seen movie? then OK to comment - To Save a Life (2010) Discussion

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

One poster said that he didn't think this stuff should be in a Christian movie. My question is, do you watch non-Christian movies, programs, or read books that have the same things? If so, then what's the difference?!? If you are that HOLY, then why on earth do you have an IMDB account or on the internet at all?

I don't know if you're speaking of me or not, but I seem to be one of the few people that have a problem with this content in a Christian movie, so I'll assume you were. Do I watch non-Christian movies with such content? Yes, I do. What's the difference? A big one. Non-Christian movies are made by people who don't claim to have a personal relationship with God, who don't claim to be living to please Him, who wouldn't claim to care about morality. That's the difference. I expect Christians to maintain decency in their art and, even when acting, in their personal lives. I don't expect any such behavior from non-Christians. As for the argument that Christians aren't perfect, I understand that. But making mistakes here and there is different than consciously doing so in a major film production.

If your problem is just that I'm complaining about the content in this movie while I still watch other movies with the same or worse content, here's my answer. I don't have a problem with hearing or reading profanities. I don't think doing so is sinful or problematic unless it makes you swear in your own life. So I'm not arguing against seeing a movie with profanity; I'm arguing against Christian moviemakers using profanity and thereby swearing themselves (in the case of the actors) and assaulting moviegoers with profanity (regardless of how "minor" it is). As for sexual content, I believe it is never appropriate, non-Christian or otherwise. I fast forward dirty scenes, and if a movie is too sexual, I won't even watch it. But I would expect a Christian movie, of all movies, to keep clean in the area of sex. So there you have it.

Oh and by the way, I'm not even a Christian (though I agree with Christianity in many areas). So I can do whatever I want, up to and including having an IMDb account and accessing the internet. And for all your preaching about judgmentalism, you sure don't practice a very non-judgmental or Christlike spirit in your posts. Keep up the good work.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] abchjk7 14 years ago

They're not swearing for the sake of swearing, they did that to make the film seem real, which it did. And as for the "sexual content," they never actually showed anything that sexual, just the allusion leading up to it - which was also to make it seem real. They never showed anyone naked or people having sex. Honestly, I could (and have) seen and heard more profanity and sexual content by just spending one day in any public high school in america.

I agree that its not appropriate to show people having sex. And the film DID NOT. They never showed anyone having sex. They alluded to it, which was very important to the story line.

"Assaulting moviegoers with profanity" -- anyone is assaulted with profanity just by going out in public or by turning on a television or computer. These minor things were used to make the film seem real which it did.

You need to stop nit-picking at every little thing and appreciate the movie for what it is - REAL. Every single aspect about the movie was real. To Save A Life. The purpose of the movie was to show the horridity of real life and its impact on people. And what we can do to help them, how a few kind words can totally turn someone's life around, maybe even save it.

Everyone needs to see "To Save A Life"
This movie was incredible

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

Honestly, I could (and have) seen and heard more profanity and sexual content by just spending one day in any public high school in america.

Yeah, I have too. But does that justify anything? That statement is flawed logic - the idea that as long as something isn't as bad as the rest of society, it's okay. If you're a Christian (which I'm not, thank goodness), you have to go by what the Bible says, not by how bad society is at the moment.

As for the film's showing sex... Sure they didn't actually show it. But, in my opinion, they showed too much. Do we really need to see two kids kissing and falling back on a bed? That really does sound like a PG-13 Hollywood sex scene. The MPAA thought so too, if you disagree. And most people are thus applauding it for its realism. But there are many more tactful and discreet ways of getting the same idea across without subjecting us to that kind of content.

"Assaulting moviegoers with profanity" -- anyone is assaulted with profanity just by going out in public or by turning on a television or computer. These minor things were used to make the film seem real which it did.

Again, does hearing profanity in public justify it in a Christian movie? I admit, I watch movies with profanity - lots of profanity. But I really don't expect any better from a completely non-Christian and often anti-Christian industry. But a Christian movie? Yeah, I expect clean language. I really do, and I don't think that's asking too much. I don't think realism is worth it. And just to clarify: I have more of a problem (in the case of the profanity) with the actors swearing themselves to make the movie. This isn't just a matter of what the audience sees. The actors in the movie had to swear and act out foreplay just for realism's sake. I don't really see how that's glorifying to God, even if the end result of the movie is good.

You need to stop nit-picking at every little thing and appreciate the movie for what it is - REAL. Every single aspect about the movie was real. To Save A Life. The purpose of the movie was to show the horridity of real life and its impact on people. And what we can do to help them, how a few kind words can totally turn someone's life around, maybe even save it.

So real is what we're after here, I guess. You talk as if realism were the highest praise a movie can get. I like realism. I think movies, especially those dealing with issues of faith, need realism. But not at the cost of compromise. The Bible holds professing Christians to a certain standard, and I don't believe that standard should be sacrificed for realism. Again, if the movie has a good impact, great. I'm all for it. But that doesn't mean the end really justifies the means.

reply

[–] abchjk7 14 years ago

This was not a "Christian movie." Yes, it was made mainly by people that happen to believe in Christ, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily a Christian movie. Do you think that the people that made this movie are the only "movie-makers" (since you seem to think that anyone that makes a movie is from Hollywood and is completely evil) that believe in Jesus as the Christ? No, there are tons of other people out there that make movies that happen to believe in Jesus. Are you judging them for having sin in their films? You would probably say that they weren't making "Christian movies" so that makes it ok. Well you know what, these people weren't making a "Christian movie" either. They are people that made a movie that's storyline happened to contain people that believe in God. Tons of movies out there have the same thing. Does that make it wrong for the makers of the other movies to use actors or producers or writers or anyone else that happens to be a believer of God to be used in the production of the movies just because it happens to contain sin? Everything contains sin. (That doesn't mean I'm condoning it, but I'm not condemning them to hell either)

This was not a "Christian movie." The objective of the movie was not to bring everyone to Christ at the end. The fact that Jake happened to learn about and dedicate his life to Christ was for the sake of the story - to give him a reason and motivation to be nice to kids like Johnny, following his former best friend's suicide.

And as for you continuously saying that " If you're a Christian (which I'm not, thank goodness)" you do sound like a Christian. You're judgmental, pretentious, holier-than-thou. Everything about you says Christian.

I'm just not quite sure if you're technically a Pharisee or a Sadducee, because you certainly act like one.

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

Well, I have no clue what definition of "Christian movie" you're operating under. From what I've read though, the movie was written by a Christian youth pastor in southern California. If that information is correct, he basically created the whole thing, which kind of makes this a Christian movie in the most basic sense of the term, right?

And who's condemning anyone to hell? I never said anything of the sort. I just happen to disagree with the philosophy behind the content, that's all. That doesn't make me a judgmental "Pharisee" - which by the way is a completely ridiculous label. I don't give a darn what I sound like. I'm not a Christian. If you want it in church jargon, "I haven't trusted Christ as my personal Savior." So I'm not a Christian, right? And if I were a "Pharisee" I'd be calling myself a Christian right and left, not denying it. Frankly, I don't like most Christians I've come across, including you. They preach one way and act the other. They "worship" and "praise" and "adore" their God, but they don't live like it. So the heck with them. But that's not going to convince me to ignore it.

reply

[–] abchjk7 14 years ago

" Frankly, I don't like most Christians I've come across, including you. "

Yeah, I never claimed to be one.

http://www.pluggedin.com/upfront/2010/savinglivesisyourjob.aspx

^^^-- That's a link to an interview with the screenwriter/author and the director. Just read for yourself what they have to say about it being a "Christian film."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpt from the interview; Britts is the author; Baugh is the director; Asay the interviewer

Britts: We never really set out to make a Christian film. We said we wanted to make a film for teenagers that would never set foot in a church but would go to the movies—something that would reach them. Obviously youth group kids love this film like crazy, but that was not my first thought.

My wife and I watched at least one faith-based film a week for the whole year before the movie was made, and I would say we learned a lot. One of our core values [in making the film] was for sure, cheesiness equals sin, and we said this thing has got to be very real. There are so many films out there for teenagers and most of them deal with the tough issues—even the non-faith-based ones—[but they have] real shallow characters and they laugh at some of these issues that we really dealt with seriously. We wanted to make a movie that mattered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baugh: The [problem over] language is just befuddling to me. Here's a kid shooting his head off and you're concerned about a minor swear word in the 1940s. It's in some ways absurd. You have a kid cutting himself and you are concerned about a "d--n" or an "a--." We don't want to condone it, and we don't do it to be gratuitous, but one of my favorite comments in our critiques was from some kid from one of the high schools who said, 'Real people swear." He wanted more. There's a crowd we showed it to who wanted us to push it more. In some ways the fun and exasperating challenge of this movie is keeping both audiences happy. It's a real balancing act. You can't keep everyone happy.

Britts: There are probably no other screenwriters that pray over every curse word [they write], as I did. I don't cuss at all, and it's not cool in our ministry. There are just a couple times where we needed to put some B-rated curse words in there—we didn't go to the big ones—so it would be real. And if you look at it, most of them happen at the beginning of the film. Doug [the movie's bully] says one or two things at the beginning, and so he doesn't have to cuss for the rest of the movie because you already get, "Oh, this is a guy who does that." I learned that in screenwriting classes back in college. If you put a lot of violence in the first two minutes of the movie, you don't have to put violence later on because people get that, "Oh, that's what the nature of the film is like." So there are actually very few [bad] words. I wrote it in a way where I didn't have to put very many cuss words in there—just enough at the beginning so people would know this is real. And every kid in youth groups, unless they're home-schooled, are hearing much worse words every single day. It's reality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asay: Brian, as a filmmaker, what do you hope this movie accomplishes? What do you hope its impact will be?

Baugh: There are so many things. From the pure storytelling standpoint, I want people to enjoy the experience and the ups and downs of it, and enjoy the story in and of itself. Beyond that, it would be great to have people look around and just consider how they treat other people. Essentially, I think this is a film about reaching out to those on the margins and those that are hurting. The pie in the sky dream would be that people that are in a better, healthier place would have the courage to reach out to those who are hurting and ultimately to make a difference in those lives. In some ways we are all hurting, so we all need to do it for one another.

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

Well, regardless of what they want to call it, a Christian wrote it. So Britts is responsible to write according to his own code of ethics, which as a Christian should be from the Bible.

And, just out of curiosity, if you aren't a Christian (and I'm guessing you're deliberately playing it vague here), why are you interested in this movie and reading pluggedin.com?

reply

[–] abchjk7 14 years ago

I don't read pluggedin and had never heard of it. I just googled "to save a life" to see what things would come up and thats what did. It intrigued me so I read it.

Ok, again you say that just because a Christian writes something that there should be no sin in it. For goodness' sake the entire Bible itself is filled with sin!

Did you ever consider that maybe Britts prayed relentlessly over this and that God gave the ok and it was in His will for the movie to be as successful as it has and will hopefully continue to be so that possibly it will Save some Lives.

Just wondering, what is you age/gender?

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

I didn't say there should be no sin in anything a Christian writes. But there's a big difference between implying sin and actually showing it. There wouldn't be anything wrong with the guy implying that the kids had sex. That much is completely consistent with the Bible. But to show as much as he did isn't.

Maybe he did pray over it. I have absolutely no idea how much God "talks" with people. I can't help being skeptical of anyone who claims that, but maybe that happens. But I still can't reconcile what the Bible says with a God who'd give the go-ahead to one of His "followers" on profanity and a scene of foreplay in a movie, whatever the purpose.

And to answer your question, I'm a male between the ages of 18 and 24.

reply

[–] abchjk7 14 years ago

But they did just imply it. Were they shown having sex? No. They kissed and fell onto a bed and the scene cutaway to downstairs when the cops showed up and then back upstairs for Jake to by lying there and say, "Lets do it again, you know you want to," implying that they had sex but never actually showing anything. Then later on in the movie when it was revealed that she was pregnant, it was assumed that it had happened that night at the party.

I'm not saying that God "talked" to the writer and told him to do it. But God doesn't stop people from doing things because He gave us the power of free will. Yes, that free will can (and a lot of times does) lead to sin. But thankfully God, being all-powerful and almighty, can use everything for His good. So if 2 people were kissing in a movie, implying that they later had sex, and a bunch of teenagers were drinking at a party and doing drugs behind school, a kid shoots himself in the hallway and another kid cuts himself as a way of dealing with the pain -- all as a way to show what is really going on. To show the repercussions of our actions and what can be done to change it. Maybe it will lead to others possibly learning to be loving to one another and actually saving people's lives.

http://www.tosavealifemovie.com/stories/

The movies been out a week; just read and see how peoples' lives have been changed already.

reply

[–] SvenNykvist 14 years ago

Implying something does not have the same effect as showing something, we all know that.

This is a ridiculous argument. The argument that Christians who make art should only make art for fellow Christians is preposterous. A Christian should be doing the opposite. A christian should be making art that speaks to non-Christians, isn't that a huge part of the faith? Witnessing to non-Christians? Pretty sure it is.

Christians aren't supposed to be sinless, only Christ is sinless. Christians are merely followers of Christ.

The Bible was filled with people, including Christians, that sinned, committed heinous acts, the Bible didn't edit all that out and try to paint a pretty picture. So, why should a "Christian" film?

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

This is a ridiculous argument. The argument that Christians who make art should only make art for fellow Christians is preposterous. A Christian should be doing the opposite. A christian should be making art that speaks to non-Christians, isn't that a huge part of the faith? Witnessing to non-Christians? Pretty sure it is.

And guess what? No one made that argument. If you can't follow a discussion or don't have the patience to read the whole thing, take your cocky (and painfully un-Christian) bravado elsewhere.

Christians aren't supposed to be sinless, only Christ is sinless. Christians are merely followers of Christ.

Yet again, no one said that.

And just so you know, I've been debating this issue for days, and I'm through. So you'll have to find someone else to release all that pent up argumentativeness on.

reply

[–] SvenNykvist 14 years ago

You've been debating this for days? So, let me get this straight... you are not a Christian, and you were not offended by this film, but then you heard it was produced by Christians and suddenly you felt you had the "right" to be offended, so suddenly you were? You then dedicated the next few days of your life to debate something you weren't' even offended by in the first place? Did you feel it was your duty to try and teach the Christians that they are not behaving properly by your standards? Wow... that's all I can say, wow. You're more judgmental than any Christian I've ever met, and that's saying a lot.

There's some more of that cocky bravado for you. I'd rather be guilty of that than be a bigot with no life.

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

Did you feel it was your duty to try and teach the Christians that they are not behaving properly by your standards?

I'm not teaching anyone anything. But, yeah, it is time you "Christians" realized you don't live by what you preach. These aren't my standards. They're from the Bible. If you're going to call yourself a Christian, act like it.

There's some more of that cocky bravado for you. I'd rather be guilty of that than be a bigot with no life.

So Christlike. I thought you were supposed to give a "soft answer" or "turn the other cheek." Looks like that "new nature" Christ gave you hasn't quite set in yet. Keep reeling in us unsaved folks with your quick temper.

reply

[–] SvenNykvist 14 years ago

Your foolishness and ignorance baffles me. You'll probably be on here for weeks looping around with your recycled rebuttals that continue to prove your lack of research and knowledge.

"If you're going to call yourself a Christian, act like it." - Get off your high horse and stop trying to play God, no one has to act like what you THINK a Christian is.

By your standards no one is a "true Christian" because, and I'm sure this will come as a big shock to you, no one is perfect. I hope you can go on with your life knowing this, I know it must be hard on you, but you can do it.

Bottom line is this, if a Christian filmmaker only made films that would appeal to other Christians, meaning to only show Christian content and nothing that might show human flaw, or appear to be "un-Christian". Then essentially he would be preaching to the choir, he would be making films for only Christians and shutting everyone else out. If you know anything about Christianity, you should at least understand how foolish that is. That's my argument. And yes, it's ok for Christians to argue, believe it or not.

Lastly, what do you think of filmmakers like Martin Scorsese? Scorsese is a devout Catholic who has put Bible verses in several of his films and has even made a whole film about Christ. He doesn't make only Christian (or Catholic) films, and even when he made Last Temptation he didn't censor it, so how do you feel about him? Better yet, how do feel about how Christians and Catholics reacted to Last Temptation? They wanted the film banned and picketed it, do you think that was the appropriate reaction? Do you think that's what should be done with this film?

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

Well, I can't tell if you want to have an actually civilized debate or keep writing me off as a judgmental idiot. Assuming the former, I'll backtrack...

By your standards no one is a "true Christian" because, and I'm sure this will come as a big shock to you, no one is perfect. I hope you can go on with your life knowing this, I know it must be hard on you, but you can do it.

Did I ever say anyone had to be perfect? I'm well aware that people aren't perfect. I grew up in a Christian home, and if my family were Christians (which I believe they truly were), then I have living proof that Christians and non-Christians alike are imperfect. I never claimed anything to the contrary.

But the Bible does set forth a lifestyle, a pattern of living for true believers. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'" (Matthew 7:16-23 NASB). Anyone who consistently lives a lifestyle that doesn't match up with the Bible can't be legitimately called a Christian - at least not from a biblical perspective. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying, nor have I said, that anyone who participated in this movie or anyone on this board is not a Christian. I'll be the first to admit that's not my place. And really, that's not even what I've been debating. I've been arguing against certain negative elements in a movie fundamentally created by and largely produced by Christians. And I believe I have Bible to back up my position. Somehow, though, I got written off as "judgmental" just because I disagreed.

Bottom line is this, if a Christian filmmaker only made films that would appeal to other Christians, meaning to only show Christian content and nothing that might show human flaw, or appear to be "un-Christian". Then essentially he would be preaching to the choir, he would be making films for only Christians and shutting everyone else out. If you know anything about Christianity, you should at least understand how foolish that is. That's my argument. And yes, it's ok for Christians to argue, believe it or not.

I don't believe Christian filmmakers should only show Christian content or never show human flaw. My position all along has been that showing/acting simulated foreplay and swearing (in the case of the actors) doesn't fit in with the Bible's pattern of a Christian lifestyle, even if those things are used for a purpose. And of course it's okay for Christians to argue; again, I never said anything of the sort.

Lastly, what do you think of filmmakers like Martin Scorsese? Scorsese is a devout Catholic who has put Bible verses in several of his films and has even made a whole film about Christ. He doesn't make only Christian (or Catholic) films, and even when he made Last Temptation he didn't censor it, so how do you feel about him?

Well, if you consider Catholics, in general, to be Christians, your definition of Christian is far broader than the biblical one. Catholics, as a whole, include works in the salvation process, which directly contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." That fact coupled with the undeniably racy content in Scorcese's movies don't convince me he's a true believer at all. I'm not saying all Catholics aren't Christians. But Catholic doctrine is largely at odds with the Bible, nonetheless.

Better yet, how do feel about how Christians and Catholics reacted to Last Temptation? They wanted the film banned and picketed it, do you think that was the appropriate reaction? Do you think that's what should be done with this film?

I never have and never will promote government censorship of film or any other art. While I don't think the movie industry's self-censorship (as in the case of the Hays Production Code) was a bad idea, I'm certainly not for re-establishing anything of the sort. And I don't believe I implied that. I'm just discussing my viewpoint on the issue. That's just free speech.

reply

[–] SvenNykvist 14 years ago

I can't say I agree with everything you said in your last post, but I can say I agreed with most of it.

My frustration comes from the Christian community always limiting artistic freedom, I do not advocate that. Perhaps I was speaking more generally, whereas you were talking more specifically of the scenes in this particular film. In reading the thread, however, it seemed like the debate drifted from the specific film.

It helps knowing a little of your background, we probably have more in common than you might think.

I know this is unheard of for an IMDB debate, but I apologize if it felt as though I was taking out my anger on you. Yes, this is a frustrating subject for me, but it was not meant to be a personal attack. I am, as I said earlier, flawed.

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

Well, you deserve an apology too. My comments were definitely uncalled for. I have a bad habit of getting defensive when I'm arguing a point, and I let myself get carried away. Christian or not, I said things I shouldn't have.

reply

[–] SvenNykvist 14 years ago

Well, I think we just made IMDB Message Board history.

reply

[–] abchjk7 14 years ago

"outcasts-anonymous" -
I really like what you have to say. You're certainly smarter on these subjects than most "Christians" and definitely more intelligent than most humans in general.

Good sir, you are most wisdomous and I hope that you will continue to beast other people at arguing 'cause you totally know what you're talking about.

reply

[–] Oherian 14 years ago

Before I say anything else, I want to commend you for keeping things civilized. This is all too rare on Internet forums, and deserves to be applauded when it happens. I especially like that in the first paragraph you make a choice to interpret your opponent's questioning in the best light. (I choose opponent for lack of a better term...)

I have a question about one of your points. You said:

But the Bible does set forth a lifestyle, a pattern of living for true believers. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'" (Matthew 7:16-23 NASB). Anyone who consistently lives a lifestyle that doesn't match up with the Bible can't be legitimately called a Christian - at least not from a biblical perspective. It's as simple as that.

I agree with this passage and the conclusions you draw from it. I wonder, however, how you define "a lifestyle that doesn't match up with the Bible". What do you consider the "fruits" in the passage you quote to be?

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

If you mean generally, I guess I would define it as conformity to God's laws/teachings throughout the Bible (not necessarily all of the OT laws, obviously, since they were under the Old Covenant). So basically, whatever God says in the Bible is what He expects of His people. As for specifics, I can't even say I'm sure of what I believe in every area since the Bible is silent on many issues. But even so, there are some general principles that have to govern those gray areas such as being "blameless" and "above reproach" (Philippians 2:15). And in the case of this movie, I don't believe profanity and that scene of sexuality fit those expectations. Christians are called to come out of the world and be separate (2 Cor. 6), in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-15). They're supposed to spread the gospel, but I don't think it's necessary to sink to the world's level to do that.

reply

[–] Oherian 14 years ago

Thank you -- that's an excellent answer. It's good to know where you're coming from, and you bring up some good points.

I just saw the movie tonight, and I found the scenes you mention to be quite appropriate. I don't expect to change your mind, but I thought I'd offer my perspective. The instances in question - an implied sex scene and individuals using profanity -- were written for characters that were not (at least not yet in the chronology of the movie) Christians. Those actions would not have conflicted with any standard of behavior that God expects. In fact, the movie does a fair job of illustrating one of the passages you've quoted, Philippians 2:12-18. The primary character is "working out [his] salvation with fear and trembling". It's important to note that verse 15 references "becoming blameless" -- which could refer both to the state of blamelessness imputed on the believer by Christ's death on the cross as well as the process of God working in concert with the believer to make him or her more like Christ. Though the first happens quickly, the second certainly does not. In fact, the process is life-long -- as Paul makes evident in Romans 7, when he agonizes about the sin that remains in him (especially verses 21-25).

Of course, the point you're making seems to be more of an issue with the writer of the movie, for being a Christian yet utilizing an implied sex scene and profanity in places. I find this little different from some of the parables Jesus told. One in particular, the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) discusses that the son "squandered his wealth in wild living". Does this mean that Jesus endorsed this behavior? No -- but he needed to show where the son was, so that his return to the father made sense. Without showing where the characters in this movie start, their story would make no sense.

reply

[–] smitty1941 14 years ago

Of course, the point you're making seems to be more of an issue with the writer of the movie, for being a Christian yet utilizing an implied sex scene and profanity in places.

Yeah. Again, I don't have a problem with sin being dealth with. Christians aren't even perfect, much less non-Christians, so sin is going to be a part of pretty much any story (if it's honest anyway). The issue is where you draw the line on what is shown (and what you the writer/storyteller/actor have to do to show that). And I think the more sordid aspects of a person's life can be dealth with more tastefully. As someone else stated, sex can be implied by something as simple as two people walking into a room and shutting the door; it's all the way you do it. I don't think we need to see two people making out to get the idea. As for the profanity, again I just have a problem with the actors themselves swearing for realism's sake. It's one thing to act the sins that a character is living, but when acting crosses into reality (as in the case of profanity or sexuality or nudity), there's a problem.

As for Christ's parable, his tactful language is just what I'm talking about. Saying someone "squandered his wealth in wild living" is wholly different from detailing that person's loose lifestyle. You get the idea across so that the story can move forward, but you don't expose yourself or your audience to things that they don't need to see or that would be offensive to see. But of course, telling a story and writing/producing a movie are very different media, and moviemaking brings up a whole host of issues that storytelling never has to deal with.

reply

[–] dalcott-1 14 years ago

I just wanted to throw in my two cents as a Catholic youth minister. I loved this movie. It is in my top 3 movies all-time. I am organizing a group to go next week, (we may even book a private showing) My perspective on language is that it is wrong because it offends. What do most of our expletives mean? Many are related to body parts, bodily functions, and sex. Most of these things are considered shameful, which is why we use them as expletives/insults. However, they are not. The true meaning of the words (in the right context) would not be shameful. For example, "I made love to Sharon" vs. "I *beep* Sharon". Now supposing Sharon were my wife, the first option is acceptable, the second is offensive, yet both mean the same thing. I think the source for a lot of our "swearing" is Puritanical leftovers. As a Catholic the teachings of "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II are doing much to remedy that. (The leftover Puritanism I mean).
I believe it is far worse to take God's name in vain, than to say any "bad word" by itself. God's name actually means something (everything), yet our "swear words" as I have already mentioned are offensive only in our place, time, and culture.
In essence I am saying that if you hit your thumb with a hammer and let out an expletive, as long as no one hears it and you didn't throw in God, Jesus, or saints into it... its not too big of a deal. I am not recommending it of course. :) just trying to put it in perspective.
In the film there is a "kick your ass" and I think the main character screams "Damn it!" in frustration. There is also a line.. "Guess who is banging Amy tonight"?
None of them even made me blink. I am not sure if I would have written those words into the script myself, but I respect the fact that God's name is never taken in vain. A few less media-exposed teens may be offended, but the film was meant for the un-churched teen. I do respect all the opinions here, and there are points on both sides. The line that offended me the most actually was when Jake said "I'm not religious", and the youth Pastor Chris said "neither am I, its not about that". As a Catholic I run into that line of thinking a lot at Christian music festivals. There are T-shirts that say "Religion kills" written in blood etc. I would just like to get on my soapbox for a moment and say there would be no Christianity without Religion. If something is to survive more than a few decades or centuries it must be organized and united. Jesus Christ founded the Church, and fifteen centuries later after the Protestant Reformation we now have over 30,000 Christian denominations (although some call themselves non-denominational). Didn't Jesus say the following in John 17:20?

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:

We are supposed to be one, united Church, not 30,000 different ones. I don't say this to offend, there is just an ache in my heart when I think about the splintering Christian Churches. May we be one.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vampslayer33000 14 years ago

I'm just not quite sure if you're technically a Pharisee or a Sadducee, because you certainly act like one.

Pharisee's and Sadducee's are persecutors of Christians, not Christians themselves. What on earth gave you that idea?

reply

[–] abchjk7 14 years ago

I wasn't saying persecutors of Christians, but the fact that they had so much "Bible-knowledge" and were only judging everyone else for not following those laws to a "t" even though they themselves weren't perfect

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vampslayer33000 14 years ago

It's clear both of you have no idea who the Pharisees and Sadducees were.

reply

[–] Fire_Siren 14 years ago

It's interesting (in a good way) how you know about living the Christian life even though you aren't a Christian yourself. I'm a Christian, I agree that there shouldn't have been profanity in the movie since I believe one can express themselves without it. It detracted a little from the message. I mean, if it's a Christian movie, why would you sin on purpose, even for realism? Speaking for myself, I mess up way too much on my own and don't need an acting role in a movie to add to that.

I just want to let you know that there really are Christians who try not to be judgmental, even though we slip up sometimes. And of course the invitation to make Christ your savior is a standing offer. :D Like the movie says, it IS worth it.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdf0801 14 years ago

" If you're a Christian (which I'm not, thank goodness)"

Dude, or dudett, that's not something to brag about. If your not a Christian, so be it. But it isnt something to be thankful for. Im thankful to be a Christian, with good reason. But before I became a Christian, I was never thankful that I wasnt, thats just stupid. Yes, I said "stupid". I am not saying your stupid, Im saying that is a stupid statement.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikeroeper 10 years ago

"Dirty scenes". Are you serious?

It's been a long time since I've hears sex referred to as "dirty".

Man are you out of touch.

reply

[–] j-burford 14 years ago

I agree with the people who have said that they like the way the movie did not "water-down" the realities of the world. They could have made it a lot worse like most movies today. But they showed enough to get the point across that the world is screwed up. If the movie was "watered-down" it wouldn't have been near as good. It is just like preachers who hold back on their messages, fire and brimstone preaching isn't necessary all the time, but it is good to remind people that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and with out him in your life. Your going to Hell. "Watered-down preaching" doesn't do anyone any good, but real preaching, and a movie like this, they get the point across. This is what the world needs more of

reply

[–] newbschoolbus 14 years ago

I agree, People (including myself) judged this movie too much before even seeing it, but I can honestly say it was one of the best movies I've seen in a while. I can't even remember the last time the audience clapped at the end of a movie.

The message was good, and the "inappropriate" parts were necessary to show how his life changed. I think the parts were included not to make it more real, but instead to enable people to relate to the characters.

reply

[–] Fire_Siren 14 years ago

I agree it could have made do without the curse words, but it was still a good, powerful movie. It inspired me to talk to this new girl at school, since I don't really see people talking to her and she kinda keeps to herself.

reply

[–] chevs_rule_eh 14 years ago

I just saw this movie tonight and the only thing that disappointed me was that we did not have a better turn out with our youth group!

"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” J. Calvin

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xJeSuScHrIsTx 14 years ago

uh, acutally what he was saying is that everyone seemed so focused on the two curse words, and not what the message was about! If this is the case with some of you then I feel sorry for whoever goes to the movies with you!

I don't like posting on these things because ten to one, one ignorant person is going to read this and misunderstand. Read my signature. Thats what its all about.

One poster said something about Christians having to conform to religion. Well, whoever you are, thats not what Christianity is about. It is a relationship with the one true God. So we don't have to CONFORM to what you think we should have to believe in. Christians are supposed to be NONCONFORMIST! And religion can go fall in a hole. Its what restrains us all from being artistic as everyone else. I, personally, agree with OP. Probably because I'm "Christian". Basically if these "Cuss words" and reality is all your worried about, how is it that you act in real life. Get your head out of the clouds! And seriously, if they had made it according to the world's standards of "Christianity", then not even I would watch it.

Go ahead. Misunderstand it. =)

Relationship, Not religion
God Loves you.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xJeSuScHrIsTx 14 years ago

What I'm saying is that the world views Christians in a different way than we do. What the world thinks to be religion, is not what we think is. Good point though (:

Relationship, Not religion
God Loves you.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]