Robert, things got really debauched and Hedy Lamarr did 13 minutes of nudity in Ecstasy…”
Readers of Kenneth Anger’s Hollywood Babylon might agree with Baehr here. Ecstasy, however, was released overseas in 1933 and the Hays office successfully prevented it from being widely released in the United States at that time. The author of the Wikipedia piece on the film didn’t watch it with a stopwatch, so I don’t know if “13 minutes” is correct.
“I skipped one thing, when they started Hollywood as a Christian retreat. You all know that, right?”
Could be true, but Wikipedia doesn’t seem to know that either.
He then begins to talk about he cities as the positive influence of the Hays office, Joseph Breen and other influences such as the Protestant Film Office and the Catholic Legion of decency.
His nod to Christian filmmakers of the past is apt, although I would have mentioned C.O.Baptista in addition to the Palists and Cathedral Films. An interesting page at the A.V. Geeks website tells us in more detail about the history of Christian filmmaking that Baehr alludes to.
He then refers to various Hollywood personalities who were Christians. His dad, as Robert “Tex” Allen, was a Hollywood star known for westerns, as he states. Although I do wonder what Ted Baehr thinks of his dad’s role in Raiders of the Living Dead. See Ted Baehr’s dad in the US edition of Naked Evil! 
The Sixties were bad for Hollywood, Baehr believes. Progressive Christians might in turn argue that the increased freedom and liberty of that era in films was a much needed thing, but what Baehr says is an article of faith with conservative American Christians, so I’ll look at what he says.
I’ll quote this at some length:
“In 1966, the Protestant Film Office shut down. You went from 100 per cent what would be family oriented—every filom could be seen by anybody. It didn’t say that you couldn’t do violence, but you justwouldn’t do violence in a way that would lead Jason [there] to go around and copy the violence. Or you couldn’t say that you couldn’t do romance, but you wouldn’t do romance in such a way that would cause susceptible youth to go off the tracks. What’s wrong with that?…It wasn’t salacious, it wasn’t pornographic. It didn’t capture your essence and turn you into somebody who wanted to become violent.”
“When the church left we went from the Sound of Music in 1966 to the first X-rated film in 1969….when the Church shut down the Protestant Film Office, within the first si=x months, the Church of Satan set up a film office in Hollywood.”
So, Baehr, for the purposes of appealing to an idyllic Hollywood past that we can all perhaps return to again and even perhaps, makes his case.
Some observations:
My progressive friends might want to point out that movies of that time might appear squeaky clean, but at the same time were racist, or sexist and such.
100 per cent of films were family friendly. Really?
This might be apocryphal, but one thing that used to be done in Hollywood, is to have the stars of the movie confront, or participate in all sorts of evil or horrible things, and then turn to the sided of good in the last reel, getting a vicarious pleasure from it all and repenting just in time. A good moral lesson, perhaps, but a crafty move by the film maker.
Baehr would be aghast to remember Christians who washed their hands of Hollywood, but they did exist. They provide an interesting point of view.
I own a 1940 book by Lester Sumrall called Worshipers of the Silver Screen, which has a much different perspective than the “wasn’t Hollywood swell” perspective that Baehr offers.
The forward is by Edith Mae Pennington, who flirted with pursuing a film career before becoming an Assemblies of God evangelist and pastor.
Whatever she experienced in 1920s Hollywood, she felt very convicted by what was happening to her. She writes in the forward: “But when I was introduced to Hollywood’s inner life, my modest sensibilities were shocked to the extreme. I was deeply horrified by the apparent immorality on every side.”
Lester Sumrall himself opens with his being told by an unnamed Hollywood employee giving him a tour: “Now you are to witness the world’s biggest sham!”
Family-friendly? Sumrall quotes unnamed people who worried that children were being exposed, by movies, to matters more suited to adults. Sumrall worried about the corrupting effect of profit-making on films and how they are made, its catering to extremes in the portrayal of people as characters which encouraged people to follow suit. Full of Christian values? Rather, Sumrall argues, “Hollywooditis” catered to the lowest common denominator.
I’m not a fan of Sumrall’s anonymous quoting, but he does cite a telling quote he found in a New Orleans newspaper by actress and writer Cornelia Otis Skinner. She reportedly said: “Hollywood is cheap and tawdry. It’s wicked. It’s a place where you have to drop your real sense of values. People in power are common and unscrupulous, and you can’t call your soul your own. In fact, the people in power are so horrible that my friends, men and women who speak my language are miserably unhappy there.”
What do I think? Well, I think that if you look from movies from Baehr’s conservative standpoint, movies generically were “better than movies are now, generically. Further, I would heartily agree that Christians have been salt and light in Hollywood and need to be encouraged to continue to do so. Baehr is right there.
But I also know that the kinds of thoughts expressed by Pennington and Sumrall were representative of the views of many Christians in the past. Rightly, or wrongly, Hollywood was viewed as uniformly a bad thing. And now we have Baehr talking about the same Hollywood of the Pennington and Sumrall eras as uniformly good and “family friendly”
Could one extreme be as bad as the other? And the audience at The Cry Hollywood—which I suspect was mostly young—would have had no idea that there was another historical point of view—which perhaps needed to be refuted. But if Baehr doesn’t reference it, as I did above, so much the better for his own argument.
In a “whaa?” moment in the midst of his conclusion, Baehr adds, “Actually The Blob is a Biblical allegory.” I may have seen too many cheesy sci-fi movies, but I think I know why!
Baehr ends his remarks with an exhortation for Christians to not turn their backs on Hollywood and, instead, seek to help and bless what God might be doing there. That is all good, all wise and all prudent.
But there are brief snippets that make me wonder if a dog whistle is in play. “We have to take the territory,” Baehr says. There is also a need to “take every thought captive.” I’d like a development of what he means by that.
I’ve been making these points in order to make this one.
Looking back over my various posts here, I’m seeing a recurring thread. Some Christians may be increasingly more likely to misuse history when they speak.
In the case of Mr. Baehr, he does this flagrantly in the example of Edison and the alleged gift of his patents to a church. If this did happen, there was no way, as history panned out that Christians could have had the whole of the movie industry and preserved it as a gift in the service of the Lord.
Had I been at The Cry Hollywood, I would have been thinking this to myself as the other people repented of not taking the gift of the [Edison] camera.
They would have been weeping over a sin that they did not commit, and historically could not have been held responsible for, because someone–who should have perhaps known better–implied that they should do so.
And that is wrong. Sermon-like remarks should carefully checked to make sure they are right before being delivered..
All the more reason to “be a Berean” when you listen. More so than ever.
”
Hollywood badly needs Christ and gathering to pray about its issues, talk about what may need to be done and encouraging those who are involved in the industry is central and essential.
”
a problem with movements is their reality distortion.
“the homeless in and around ventura, ca badly need attending to and gathering to talk about what needs to be done and encouraging those who are involved in helping is central and essential.”
bs. talk is cheap. and so is money. nothing can solve the homeless problem. and nothing can convert hollywood to god.
so, as in the lord ben’s oft used phrase, let’s get on with serving in our tiny spheres of life and give god a reason to worship us.
“Watching The Cry Hollywood on God TV recently….”
I didn’t know God had a TV. Anyway, if He got himself a computer and internet connection, then He wouldn’t really need a TV. He could simply download films and watch them whenever He wanted. One question I have is ‘Would God use bit torrent?”. Also, would God watch European, or – heaven forbid – Canadian films (e.g. Black Christmas), or just Hollywood films?
well said..thanks. As I listened to it I was thinking that what he, Baehr, was saying was just a little bit lop-sided..not that I know any of it for sure. It was just painting such a ‘pretty’ picture of the past in comparison to now. Fortunately most people know better.
“They would have been weeping over a sin that they did not commit, and historically could not have been held responsible for, because someone–who should have perhaps known better–implied that they should do so.” …
A tactic commonly used in such sermons:
“Today it is a well-understood tactic of mind manipulation that if an unknown and unresolveable guilt can be established among a group of people… that group can be controlled and subdued. As long as the target group accepts the possibility that the guilt might be true in some ways, it remains introverted and creatively unproductive. All its resources go into trying to resolve the ‘guilt’ that does not exist in the first place.” – from Ingo Swann’s book, Natural ESP.
This reminds me of Faytene’s bogus history of Canada in her book Stand on Guard. Amazing how history can be misconstrued by a religious mindset and an agenda that follows suit. Pathetic.
Just another example of the nauseating theme in fundy circles – “We must take back what god intended to be used for his purposes.” Remember all the pagan holidays and rituals that were stolen by Christianity? I guess Hollywood’s no exception. Were we in Medieval European times, Hollywood would be taken into the inventory of Christianity by brute force. Can’t do that anymore. Thank goodness humanity grew up and grew out of the diaper of religion. So what’s next in the “taking it back for god” agenda? Fast food industry? Big Oil? Wall Street? The Internet? Seriously, the credulity of the folks who support this crap knows no bounds. Where the hell in the bible did Jesus ever say that “the world” is to be converted to Chrsitianity? No where! In fact it says the opposite! The herd doesn’t even know what it believes. They just keep feeding from the trough of the charismaniac of the day no matter how ridiculous. No. Actually, the more ridiculous the better! (These folks probably also bought into the hoax that the Back to the Future date for Doc and Marty McFly was June 27, 2012. Oh for shame.)
Scientific method: this doesn’t fit, throw it out.
Christian method: this doesn’t fit, twist it until does.
You did a lot of research on this Bene- thanx
I am double minded on the subject of Hollywood. On one hand, I believe Hollywood is doing damage to people’s souls. Children learn bad lessons from their movie and television stars. On the other hand, Hollywood is a mirror reflecting the current values of the American people. Which one is it? Could it be both?
If A is A, A cannot be non-A. I learned this from Francis A Schaeffer.
If god is always missing in action, can we explain his absence at every turn, or is it that he is not there, and he is silent? A is A. A cannot be non-A.
I really enjoy reading this non-sense..LMAO,however american Idol is calling
Oh brano, you mean the American Idol where so many of the contestants give Jesus the glory for giving them the talent and ability to become a forbidden “idol”. Goes something like this:
“First I would like to thank the lord Jesus Christ for making possible all this praise and lauding heaped upon me by other mere men, and giving me that extra spark over my opponents so that I can win and get as rich and famous as those heathen who had to do it all on their own…Thank you Jesus!” Yup, sounds like Christianity taking over Hollywood to me.
Praise the lord! I would like to publicly thank my god for helping me to win the lottery, and for my spirit-filled life. I am so thankful that the lord leads me daily to the same deli and buy the same cold cut. I am so thankful that he has granted me a small load of cucumbers, and some beef. Most of all, I thank the lord for the good food on the table, and the wonderful life I now have. I would like to publicly invite brano to come to the lord and learn how to speak in tongues and be a true believer in god. I have a word of wisdom from the lord for brano. Brano, this is what the lord says, this year you will eat what you plant, and next year from the left overs in the land. when all the Mexicans go home and the bean will be 5 dollars a pound, remember to thank the good lord and praise him daily and worship the queen of heaven with cakes. Oh, the lord says when you are out of food, eat cake. So praise the lord, Amen.
Let me exhort any true believers to take religion back from religious whores and make your life count! Ah ha! Make it so, and destroy the work of the evil one, and take the CRY from Fat-ene. Please, come and take back this from them so that Christianity can be saved today!
Amen.
Caution:It is extremely dangerous to mock GOD!
Good luck with that y,all…..
It’s not my intent to offend you, Brano, or anyone. My sincere apologies. My heart is known where it counts. Thanks for the well-meant caution.
brano says:
July 2, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Caution:It is extremely dangerous to mock GOD!
Good luck with that y,all…..
… piffle and dribble. Right wing conservative evangelical crap and threats, not backed up by any reason or statistic. The threat issued by uber religious folks who understand they have no real power, no real authority, nothing to substantiate their faith, and not an intellectual leg to stand on. It’s the only thing they think they have left . LMAO ..
and it doesn’t!
Nevertheless they insist on making threats .. Can’t you just see the love of Jesus oozing from every pore of Brano’s body? How forgiving! How kind! How effective!
Come on Brano! Bring it on!!! I’m still waiting!!!!
Dear Priends,
When one mocks GOD,He answers to GOD sooner than later!
Source:The WORD of GOD
Dear Priends,
When one mocks GOD,He answers to GOD sooner than later!
Source:The WORD of GOD
When one pretends to speak on behalf of god, one makes himself a laughing stock. I’m waiting for “divine judgement” – please speak for god and tell me when it’s going to happen. Otherwise – please keep your comments to yourself.
Do y,all remember the Titanic…well they all laughed and said,“Not even GOD can sink it“….aheeem
and on and on and on history goes….But then,It is a was of time to argue with a fool
Cuz,only a FOOL.says in his heart,There is no GOD….aheeem
The Word of God says, “Ye are God!!”
The source: Ancient Psalm, and supposedly the sweet word of Jesus. Aheem!
Tres manificant……U goona make a theology out of 1 verse….BIZARO
More than a verse: aheem!~
“God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among God:
2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “God know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are God;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.”
One more by Jesus:
” Then came the Festival of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “God”‘? 35 If he called them ‘God,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside — 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. There he stayed, 41 and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true.” 42 And in that place many believed in Jesus.”
My dear Brano: have the courage to be God! You are God and if you have the courage to do right. Instead of following some false gods of Prairie and the Evangelics. Do right and have God worship you. Learn from the words of the Lord, I mean, the Lord Ben Chung. And also from the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. God be blessed here, and try not to pick up the stones and throw at the Lord.
There is wrath that knows the mouth, when it becomes engaged. That wrath can be used as easily as the mouth.
Touchdown!…
Brano:
Fear and listen with trembling the actual words of the lord your god.
” The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. 3 I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, 5 I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.
6 “‘I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people.
7 “‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.
9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife —with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
17 “‘If a man marries his sister , the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
22 “‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
25 “‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”
How many times, do I have to repeat this, this is the actual words of god, and you have failed to obey the totally. Try this, you cannot say this has to be ignores, glossed or falsified. You must obey them totally and it is not about the Jews. These are the norm in the holy bible. At the divorce court, when a man is caught having sex with another man’s woman, put that one to death. Homosexuals are dead meat, and many are dead according to this biblical teaching. And stop deporting Africans from Israel today! Treat them with dignity!! And those who practice “Wick” are dead already. Make sure not just to call the atheists fool, perhaps you should kill and hate them!
This is what this blog is turning into???
There is one on here that says there is no GOD, but calls himself lord. There are others who are trying to agree with him but fail miserably. Then there are those who are saying, “Those who mock GOD…”
What I am failing to understand is this: We do not need to ‘stick up’ for GOD; He can do this all by Himself. We are to tell those who do not know Him about His life and what He stands for… and if there are those who do not like Him anymore, that is when we are to quietly pray for them. This back and forth does not accomplish much at all!
As a Christian, I fail when I take on the absurdities of someone’s thoughts. I suceed when I pray for them and leave them to GOD.
IMHO
you know, listening yesterday to an awesome preacher talk about the 10 Commandments, I was reminded that the Law was not given for us so much to obey, as to show us that it is IMPOSSIBLE to obey it. We are helpless sinners without Jesus’ work on the cross for us. It is only through Him that we can be saved. Our good works are not to save us, but for us to show how much we love Him Who died for us. Ben, you are not the Lord, so I wish you would stop referring to yourself as such. As to your latest quote from the Old Testament, Ben, those rules WERE for the Israelites in that time and era. They are not for this period of history. Jesus made it very clear that he came to fulfill the law – and that what was “then” was now history.
Judging by the amount of Anti-Christian nonsense that is on this blog,it is not hard to fill in the blanks…
Dew .. No kidding!
Matt 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Then how do you explain this? – (wanna dance with me and Ben C?)
Just one more from me before I turn my attention elsewhere. I believe it is relevant to the turn this thread has taken, because it addresses the way the truth can be stretched this way and that, which is the theme of the original article.
I honor everyone’s inner experience for what it is to them. The only inner experience I know is my own.
I was taught at PBI and in other evangelical circles that the Pope – the Vatican – is or represents the antichrist. I don’t know if that is still taught.
Then through a private history study I learned that the Scriptures we revere were dictated to Christendom in 382 a.d. by a pope – Pope St. Damasus I – at the Council of Rome. 57 years earlier, the Nicene Creed was decided at the Council of Nicea, 325 a.d., which spelled out Christian doctrine/dogma in a single-page document. Before that there was no Christian Scripture – only a multitude of various manuscripts.
After the Nicean Council in 325 a.d., which had been called to unite the quibbling factions of Christians, the Vatican took it upon itself to determine what would become the Holy Bible for all Christians. 73 Bible books were finally decided and named as acceptable, issued in the Decree of Damasus, by Pope St. Damasus I.
Over a thousand years later, Martin Luther excised 7 of those books, resulting in the 66 books of the Bible revered today by Protestants.
Upon learning this, I had to face the fact that the entity I believed to represent the antichrist, the Pope/Vatican, had decided the Holy Bible to which I adhered and which I revered.
That left me with the mandate to develop my spiritual nature from the Comforter who resides within. I still love many portions of the Bible. Over my desk hangs Proverbs 4:23, “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.”
Peace to all.
It has to do with the yod and vav. Those are 2 letters, that in Hebrew are considered “soft letters”. They can be left out of a word and the word not be mispelled in Hebrew. So, Jesus was saying, that though the letters that are properly left out of a word, it would not be so with the Torah. That is, as long as the Existance of the Earth. The Rabbi in Isarael always taught in the Hebrew language.
I would have to respectfully disagree with all the interpretation that Jesus taught. Apparently there are such things as ‘textual variants’ which meant the scribes left things out intentionally or add things or change texts intentionally. We cannot be sure whether it was a young woman or a virgin when it comes to Christian interpretation about allusion to Christ’s viriginal birth. Many are the afflictions of the righteous! So I have endure patiently the attacks of the sinners. Please be brave enough to be God! This is the teaching of the sacred scriptures.
As for the 10 commandments, I cannot subscribe to such an outdated laws. First, we no longer put people to death for violating sabbath . And as for adultery, when people are caught together committing non0-marital sex ( a lot of church going Americans would be dead, not to mention the American teens or homosexuals), and the last commandment was referring to properties, where we own slaves, animals and women. I cannot with my humane mind accept that. And as for not to kill, we have already caused the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi people, using false intelligence (another commandment, for lying), with a very Evangelical Christian President. So, I am not sure which 10 commandments you are referring.
I say, let God worship you! Be brave and be God! Don’t just blindly worship god and Israel, where the justice is missing. As for the god that is missing when Prairie’s sexual predators were in action, and the president of Prairie. Mark, I say, come on your knees , that is, you and your god! And have the human courage to do the right thing. As St Paul once said, I would rather they castrate themselves! Amen.
Question: can a god be castrated? Or is this an emphatic?
Answer a fool according to his folly…nuff said,Everybody WangChung tonite….
Yea Brano. but you just wing the wang number here. We are talking about god and God, and there is no intellectual content from you buddy. Could you go back to your own education and help me to see why you are this way, a god-fearing person? thanks. My education helps me to shed this god. You seemed to have taken up the mantle to speak for the silent god.
Wanda I am puzzled by your comment, “We do not need to ‘stick up’ for GOD; He can do this all by Himself. We are to tell those who do not know Him about His life and what He stands for…”
If “we” don’t need to stand up for God because he can do that all by himself, then why can he not introduce himself to those who don’t know him, all by himself? Why does he need us to do that for him? What’s more, why does he need crusades and edicts and edifices? Why do children need to be groomed to adopt and pass on their inherited religion? Why does he need “Christian” schools and colleges like PBI built by humans to teach the ways of god? Can’t god teach each man himself and write his laws on the hearts of his own? And why does he need the schools to be state-funded? Why does god insist on having his servants broadcast his message to mankind across every available human media resource? Why does he need a Christ for the Nations or YWAM and every other oversees proselytizing missionary organization to do his work of making himself known to those who don’t yet know him? Why does he need his church to stifle free inquiry and suppress and censor the scientific discoveries that conflict with biblical concepts?
I could go on, but the bottom line is that your god does indeed need you to stick up for him and he has needed someone to advocate for him throughout the ages to keep him alive and well; an effective tool for manipulation. Otherwise, he would have become obsolete long ago as did all the other ancient gods created in the imagination of mankind.
I am not puzzled, that so many of these comments,reflect the spirit if the antichrist…
Brano .. we are puzzled that someone who says so little, pontificates about nothing, mocks those who do know, and pretends to have something to offer willingly gets humiliated so often. Please do yourself a huge favor and fuck off.
Thanks Tips….LMAO
AthiestAtBirth: Your name is so accurate, and you probably don’t realize it. We are all born sinners, without God, without hope in our lives. Only God can give us hope for a life without sin, a life that gives us a future for peace and an eternity with Him.
Amender….
dew, how do you know that we are all born sinners, without hope in our lives?
because I choose to believe in a God who created the universe, a God who does not lie, a God who loves us so much that He created a way for us to have eternal life; a God whose word tells us that we are sinners without hope, except for the way that He has provided. It is so much easier to believe in the truth of the Bible than to not believe it. I can not explain it all, so please don’t ask me to. Faith doesn’t need explanation, yet if you cannot simply believe, there are so many books to help one. Josh McDowell set out to disprove God, and in his process, found God. Read his books.
My Dearest Dew:
I know Josh, and his book, I am not convinced. But my interests in biblical texts led me to Bart Erhman. He was a fundamentalist like you and I. He studied the texts, prayed and struggled with the truths he found. What he found was that there are many mistakes in the biblical texts and that scribes intentionally changed the texts to influence their readers. Face it, biblical texts are not all full of love, if you do not believe me, read it for yourselves. Where it condones massive genocides, where it demands many to be put to death, whether homosexuals, adulterers, disrespectful to parents or working on a sabbath. Where babies are dashed against rocks, where god intentionally killed children because they mocked the prophet of god. The list is long, and these are just the pure words of god, unadulterated.
Is god love, yes, is god a fire and flame, yes. Can god kill, yes, and is the word of god full of mistakes and holes, yes.
Please tell me so I can be saved. Thanks.
God is love, BUT He is also just, and He cannot tolerate sin. I am so sorry that you have turned away from Him.
God is love, BUT He is also just, and He cannot tolerate sin. I am so sorry that you have turned away from Him. And please do not refer to me as “My Dearest Dew” – I am the “Dearest” of only one person. Thank you.
Galatians 6:7 ESV
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
Psalm 1:1 ESV
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
Thank you Jesus for LEMONS!
dew, do you think it is possible that if you were born in a different part of the world, in a different culture where belief in a god other than Jesus predominated, you would likely adhere to that belief system instead?
According to the words of Jesus, you don’t choose him, he chooses you. How can you be sure you’re not, shall I say, an illegitimate child of god who will one day be told by Jesus, “I never knew you”?
It is easier to believe in the bible than not to believe. Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t that speak volumes?