Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2015

one shade of red

Sister and brother, if the pain of genuine love is any color, let me just say it is not 50 Shades of Grey but it’s one shade of red, not from sinning in bed but instead His blood He shed to save us from sin and the power of death.  Therefore don’t be mislead, put your flesh to death, don’t let the World rob you by identity theft, count your sins as dead, and not have your lust be fed.  How?  By meditating on that one shade of red, His arm stretched and the bloody crown on His Head.  One shade of red.  Enough Said.

 

Note: JD Bloom’s One Shade of White was the original inspiration for me to write the above.

Read Full Post »

nunst0006

We take a break from our blog series to post this Christian voter’s guide for the state of California.  Recomendations are based upon research and from the perspective of the Christian worldview.  Grateful for Election Forum.

Candidate Ratings:

Every candidate is considered after thorough research; we also have a questionnaire for candidates to complete.

  • thumb upthumb upthumb up : Strongest endorsement for values voters
  • thumb upthumb up : Above average
  • thumb up : Better than opponent. Some races are between candidates that you will disagree with. You may not want to vote for any of them, but at least a 1 thumbs up makes one candidate as better than the other. It’s the lesser of the two evils. 1 thumbs up is not really an endorsement.
  • No Endorsement: We either oppose the candidates or have found no reason to support a candidate. If you don’t vote for a candidate or issue, all your other votes you make for other offices still count.

March 3rd, 2015 Election Recommendations: LA City Council, LA Unified School District, LA Community College District, and local measures.

City Council; City of La Mirada (3 Elected)

  • Larry Mowles
  • Steve De Ruse img_53643ce350906img_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Michael “Mok” Saenz
  • Tony Aiello
  • John Sarega
  • Edward Engimg_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Dale Nowicki

 

Council Member; City of Azusa (2 Elected)

  • Uriel Edward Macias img_53643ce13851a
  • Angel A. Carrillo img_53643ce13851a
  • Diana Reyes Williams
  • Jeri Bibles Vogel

 

Council Member; City of Gardena (2 Elected)

  • Mark E. Henderson
  • Harout “Art” Kaskanian img_53643ce13851a
  • Ron Ross 1
  • Dan Medina

 

Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 2

  • David Hernandez (write-in)   img_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Paul Krekorian
  • Eric Preven

 

Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 6

  • Cindy Montanez  img_53643ce13851a
  • Nury Martinez

Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 8

  • Bobbie Jean Anderson
  • Marqueece Harris-Dawson
  • Forescee Hogan-Rowles
  • Robert L. Cole, Jr. img_53643ce13851a

Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 10

  • Grace Yoo
  • Herb J. Wesson, Jr.
  • Melvin R. Snell (write-in)
  • Delaney “Doc” Smith img_53643ce13851a

Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 12

  • Daniel Garcia (write-in)
  • Mitchell Englander img_53643ce13851a

Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 14

  • John O’Neill img_53643ce13851a
  • JosÉ Huizar
  • Nadine Momoyo Diaz
  • Mario Chavez
  • Gloria Molina

Council Member; City of Cerritos (3 elected)

  • Jim Edwards
  • Grace Hu
  • Naresh Solanki
  • Sam Sultan Ahmad
  • Chuong Vo   img_53643eb0351c2img_53643eb0351c2img_53643ce350906
  • James Kang
  • Manny Maninder Sethi
  • Mark E. Pulido
  • Sophia Tse
  • Frank Aurelio Yokoyama

Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 2

  • Eric Preven
  • David Hernandez img_53643ce350906img_53643ce350906
  • Paul Krekorian

Council Member; City of Rolling Hills (3 elected)

  • Terry Ronald Reiter
  • James H. Aichele
  • Patrick Wilson
  • Arun K. Bhumitra  img_53643ce350906img_53643ce350906
  • Spencer L. Karpf
  • Clint Patterson
  • Leah Mirsch
  • James Black

Council Member; City of San Dimas (2 elected)

  • Casey Higgins img_53643ce350906img_53643ce350906
  • Emmett G. Bader
  • Tyler Fischella img_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Dina Higgins
  • John Ebiner

Council Member; City of Los Angeles District 4

  • Charles Craig Jackson (write-in)
  • Fred Mariscal
  • Step Jones
  • Rostom “Ross” Sarkissian
  • Joan Pelico
  • Carolyn Ramsay
  • David Ryu
  • Steve Veres
  • Wally Knox
  • Teddy Davis
  • Tara Bannister
  • Sheila Irani
  • Tomás O’Grady
  • Jay Beeber img_53643ce350906img_53643ce350906
  • Mike Schaefer

Board Member; Los Angeles Unified School District; District 7

  • Lydia A. Gutiérrez img_53643ce350906img_53643ce350906img_53643ce13851a
  • Richard A. Vladovic
  • Euna Anderson

Member of the Board of Trustees; Los Angeles Community College District; Office 1

  • Mark Isler img_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Francesca Vega
  • Andra Hoffman
  • Maria “Sokie” Quintero

Member of the Board of Trustees; Los Angeles Community College District; Office 3

  • Jozef Thomas “Joe” Essavi img_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Sam Kbushyan
  • Glenn Bailey
  • Sydney Kamlager

Member of the Board of Trustees; Los Angeles Community College District; Office 5

  • Steve Schulte img_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Scott Svonkin

Member of the Board of Trustees; Los Angeles Community College District; Office 7

  • Joyce Burrell Garciaimg_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • John C. Burke
  • Mike Fong

Board Member; Los Angeles Unified School District; District 3

  • Tamar Galatzan
  • Carl J. Petersen
  • Filiberto Gonzalez
  • Scott Mark Schmerelsonimg_53643ce13851aimg_53643ce13851a
  • Elizabeth Badger Bartels
  • Ankur Patel

Mayor; City of Pasadena

  • Don Morgan
  • Jason Hardin
  • Terry Tornek
  • Bill Thomson img_53643ce350906img_53643ce350906
  • Jacque Robinson
  • Allen Shay

Board Member; Pasadena Unified School District; District 6

  • Lawrence Torres
  • Sandra Siraganianimg_53643ce350906img_53643ce13851a

Local Measures

Charter Amendment 1. New City Election Dates and Schedules; 
One-Time Adjustment to Align Terms With New Election Dates by 2020 — City of Los Angeles
 (Charter Amendment – Majority Approval Required)

Shall the City Charter be amended to: 1) change the City’s primary and general election dates to June and November of even-numbered years beginning in 2020 so that City elections are held on the same dates as Federal and State elections; 2) provide that, in 2015 and 2017 only, candidates be elected for a term of 5/12 years to transition to the new election dates; 3) adjust vacancy election schedules and allow temporary appointments to fill vacant offices until an election is held; 4) enable initiative and referendum elections to be scheduled at either the next City or next State election; and 5) allow initiative proponents to withdraw their measure prior to scheduling an election?

Charter Amendment 2. New Election Dates and Schedules for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD);
One-Time Adjustment to Align Terms With New Election Dates By 2020 — City of Los Angeles
 (Charter Amendment – Majority Approval Required)

Shall the City Charter be amended to: 1) change the City’s primary and general election dates to June and November of even-numbered years beginning in 2020 so that City elections are held on the same dates as Federal and State elections; 2) provide that, in 2015 and 2017 only, candidates be elected for a term of 51A years to transition to the new election dates; 3) adjust vacancy election schedules and allow temporary appointments to fill vacant offices until an election is held; 4) enable initiative and referendum elections to be scheduled at either the next City or next State election; and 5) allow initiative proponents to withdraw their measure prior to scheduling an election?

Measure B. Harbor Village Plan — City of Redondo Beach (Initiative – Majority Approval Required)

Shall Redondo Beach phase-out power generation from a 50-acre Site currently occupied by the Redondo Beach Generating Plant and establish new land use and development standards for the Site by amending the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Harbor/Civic Center Specific Plan, Coastal Zoning, Zoning, and City Charter; with the new land use allowing 600 residential units; 85,000 square feet of commercial development; 250 hotel rooms and requiring 10 acres of public open space?

Measure O. Oil Drilling/Production Project — City of Hermosa Beach (Ordinance – Majority Approval Required)

Shall E&B Corporation’s 34 well oil and gas drilling/production project at the City’s 555 Sixth Street maintenance yard be approved by 1) amending the General Plan and Municipal Code to exempt the project from the City’s oil drilling ban and repeal the restriction on City’s use of project royalties, 2) awarding a pipeline franchise to transport oil/gas underground, 3) approving a 34 year development agreement, and 4) determining that project financial benefits outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts?

Measure P. Essential City Services and Public Safety Protection Measure — City of Paramount (Ordinance – Majority Approval Required)

To preserve youth afterschool educational programs; 9-1-1 emergency response; neighborhood/school sheriff patrols and Sheriff’s station; drug/gang prevention; street repairs; seniors programs; parks and general services, shall the City of Paramount adopt an ordinance to update its utility users tax and increase the rate by two and a half percent; with all funds used only in Paramount, subject to independent financial audits, and requiring equal treatment of taxpayers regardless of technology?

Measure A-Carson. Extension of Utility Users’ Tax — City of Carson (Majority Approval Required)

Shall Ordinance 14-1544 be adopted extending the 2% Utility Users’ Tax on electricity & gas, and adding water, cable, telephone & cellular utilities to continue essential services, including police, park enforcement teams, gang intervention, youth recreation programs, graffiti removal, Meals on Wheels, senior programs & stroke recovery, sidewalk & street repair, city special events, staffing parks, and addressing blight caused by loss of redevelopment revenue, while exempting senior and low-income households?

Measure Azusa-A. Transient Occupancy Tax Increase — City of Azusa (Ordinance – Majority Approval Required)

Shall an ordinance amending the Azusa Municipal Code be YES adopted to increase the rate of the Transient Occupancy (Room) Tax from 7.5% to 10%, and to apply the Tax to all rent charged by hotel operators, including online travel companies, for the transient occupancy of any hotel room, to help maintain general City services such as police and fire protection, street operations and maintenance, and library, parks and recreation services?

Measure Cerritos. Transient Occupancy Tax Increase — City of Cerritos (Ordinance – Majority Approval Required)

To assist in the recovery of expenses for providing general city services, including police, library and park services, shall the City of Cerritos adopt an ordinance increasing the existing Transient Occupancy Tax (which is a hotel bed tax) from a rate of six percent (6%) to twelve percent (12%), which is a rate closer to the average for other Southern California cities?

Read Full Post »

Danger1

Here are some Christians resources and essays speaking out against the book and the movie titled “Fifty Shades of Grey.”

Poem: One Shade of Red

Issues of Abuse, Consent, and Rape in “Fifty Shades of Grey”–This documents quotes from the actual book that shows pattern of abuse.

Fifty Shades of Grey’ and the Annihilation of Christian Women’s Innocence by Worldview Weekend

The Truth About 50 Shades of Grey by Christian Action

Fifty Shades of…Absolutely No Way by Amanda Christine

Fifty Shades of Genesis 3:16 over at Practical Theology for Women

Fifty Shades of Nay: Sin Is a Needle, Not a Toy from Desiring God (thanks to “Dying Daily” for sharing this)

NO GREY AREA by Kevin DeYoung

“ONE SHADE OF WHITE” by JD Bloom

Fifty Shades of Shame — The Evolution of Pornography by Al Mohler

Fifty shades of don’t have sex outside of marriage

‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Is Every Shade of Evil

Fifty Shades: A Sexual Assault on Your Daughter by Kirk Cameron

50 Shades of Grey – What’s The Fuss? over at God or Absurdity? Blog

NOW THAT THEY’VE BOUGHT THE TICKET

REJECTING THE INDUSTRIALIZED SEX OF ‘50 SHADES OF GREY’ by Joe Carter

Verbal Pornography by Defending Contending Blog

50 Shades of fairytales

Lust or sacrifice over at Mustard Seed Budget Blog

Why “50 Shades” is not the same as biblical submission | Denny Burk

FIFTY SHADES, TWILIGHT, AND TEACHING YOUNG WOMEN TO DESIRE ABUSERS

Is This For God’s Glory And Honor?

Fifty Shades of Grey? It’s Really Just Black and White by Sola Sisters

To the women of America: 4 reasons to hate 50 Shades of Grey by Matt Walsh

When Black-and-White Becomes Grey | The Cripplegate.

A Parent’s Survival Guide To ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’

Christian Grey: Why Women Everywhere Want This Man

50 Shades of Compromised Witness

I also want to add the following:

“If you love… you will hate and hurt?” by Rob Barkman.

While the last one is not talking about the movie, I think it is relevant since Rob does a good job Biblically answering the silly view that the one you love you must hurt.

Are there other links you found helpful that you want to see added to this list?

Read Full Post »

book_wet

Texas Mega-church preacher Ed Young is no stranger to controversial headlines concerning what he does at his church concerning the topic of sex.  A recent headline declares “Megachurch Pastor Ed Young to Baptize Copies of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey;’ Calls Book a ‘Perverted Attempt to Trap Readers.‘”

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Just over a week before the steamy “Fifty Shades of Grey” movie opens on Valentine’s weekend, controversial founding pastor of the popular Fellowship Church in Dallas, Texas, Ed Young, says he will baptize copies of the book on which the movie is based, calling it a “perverted attempt to trap readers.”

“There is a cultural epidemic out there that is wrapped up in complete fantasy. The book, Fifty Shades of Grey, is a perverted attempt to trap readers and leads them to a misunderstanding of what intimacy and connection are all about,” said Young in a press statement Wednesday.

On the one hand I’m glad that Ed Young is speaking out on the problem with Fifty Shades of Grey; but on the other hand I wonder  if the early Biblical church would have done what Ed Young is planning to do at his church?

It seems that the closest parallel in Scripture of Christians responding to bad corrupt writing is in Acts 19:19-20:

A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas.[c] 20 In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

Far from baptizing “books!”  When these believers repented they got rid of those writings by burning them.  But don’t take this passage out of context to start random book burnings either since the context of Acts 19:19-20 is that they repented from their sins and then they got rid of their own books; it is not a verse to encourage burning other people’s book nor does it encourage buying those books for the purpose of burning them.

But I want to say a word about “baptizing” Fifty Shades of Grey.  In one sense some may be doing without realizing it; I mean figuratively of course.  They will go out to see this movie and they will sprinkle some Christian-ese to justify it.  Or they think that Christ have died for their sins allowing them to watch it anyways and use grace as a license for sin.

This ought not be.

Read Full Post »

1024px-Eye_iris

Last week’s post, “Is it ever appropriate for Christians to view sexual sins in film?” generated a lot of discussion on our page and on other forums.

In response to that post, someone asked me a good question of whether or not it is sinful for a movie to depict sexual scenes that follows after certain stories in the Bible.  My conclusion is that depicting sinful sexual acts on film is still sinful and not morally justifiable even if the scene happen to “re-tell” certain Biblical events.

Below is my take on the question:

1.) In my thinking whenever we address ethical dilemmas we should go from the clear to the unclear.  Given the general principle I hold that films ought not to depict sexual matters as entertainment, I have a hard time seeing that it is permittable to depict sexually explicit materials in a film even if it is trying to visually re-create a Biblical event.

2.) In addition, I don’t think the function of the Bible is to provide source material for Hollywood to depict sexual elements as entertainment.

3.) We must also remember the difference between the Word of God giving an account of something through the medium of words versus an audio/visual depiction of sinful acts.  In a comment on one of our post “Tiribulus” shares a quote from Tim Challies that is helpful: We must not ignore “the power of pictures and the fact that pictures and words communicate in different ways.”

4.) I believe the Bible is not pornographic and often beautifully cloak the intimacy of godly sex more than it does revealing everything.

5.) Don’t forget that just because the Bible gives an honest written account of people’s shortcoming and moral failure this does not mean that the Bible condone them.  This is true also concerning sexual sins recorded in Scripture.

6.) When bad sexual events are mentioned in the Bible there are a lot less that is revealed than what our films would show today.

7.) There is also the reality that the more detailed and realistic the portrayal of sexual sins in pictures are, the more likely actual sins were committed by those involved in the production of the film.  For example, you have a couple in a movie sensually kissing and both individual have spouses; yet their “acting” involves real kissing and other forms of physical intimacy in which they sinned against each other and their spouses.  We are not even going to go over the sins involved in partial and full nude scenes.  The director also partake of the actors’ and actress’ sins as well for planning them while the crew also sin with what they see and lust after during shoots.

8.) Any biblical stories with sexual elements in it in light of the flow of Biblical theology would teach us two lesson: godly sex in obedience to God’s laws is good while sexual sins is bad.  The Word through words can communicate that but motion pictures has its limitations.  The more explicit and intimate the scenes are the more it undermines the message.  Ironically on the one hand if a film graphically depict “godly” sex, the acting behind the scene involves sin while on the other hand a film that graphically depict bad sexual sins ends up communicating that it can not be that bad since it is being watched for entertainment.  Plus the constant depiction of horrendously bad sexual sins often dull our sense and loses their shock value.  It becomes a case of taking one step forward while taking taking two steps back.

Conclusion

I think we can have films following Bible’s story with incidents of sexual reference and still be faithful to the story without depicting explicit sexual activities but that would require creativity.  Remember the power of mystery in film; some of the most powerful moments in film involves visual “hiding” things and event and employing other elements in the film to powerfully fill us in.

Read Full Post »

upside-down-house

These are links on Presuppositional apologetics between February 1st-7th, 2014.

1.) Do You Believe? You Should

2.) Debating Dillahunty for the Glory of Jesus and His Gospel

3.) From Absolute Idealism to Analytic Philosophy, Part 2

4.) Taking God At His Word — John Frame

Missed the last round up?  Check out the re-blogged post from a friend

Read Full Post »

A review of a resource on world views an film

The Domain for Truth

Purchase: Amazon

The author Brian Godawa is a prolific Christian movie maker, reviewer, screen writer and author. If one would expect someone to have the situational background to write on a Christian worldview analysis of films, then Godawa would be it. Making this even better is the fact that Godawa has good theology driving his worldview. He’s also influenced by Van Til’s Presuppositional apologetics (another major plus!). I’ve been wanting to read this book for a long time and was glad that I was finally able to order it and sit down and read it. The book defends the idea that film in of itself is not sinful–and that is just the preface. Conscious of the fact that film consists of visual imagery, the dramatic and a story, the author demonstrates that Scripture uses or record people using imagery, the dramatic and stories properly. The rest of the book is…

View original post 288 more words

Read Full Post »

Theology at the Movies John Frame

Christian apologist and theologian John Frame has a e-Book in Html format titled “Theology at the Movies.”

Here are the Table of Contents:

  • Reviews

 

Read Full Post »

Holy

I am going to address this question because sometime ago a reader of this blog emailed me our question: Is it ever appropriate for Christians to view sexual sins in film?

It might be unpopular and sounds old fashion but my answer then and now is no.  It is not appropriate for Christians to view sexual sins in film for the purpose of entertainment.

The brother who emailed me also shared how there are Christians who think that things such as nudity or other sexual themes are okay in film.  If I recall correctly, this brother mentioned that these Christians think it is permitable in certain context and depending on what kind of film it is.

I think we must remember Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians 5:3:

But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;

As saints, “there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality” to use the words of the NIV translation of Ephesians 5:3.  First off, the person in the screen is not your spouse so they are sharing things that should only be private between a husband and wife.  Second, if there are more than two individuals in a film involved with a sexual moment rememebr that these individuals are very likely not married and hence are engaged with lusts and acting upon it (with various degree) with someone else that is not their spouse.  We ought not condone and approve the sins of others.

Sometimes I think Christians can end up compromising by thinking the following:

  • “But everyone else is watching it!”
  • “I like the story!”
  • “I can handle it.”
  • “I’m watching it for the philosophy and worldview discussion.”

We must remember that the Bible is more concern that we flee from sexual immorality:

Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18)

I don’t know if one can muster a verse that would say it’s okay to be visually entertained sexually of someone that is not your spouse let alone God blessing the excuses given above.

I also realize we live in a day and age that is very sexual in many of our entertainment.  I do not want to be legalistic but I hope the following are helpful pastoral advice to navigate through this issue practically with the consideration that we apply it with the motivation of pleasing Jesus who has died for our sins:

  1. Cultivate in your heart a holy hatred of sin.  This involves a deeper love of God and the things of God.  When you can’t say no to a film even though it is sexual, you might have an issue of a functional god (an idol) in your life.  Meditate on the Gospel so as to change your affection and motivation in resisting sin.  If you don’t hate sin, all the advice that follow will only lead you to “manage” your sins rather than mortify it.
  2. Resolve in your mind that there’s already going to be films you will never watch.  You don’t need to experience every film.  I find it helpful to think about how short our time of life is, and our responsibilities (spiritual and otherwise).  People always get in trouble when they stop forgetting that the are finite with a finite amount of time and abilities, etc.  I also find it helpful to think that not watching some movies for the sake of Christ is nothing compared to the big picture of things such as what Jesus has done to save me, etc.
  3. Research as much as possible about a film before you see it.  If, as the result of your research you discover that your conscience is uncomfortable or you know that you will definitely be tempted when you watch the film, then it is wise not to see the film.
  4. I also realize that no amount of preparation before hand to avoid a bad movie can prevent surprises when one watches a film.  As cheesy as it might sound, during those awkward moments practice the art of fast-forwarding and skipping inappropriate scene.
  5. Make it a habit not to watch films alone.  When those shocking moments in a film occur I usually cover my eye as my wife fast-forward it.  We also typically reverse role when it comes to violent scenes.  Watching film with others also allow conversations afterwards and fellowship if one discuss the film from a Christian worldview, etc.  With a group one must also realize that one of the party’s conscience will be more weaker than the other and rather than be upset that this will limit how much movies you can watch, realize this is an opportunity to practice love by not watching a certain film to stumble someone; also realize that sometimes the other person who doesn’t want to watch might actually be right when we want to brush some of the things aside.
  6.   Spend more time with spiritual matters than watching films.  Use the following as a diagnostic question concerning your spiritual life: “Am I in the Word and prayer more than I am being entertained by some kind of video media?”  You want to focus on things that matter.  Be very conscious that video media can easily dull one’s senses to reading, prayers and critical thinking.

I’m not a movie guy but I am a movie guy.  To some I’m not a movie guy because I watch the least amount of movies among the people I know from church, work, family and friends.  It has also been years since I watched something in theaters.  Nor do I own a TV at home.  Yet to some I am a movie guy.  I am not a dinosaur and I do watch films on DVD.  What films I do watch with others I enjoy talking about it intensely afterwards.  I would say I enjoy it–but I enjoy film primarily because I want to enjoy God and see things God’s way, even as I watch a movie.

Read Full Post »

Hitchcock's Villains Murderers, Maniacs, and Mother Issues

Eric San Juan and Jim McDevitt.  Hitchcock’s Villains.
New York, New York: Scarecrow Press, 2013. 196 pp.

My wife and I have recently become fans of Hitchcock’s films so it was a delight to stumble upon this book in the library.  I didn’t read this book because I am somehow morbid but because I think Hitchcock understands the depth and quirks of depravity more than most film makers in his life time and even film makers today.  One thing that I appreciate about his film is how his villains are believable (not a cookie cut-out that is standard in many cheesy films); and if they are unbelievably horrendous, there is still something about them that reminds us of their humanity.  For me being reminded of the humanity of Hitchcock’s villains doesn’t necessarily mean we should always sympathize with the villains (although sometimes Hitchcock does want us to go down that road) but the fact that they are more like us than we realize brings us to the uncomfortable realization that everyone’s sinful nature can make us depraved monsters, a truth that we might not like to admit.  Ultimately I enjoyed Hitchcock’s film and this book for its observation that leads me to think more deeply of the Christian doctrine of total depravity.

This particular book is a collection of short chapters that explores Hitchcock’s themes in the way he portray his villains and also analysis of specific antagonists in his films.  I’ve enjoyed the book’s analysis especially with how the writers point out things I missed when I watched them.  I was blown away by the book’s take on the film Veritgo and the thesis that the protagonist Jimmy Steward is really the villain in the film.  Vertigo is one of the more stranger films that I didn’t know what to make of it when I first saw it but after reading the book I do see the authors’ point that Jimmy Steward is really not the ex-detective police hero that the beginning of the movie made him out to be, especially with how controlling and selfish he is later in the movie.

Another aspect of the book that I appreciate is the exploration of Hitchcock’s fear of authority throughout his life that comes out in his film.  In several films the police are not necessarily the villains but they are not necessarily friendly either.  At times they can go after the hero in the film, mistaking them for villains such as in the movie Stranger on the Train.  Having friends in law enforcement I think it is unfortunate that at times Hitchcock can present a far more sympathetic villain than he does of authority and those who enforce laws.  At the same time I can appreciate Hitchcock’s observation that those who uphold the law are not perfect either, with their bumbling around and at times being down right wrong.

I wished the book could have explored more on the villainy of ideas.  This constructive criticism is not meant to fault the book but also a compliment for the author’s approach of Hitchcock’s work from the angle of how ideology produces villain.  Their discussion left me hungry for more exploration of this theme since I believe worldviews, philosophies, and various “isms” can produce moral monsters from what seem to be every day people.  I appreciated the chapter that looked at this theme in the movie Rope.

In conclusion, I enjoyed the book.  I have seen most of the films the authors discussed with the exception of two; it made me want to watch other films that was briefly mentioned but it also made me realize there are certain films that I’m glad I haven’t watch yet nor plan on watching because of how twisted it is.  In some instance I believe it’s better not to watch it being act out before one’s eyes.  I do recommend the book.

Purchase: Amazon

Read Full Post »

Rope001

 

Introduction

As an example of evaluating a film with consideration of its worldview I will be looking at Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope (1948).  This movie reminded me the lesson that bad ideas can make people into monsters.  In what follows we will look at a summary of the story of the film, make the point that this movie is about philosophy, cover the philosophy that drives the villains follow by a discussion of the dilemma that such a philosophy poses for the characters and the audience before a quick summary of what we can learn.  Readers must also be warned that there that this essay will have many spoilers.

 

The Story

In an essay by Helen Cox and David Neumeyer, this is how they summarized the movie:

 

Brandon and Philip share a New York apartment. They have distorted the rather Nietszchean ideas of their former headmaster Rupert and decide to strangle their “inferior” friend David Kentley. Placing the body in an old chest, they continue with plans to hold a dinner party whose guests include David’s parents, his fiancee Janet, and Rupert. As Brandon’s behavior becomes increasingly more daring and Philip’s more nervous, Rupert begins to suspect. He finally confronts them and then calls the police.[1]

 

Wikipedia gives us a more detailed plot that would help us for the discussion of the worldviews in the film:

Two brilliant young aesthetes, Brandon Shaw (Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Granger), strangle to death a former classmate, David Kentley (Dick Hogan), in their apartment. They commit the crime as an intellectual exercise; they want to prove their superiority by committing the “perfect murder”.

After hiding the body in a large antique wooden chest, Brandon and Phillip host a dinner party at the apartment, which has a panoramic view of Manhattan’s skyline. The guests, who are unaware of what has happened, include the victim’s father Mr. Kentley (Cedric Hardwicke) and aunt Mrs. Atwater (Constance Collier); his mother is not able to attend. Also there are his fiancée, Janet Walker (Joan Chandler) and her former lover Kenneth Lawrence (Douglas Dick), who was once David’s close friend.

In a subtle move, Brandon uses the chest containing the body as a buffet table for the food, just before their housekeeper, Mrs. Wilson (Edith Evanson) arrives to help with the party. “Now the fun begins,” Brandon says when the first guests arrive.

Brandon and Phillip’s idea for the murder was inspired years earlier by conversations with their prep school housemaster, publisher Rupert Cadell (Stewart). While at school, Rupert had discussed with them, in an apparently approving way, the intellectual concepts of Nietzsche’s Übermensch, and De Quincey’s art of murder, as a means of showing one’s superiority over others. He too is among the guests at the party, since Brandon in particular feels that he would approve of their “work of art”.

Brandon’s subtle hints about David’s absence indirectly lead to a discussion on the “art of murder”. Brandon appears calm and in control, although when he first speaks to Rupert he is nervously excited and stammering. Phillip, on the other hand, is visibly upset and morose. He does not conceal it well and starts to drink too much. When David’s aunt, Mrs. Atwater, who fancies herself as a fortune-teller, tells him that his hands will bring him great fame, she is referring to his skill at the piano, but he appears to think this refers to the notoriety of being a strangler.

Much of the conversation, however, focuses on David and his strange absence, which worries the guests. A suspicious Rupert quizzes a fidgety Phillip about this and about some of the inconsistencies that have been raised in conversation. For example, Phillip had vehemently denied ever strangling a chicken at the Shaws’ farm, but Rupert has personally seen Phillip strangle several. Phillip later complains to Brandon about having had a “rotten evening”, not because of David’s murder, but over Rupert’s questioning.

As the evening goes on, David’s father and fiancée begun to worry that he has neither arrived nor phoned. Brandon increases the tension by playing matchmaker between Janet and Kenneth. Mrs. Kentley calls, overwrought because she has not heard from David, and Mr. Kentley decides to leave. He takes with him some books Brandon has given him, tied together with the rope Brandon and Phillip used to strangle his son.

When Rupert goes to leave, Mrs. Lawrence accidentally hands him David’s monogrammed hat, further arousing his suspicion. Rupert returns to the apartment a short while after everyone else has departed, pretending that he has left his cigarette case behind. He hides the case, asks for a drink and then stays to theorize about the disappearance of David. He is encouraged by Brandon, who seems eager to have Rupert discover the crime. A drunk Phillip is unable to take it any more; he throws a glass and says, “Cat and mouse, cat and mouse. But which is the cat and which is the mouse?”

Rupert lifts the lid of the chest and finds the body inside. He is horrified but also deeply ashamed, realizing that they used his own rhetoric to rationalize murder. Rupert seizes Brandon’s gun and fires several shots into the night in order to attract attention. The film segues to the end titles with the sound of approaching police sirens.[2]

This is a movie about philosophy

Right after the murder of David we hear one of the murderer name Brandon say “We killed for the sake of danger and for the sake of killing,” thereby tipping the audience that this is not a typical murder for gain but something more sinister.  We see hints that a dim view of man is driving Brandon’s murder  as hinted in his dialogue when he said, “The good Americans usually die young on the battlefield, don’t they? Well, the Davids of the world merely occupy space, which is why he was the perfect victim for the perfect crime.”  Such a view of humanity is philosophical in nature and is contrary to a biblical anthropology.

Having put David’s dead body in a chest we see how demented Brandon was when he immediately invites the victim’s friends and parents over for dinner.  Here we discover a little more that Brandon is one who thinks of himself and his worldview as intellectually superior which is conveyed by Hitchcock with the role of books in the movie.  As Jim McDevitt observed: “That it was books that drew Mr. Kentley’s attendance at the party—and served as the final object of disposal for the murder weapon—is significant.  Brandon views himself as intellectually superior in part because he is well read.  Books serve as the tool for gaining knowledge, for development of the intellect.  A fine collection of first editions indicate that Brandon does not just want to appear refined; he wants the world to know he’s educated.”[3]  The emphasis in the beginning of the film of Brandon’s murderous act and his intellect sets the philosophical trajectory of the film.

There are also other intentional hints in the movie’s dialogue that this film is about philosophy.  For instance, twenty two minutes into the movie both Brandon and Phillip are in conversations with their guests Janet and her former lover Kenneth about whether or not Rupert was coming to the party. Janet asked the three of them who was Rupert and Phillip tells her that he was their former housemaster at prep school with Kenneth chiming in that he’s a publisher now.  When Janet responded that perhaps she can find a job with him Phillip downplays that by replying “Rupert only publishes books he like, usually philosophy.”  This reference to philosophy is an editorial decision of the director and screen writer and gives us a valuable clue that we expect the main character’s philosophical leaning would later come into play during the movie.  As the conversation continues on the subject of Rupert, Kenneth ask of Brandon: “He used to tell you the weirdest things didn’t he?” When Janet asked what sort of things Brandon replied “I suppose Kenneth means Rupert’s impatience with social conventions” with the example that “Murder is a crime for most men, but a privilege for the few.”  Here we see a dangerous philosophy is at hand, one that has serious moral and ethical implications.

The philosophy that drives the Villains

There were other moments in the film that expounded more on the philosophical worldview outlook of the murderers (Brandon and Phillip) and their Rupert their mentor:

  • Thirty five minutes into the movie there is an argument between Brandon and Phillip about whether or not Phillip has killed any chickens which is followed by Rupert telling the other guest that he thinks “ a chicken is a good enough reason for murder” as any other reasons; Here you see definitely that Brandon’s worldview definitely came from Rupert:

  • When faced with the dilemma raised by a guest that wouldn’t murder being permitable mean everyone will be murdering each other, Rupert stated “the privilege of committing it should be reserved for those few who are really superior individuals.”
  • Brandon told his guests in the movie said “Good and evil, right and wrong were invented for the ordinary average man, the inferior man, because he needs them.”
  • Another quote from the movie: “The power to kill could be just as satisfying as the power to create.”

 

The dilemma

When the film was first released there were some condemnation of it in America and certain European theatre actually refused to show it due to its moral cynicism.[4]  However a careful evaluation of the film would reveal that Hitchcock was not endorsing the murderers’ philosophy but rather he was posing to the audience that there are definitely tensions and problems with their espoused worldview.  Hitchcock presented this through the narrative itself and also artistically in how the film was presented.

Dilemma shown through the Narrative

Recall the scene in which Brandon told his guests that “Good and evil, right and wrong were invented for the ordinary average man, the inferior man, because he needs them.”  Following Brandon’s line David’s father identified Brandon’s worldview as being in agreement “with Nietzsche and his theory of the superman” to which Brandon replied “Yes, I do.”  However David’s father doesn’t end it there for he goes on to say “So did Hitler.”  With this movie being in 1948 and World War Two just being three years before, the name Hitler would have been fresh on the mind of the original audience with the images of the Holocaust and other brutality.  We must not miss the force of the line “So did Hitler.”  Ideas have consequences, and it’s as if Hitchcock is giving us a moral lesson that the application of Nietzchean’s Übermensch is dangerous and undesirable.

David’s father was also the first to ask the most important question of the movie about thirty seven minutes into the film: “Who is to decide if a human is inferior, and therefore a suitable victim for murder?”  He presses Brandon to be more tangible as to whom he thinks are the superior people who have the right to kill inferiors and Brandon names himself, Phillip and Rupert.  The hubris displayed by Brandon is repulsive yet ironically pride is what lead Brandon to his downfall:

 

“They want desperately to impress their former prep school housemaster Rupert Cadell (James Stewart).  Phillip is a bit uneasy about it, increasingly so as the film wears on, but Brandon is consumed by the idea of showing himself to be superior to Rupert.  By the third act, we begin to winder if the whole point of the murder in the first place wasn’t to somehow show that he had replaced his professor as the smartest man in the room.”[5]

 

The most powerful moment in the film came towards the last ten minutes of the film.  At the end of the film when Rupert is shocked to find the dead body and during that tense moment Brandon threw Rupert’s philosophy back to his face when he said “Remember we said, ‘the lives of inferior beings are unimportant,’” and how they both believed that moral concepts of good and evil don’t hold the intellectually superior.  These exacts words of Rupert quoted by Brandon from the previous discussion with David’s father now comes back to haunt Rupert when Brandon says “That’s all we’ve done.  That’s all Phillip and I have done.  He and I have lived what you and I have talked.”  Brandon and Phillip has carried out their philosophy to its logical application.  Yet how does Rupert responds?  His words are very telling:

 

Rupert: Brandon, ’til this very moment, this world and the people in it have always been dark and imcomprehensible to me, and I’ve tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect….. and you’ve thrown my own words right back in my face, and you were right too, if nothing else a man should stand by his words, but you’ve given my words a meaning that I never dreamed of, and you’ve tried to twist them into a cold, logical excuse for your ugly murder…… well, they never were that, Brandon, and you can’t make them that. There must’ve been something deep inside you that let you do this thing, but there must’ve been something deep inside me that would never let me do it, and would never let me be a party to it now….”

 

Despite Rupert saying he would never be a party to the murder yet Jim McDevitt observes: “Rupert will live forever knowing that he was a party to it, unwilling as he may have been.”[6]

Rupert and Brandon’s closing exchange shows that when the fruit of Rupert’s philosophy is lived out, Rupert adamantly rejects it:

 

Brandon:What do you mean??

Rupert: I mean tonight you’ve made me ashamed of every concept I ever had of superior or inferior beings…. and I thank you for that shame….. because now I know that we are, each of us, a separate human being, Brandon, with the right to live and work and think as individuals…. with an obligation to the society we live in…. but by what right do you *DARE* say that there’s a superior few to which you belong??!! By what right did you *DARE* decide that that boy in there was inferior and therefore could be killed??!! Did you think you were GOD, Brandon!!?? Is that what you thought when you choked the life out of him??!! Is that what you thought when you served food from his grave!!?? Well I don’t know what you thought or what you are but I know what you’ve done!!! You’ve murdered!!! You’ve strangled the life out of a fellow human being who could live and love as YOU never could and never will again!!!

Brandon: What are you doing?

Rupert: It’s not what I’m going to do, Brandon…. it’s what society is going to do…. I don’t know what that’ll be but I can guess!!! and I can help….. you’re going to die, Brandon….. both of yall!”

 

Note what is in bold echoes the very questions that David’s father first raised against both Rupert and Brandon.  Hitchcock shows the fruit of this worldview and using Rupert to give this monologue as a plea for us to reject the nihilistic philosophy of the murders.  We must reject relativism, Nietzsche’s philosophy and any other philosophy that undermine human dignity as being made in the image of God.

The Dilemma shown through artistic elements

Hitchcock presents this film in such a way as to make us uncomfortable with the dangerous worldview of Rupert and Brandon.  One of the ways he makes it so for the audience is through the role of sound.  One might observe the lack of strong thematic music in the movie.  Cox and Neumeyer notes how

 

“the lack of music aids drama in Lifeboat and Rope. The “languor” in these films is perhaps more a result of the heightened discomfort the viewer feels-aspects such as silences certainly do feel longer without a musical background, but these silences are compelling through their realism and involve audience members further through their discomfort.”[7]

 

In light of the above, Hitchcock isn’t trying to glorify the murderer’s driving philosophy.

One should also take the set of the film into consideration.  The whole film is situated in a stuffy room that is shut off from the rest of the world although the beautiful background of a sunset over the city is visible through the windows.  Yet one hears no noise from the city even though it was the primary noise at the beginning of the film.  It seems artificially quiet and I think Hitchcock did that intentionally to emphasize that here is a microcosm of Brandon and Phillip’s own little world insulated from the outside world and its morals and social convention.  Any outside noise intrusion into the apartment seems to be symbolic of external sources of morality as opposed to the subjectivism of Brandon and Phillip.  I think this interpretation explains those moments when one does hear the life of the city.  For instance when Rupert is catching on that something is going on and he begins interrogating Phillip, Phillip’s conscience is disturbed when we see that he raised his voice, avoid questions and how he stops playing the piano while simulataneously one finally hear the faint sirens of the city.  It is almost as if the siren are the sirens of Phillip’s conscience despite his attempt at suppressing it.  It gets even more fascinating later in the film when Brandon thought they have gotten away with their perfect crime after their guests have departed.  Yet Phillip is at a wreck with his conscience bothering him and again you hear little background noise that are signs of the outside world.  Then when the phone rang, which source is obviously from the outside world, there is panic from Phillip.  It is as if the last phone and door bell ring were warning bells.[8]  The most obvious moment of the importance of noise from the city came towards the end of the film when Rupert gives his speech condemning his very own philosophy; here we hear more of the noise of traffic, cars honking, etc., and it climaxes with Rupert opening the window, firing his gun to get people’s attention to call the cops followed by voices of the people and police sirens overtaking the room thus signifying that morality does prevail and dominate.

There is also the irony to the claim that going beyond morality is freedom despite the claim of Brandon’s worldview.  This is artistically demonstrated in light of the role of space and place.  We have the tight confines of the room that certainly gives the atmosphere of being locked up.  Within this apartment we see how it is a place of oppression in which Brandon ends up controlling Phillip and even Phillip eventually snapping and telling Brandon to stop controlling him.  Brandon’s philosophy does not bring freedom even for the minority of brightened individuals as seen in Brandon’s abuse of Phillip to the point of even Phillip being slapped.  Furthermore, we see that Brandon and Phillip are also not free and safe within their own place when they interact with others.  Ironically they still care about what others (inferiors?) think—and this is true even when they invite others to their own microcosm—their own world, the place where they act out their own worldview.  One wonder if Brandon’s philosophy would work within their own little world—let alone the question of whether it can work in the rest of society which the backdrop of the city throughout the film constantly remind us.

What can we learn

  • Ideas have consequences!
  • There is a danger of bad philosophy/worldview.
  • An unbiblical view of man can have deadly consequences.
  • There is a danger of usurping God’s role.
  • Romans 1 reveal that man suppresses the truth and become more and more depraved as a result.
  • How then shall we live? Definitely not with the worldview that Brandon and Rupert represents.
  • “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)
  • This movie reminded me the lesson that bad ideas can make people into monsters.
  • We must turn to Jesus to be saved from our sins and also to be made Holy.

[1] Helen Cox and David Neumeyer, “The Musical Function of Sound in Three Films by Alfred Hitchcock” Indiana Theory Review, 16, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3559/CoxNeumeyerTheMusicalFunctionV19.pdf?sequence=1  (accessed February, 3rd, 2015).

[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_%28film%29#Plot (accessed February, 3rd, 2015).

[3] Jim McDevitt, Hitchcock’s Villains: Murderers, Maniacs, and Mother Issues, (New York: Scarecrow Press, 2013), 68.

[4] Helen Cox and David Neumeyer, “The Musical Function of Sound in Three Films by Alfred Hitchcock” Indiana Theory Review, 14, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3559/CoxNeumeyerTheMusicalFunctionV19.pdf?sequence=1  (accessed February, 3rd, 2015).

[5] Jim McDevitt, Hitchcock’s Villains: Murderers, Maniacs, and Mother Issues, (New York: Scarecrow Press, 2013), 61.

[6] Ibid, 69-70.

[7] Helen Cox and David Neumeyer, “The Musical Function of Sound in Three Films by Alfred Hitchcock” Indiana Theory Review, 14, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3559/CoxNeumeyerTheMusicalFunctionV19.pdf?sequence=1  (accessed February, 3rd, 2015).

[8] Helen Cox and David Neumeyer, “The Musical Function of Sound in Three Films by Alfred Hitchcock” Indiana Theory Review, 18, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3559/CoxNeumeyerTheMusicalFunctionV19.pdf?sequence=1  (accessed February, 3rd, 2015).

Read Full Post »

Worldview dilemmas blog series veritas domain

Purpose: Workshop participants will consider entertainment from a biblically informed perspective with the specific application towards movies and videos, so that you may be equipped to respond to it properly in evangelism, edification and exalting God.

 

What this message is not going to say:

  • Throw away all TVs.
  • Movie is of the devil per se.
  • Everything we watch is permitted.

 

  1. Entertainment in the context of Leisure
    1. Towards a definition: Relationship of work, leisure and entertainment
      1. It is important to define our terms.
      2. It might be helpful to define our terms in light of the relationship of work, leisure and entertainment because they are inter-related.
  • Work seems easier to define than the other two: What we do to provide economically for our needs and wants, which result in the production of goods and services.
  1. Leisure is opposed to work, in that it is the time and activities which occur free from the obligation of providing for our economic necessity, and usually has the aspect of improving the quality, satisfaction and enrichment of our lives.[1]
  2. Entertainment
    1. Activities that occurs during our leisure.
    2. “Something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.”[2]
    3. As opposed to other leisurely activity, the participants usually believe that he or she is engaging in it for the purpose of amusement sake only.
  3. As a historical trend, we have more time for leisure—and more time for entertainment
    1. According to a 1964 study on leisure time available: “It is striking fact to note that the working man of a century ago spent some seventy hours per week on the job and lived about forty years. Today he spends some forty hours per week at work and expect to live about seventy years.  This adds something like twenty-two more years of leisure to his life, about 1,500 free hours each year, and a total of some 33,000 additional free hours that the man born today has to enjoy!”[3]
    2. “Over the past half-century, the increase in incomes and decline in hours worked have allowed American consumers to enjoy more leisure time and increase their spending on entertainment. In 2000, spending on entertainment by American consumers totaled approximately $203 billion, almost 3 times the amount that Americans spent on education.”[4]
  4. Videos (TV, movies, shows) occupy a large part of Americans’ entertainment
    1. According to a 2010 survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Watching TV was the leisure activity that occupied the most time (2.7 hours per day), accounting for about half of leisure time, on average, for those age 15 and over.”[5]
    2. According to a Nielsen study in 2011, they found that traditional TV viewing (still the primary vehicle for video consumption across all demographics) has increased by an average of 22 minutes per month per person from 2010, making that nearly 159 hours watching traditional TV monthly. In addition, an average of four hours and 20 minutes per month of video on the web was watched, increased by a full hour and 10 minutes above what the first quarter of 2010.  TV content that is recorded and watched later also continued to grow, as did mobile video viewing, up 43% (20%) from 2010.[6]
  • The most disturbing in perspective concern statistics of those who are young. Kaiser did their own research and found:

“Eight- to eighteen-year-olds spend more time with media than in any other activity besides (maybe) sleeping—an average of more than 7½ hours a day, seven days a week. The TV shows they watch, video games they play, songs they listen to, books they read and websites they visit are an enormous part of their lives, offering a constant stream of messages about families, peers, relationships, gender roles, sex, violence, food, values, clothes, and an abundance of other topics too long to list.”[7]

  1. Why focus on Videos (TV, movies, shows)
    1. Lordship of Christ means that every sphere of our lives need to be under Him—including movies.
    2. If we somehow identified by the forty hours of our lives, what about the rest of our lives?
    3. What we do with our leisure shows our identity.
    4. Videos do impact us, so we need to be discerning.
  • Concerns about video entertainment
    1. Videos do have an agenda
      1. By the very nature of film, it always shows us only an angle of the story, and someone made a decision of which angle.
      2. Everything we see has been edited: Some clips were chosen to be shown, some have been deleted.
    2. That agenda or message can be good or bad.
      1. Everyone has been impacted by sin (Romans 3:10, 3:23),
      2. Sin affects everything man does from church, government and even film!
  • Therefore, we need to be careful to discern the message or agenda of what we watch!
  1. The media form of videos can be powerfully persuasive.
    1. Film tells a story.
      1. Stories might even be more powerful way of conveying information than an article or book.
      2. Stories usually invite us into the person’s perspective, for the sake of the story and calls us to suspend doubt.
    2. The fast paced nature of moving pictures drop our guard even more.
  2. The Christian response
    1. Know that film in of itself is not evil.

Acting and seeing someone act is not a sin (Jeremiah 13:1-11).

  1. Watch with discernment.
    1. Look for the worldview
      1. What does the film say about the nature of man?
      2. What does the film communicate is important and valuable?
      3. What does the film say about God?
    2. Ask questions
  2. Christians do not have to watch everything.

 

 

  1. Talk about movies.

 

  1. Have the conversation be evangelistic.

 

 

 

  1. What does it teach about God?

[1] Paraphrase from Leland Ryken, Redeeming the Time (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 28.

[2] The American Heritage Dictionary, accessed at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entertainment.

[3] Robert Lee, Religion and Leisure in America: A Study in Four Dimensions (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1964), 37.  Cited in Tony Reinke, Lit!  A Christian Guide to Reading Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 132-33.

[4] Neil Tseng, “Expenditures on Entertainment,” Bureau of Labor Statistics,  http://www.bls.gov/cex/anthology/csxanth10.pdf (accessed March 27, 2012).

[5] Burea of Labor Statistics, “Economic Press Release: American Time Use Survey Summary,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm (accessed March 27, 2012).

[6] Summary of Neilsen Wire, “Cross Platform Report: Americans Watching More TV, Mobile and Web Video,” Nielsen Wire,  http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/cross-platform-report-americans-watching-more-tv-mobile-and-web-video/ (accessed March 27, 2012).

[7] Victoria J. Rideout, Ulla G. Foeher and Donald F. Roberts, Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8 to 18-Year-Olds; A Kaiser Family Foundation Study January 2010 (Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010), 1.  http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf (accessed March 27, 2012).

Read Full Post »

enhanced-buzz-wide-12379-1394226157-19These are links on Presuppositional apologetics’ gathered from January 22nd-31st, 2014.

Enjoy!

1.) Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [11]

2.) “Do You Believe?” Author of “God’s Not Dead,” Offers New Companion Book

3.) Answering Attacks on Biblical Prophecy

4.) After Naturalism…

5.) You Might be a Douche-Bag Apologist if…

6.) God’s Glory, Artistic Beauty, and Joyful Longings

7.) How To Love The Fool: “Debating Dillahunty”

8.) Is Goddidit unfalsifiable?

9.) Quick Question: How would you respond to an atheist who said that he presupposes the laws of logic as descriptions of reality?

Missed the last round up?  Check out the re-blogged post from a friend.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts