About watching movies on streaming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom Hart said:
The point is not that we are talking time to discuss it. It is that it is unfruitful, and made up of increasingly intricate qualifications, to the point that it is just too much to take in. From what I gather, you yourself have not worked out the implications of your position. That means that so much of what we are discussing is just going nowhere.

We are not talking about transubstantiation, no, nor are we discussing the ordo salutis or some other clearly defined doctrine. We are going round and round on an issue where definitions have not been agreed upon, where assumptions have been made without necessary qualifications, where qualifications have been suddenly and arbitrarily introduced, and where serious challenges are not being answered.
Click to expand...

Plenty assertions there, I may as well add one to the list.. no one has answered wherein lies the truthfulness (figurative or literal) of a piece of fiction, or in the actions and words of actors in an acted scene of fiction?
 
Logan said:
I think it still needs to be established that acting (or fiction) is lying. I think that's the unproven assumption being made here.

The storyteller and the audience have an unspoken contract that essentially says "we both know this isn't real". I don't know where the falsehood could possibly be.

I would suspect that documentaries that purport to be true but fudge with the facts or make a historical figure seem more or less sympathetic would be far more likely to be 9th commandment violations than obvious fiction. I'm sure @Reformed Covenanter can vouch for the danger of that in his field!
Click to expand...

Please leave me out of it ... :lol:
 
Logan said:
I think it still needs to be established that acting (or fiction) is lying. I think that's the unproven assumption being made here.

The storyteller and the audience have an unspoken contract that essentially says "we both know this isn't real". I don't know where the falsehood could possibly be.

I would suspect that documentaries that purport to be true but fudge with the facts or make a historical figure seem more or less sympathetic would be far more likely to be 9th commandment violations than obvious fiction. I'm sure @Reformed Covenanter can vouch for the danger of that in his field!
Click to expand...

The falsehood is the fact that it’s not true, or real.. it’s false. Otherwise it would be true, it would be real.
 
alexmacarie said:
Plenty assertions there, I may as well add one to the list.. no one has answered wherein lies the truthfulness (figurative or literal) of a piece of fiction, or in the actions and words of actors an acted scene of fiction?
Click to expand...
Define your terms. What are “figurative truthfulness” and “literal truthfulness”?
 
Tom Hart said:
Define your terms. What are “figurative truthfulness” and “literal truthfulness”?
Click to expand...

Well we’ve already been there in this thread, but.. Parables or allegories like the Song of Solomon for example, are figuratively true, that is, they are figurative representations of true things, they refer to real and true facts using the figure of other things. “A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me” is a truth about Christ in relation to the believer, signified and expressed by means of a figure, Christ is not a literal bundle of myrrh.

Something literally true for example would be “Christ sat on the well in Samaria”, Christ did indeed literally and actually sit down on the well, it’s not figurative language.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Hart said:
You are begging the question.
Click to expand...

I’m not, I’m simply quoting Logan where he said the audience and storyteller have an unwritten contract that says “we both know this isn’t real”, and pointing out that that is precisely where the falsehood is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Logan said:
...that's just restating the same assumption...
Click to expand...

I was going on what you said yourself! Were you not granting that the storyteller and audience have mutually agreed that they know “this is not real”?
 
alexmacarie said:
I was going on what you said yourself! Were you not granting that the storyteller and audience have mutually agreed that they know “this is not real”?
Click to expand...
What you have yet to establish, though, is that “not real” = a lie. They are not the same thing; you just keep assuming that they are. And neither does the former necessitate the latter.
 
Taylor said:
What you have yet to establish, though, is that “not real” = a lie. They are not the same thing; you just keep assuming that they are. And neither does the former necessitate the latter.
Click to expand...
not real = not true, that’s my point, no use quibbling further over the word “lie”. And if it’s not true, either figuratively or literally, then the maintaining or promoting of it is not consistent with the 9th commandment, which requires the maintaining and promoting of… truth!
 
alexmacarie said:
not real = not true, that’s really my main point, I’ll not quibble over the word “lie”. And if it’s not true, either figuratively or literally, then the maintaining or promoting of it is not consistent with the 9th commandment, which requires the maintaining and promoting of… truth!
Click to expand...
This is an equivocation. Yes, the ninth commandment requires the “promoting of truth” (WCF 144), but you are still assuming all things that are not true are against the truth. This has not been demonstrated, only assumed. There are different uses of and contexts wherein the word “true” is used. To say I am a girl is not true; the short story I read the other day is also not true. But nobody would say that they are both “not true” in an identical sense. That would be equivocation.
 
Taylor said:
This is an equivocation. Yes, the ninth commandment requires the “promoting of truth” (WCF 144), but you are still assuming all things that are not true are against the truth. This has not been demonstrated, only assumed. There are different uses of and contexts wherein the word “true” is used. To say I am a girl is not true; the short story I read the other day is also not true. But nobody would say that they are both “not true” in an identical sense. That would be equivocation.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain how those things you’ve mentioned are untrue in different senses? They both sound equally untrue.
 
Taylor said:
Do I need to explain how the sky is blue, as well?
Click to expand...

That’s not helpful. You mentioned two things, that to me sound identically untrue. So I don’t see how they are untrue in any different sense one from another. If you’re not a girl, then saying you’re a girl is untrue. If the short story you read is not either a factual account of real events, or a figurative representation that signifies real and true things/events, then it’s also untrue, in an indentical sense as far as I can see.

In logic, the truth value of any proposition can only be either true or false. Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality. It is the opposite of falsehood, which posses a negative truth value.
 
alexmacarie said:
That’s not helpful. You mentioned two things, that to me sound identically untrue. So I don’t see how they are untrue in any different sense one from another. If you’re not a girl, then saying you’re a girl is untrue. If the short story you read is not either a factual account of real events, or a figurative representation that signifies real and true things/events, then it’s also untrue, in an indentical sense as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
Is the word “good” the same in the below sentences?

“This ice cream is good.”

“What a good dog!”

“God’s law is good.”
 
alexmacarie said:
That’s not helpful. You mentioned two things, that to me sound identically untrue. So I don’t see how they are untrue in any different sense one from another. If you’re not a girl, then saying you’re a girl is untrue. If the short story you read is not either a factual account of real events, or a figurative representation of real things, then it’s also untrue, in an indentical sense as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
If you cannot see the difference between the two, I’m not sure what else to say. That’s why I said what I said. How do you convince someone the sky is blue, except to say, “Just look at it”? It seems to me that is the situation in which I find myself at the moment, and it’s frankly a most frustrating one.

Good day.
 
Tom Hart said:
Is the word “good” the same in the below sentences?
Click to expand...
Tom Hart said:
“This ice cream is good.”

“What a good dog!”

“God’s law is good.”
Click to expand...

Good in the first can mean tasty, in the second can mean well behaved, in the third can mean the standard for moral rectitude. I know what equivocation is, I just don’t see how the two examples given by Taylor above as untrue are equivocation, that’s why I asked for an explanation, and not for an example of a very obvious equivocation.

But as far as I know, the word untrue, can only mean one thing, and that is, that the proposition described as untrue does not accord with reality and has a negative truth value.
 
Taylor said:
If you cannot see the difference between the two, I’m not sure what else to say. That’s why I said what I said. How do you convince someone the sky is blue, except to say, “Just look at it”? It seems to me that is the situation in which I find myself at the moment, and it’s frankly a most frustrating one.

Good day.
Click to expand...

That’s how I felt when I was saying about acting being untrue and all I kept hearing back was “you’re just assuming that” and “begging the question”, and “have yet to demonstrate it” I could simply say “you’re just assuming the sky is blue” or “have yet to demonstrate that they’re untrue in different senses” but that wouldn’t be helpful.

So instead I’ll just try and demonstrate why I think they’re untrue in an identical sense and why they can’t be untrue in different senses. If the truth value of any proposition can only be either true or false, then any and every untrue proposition is untrue in the same and single identical sense, in that the truth value of both examples is equally negative. They may be untrue in relation to different things, or to different aspects of reality, one is about gender, the other about historical events perhaps, but they are both equally untrue in that their truth value is equally negative, they do not accord with reality.
 
alexmacarie said:
If the truth value of any proposition can only be either true or false, then any and every untrue proposition is untrue in the same and single identical sense, in that the truth value of both examples is equally negative.
Click to expand...


Scratching my head on all this. I'm wondering how hypotheticals fit into the framework presented.

In math there is, "let x equal...." It may not be actually true, but the participants all agree to assume it is true for the purpose of analysis.

In law, all sorts of hypotheticals are used to analyze different and sometimes competing principles. The hypotheticals are not true, but they are useful for a purpose.

And then there is the practical: "Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people." (2Sa 10:12). In other words, you may not feel like a man or be acting like a man; nevertheless, play the part.
 
VictorBravo said:
Scratching my head on all this. I'm wondering how hypotheticals fit into the framework presented.

In math there is, "let x equal...." It may not be actually true, but the participants all agree to assume it is true for the purpose of analysis.

In law, all sorts of hypotheticals are used to analyze different and sometimes competing principles. The hypotheticals are not true, but they are useful for a purpose.

And then there is the practical: "Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people." (2Sa 10:12). In other words, you may not feel like a man or be acting like a man; nevertheless, play the part.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And it seems to me there is some restriction of the term "truth" in the realm of narrative to "historical truth," when "truth" itself, as you demonstrate here, has a broader meaning.

What I mean is that if truth refers to "the property of being in accord with fact or reality," that doesn't necessarily indicate that that fact or reality must be historical in nature/i.e., actually happened. Narratives may be 'true' in a sense that they accord with reality in some other way. E.g., that's how people would behave under those particular circumstances; or that shows us true insights into human nature.

Getting back to the acting question, I don't think it's been shown at all that the actor having a contrariety between his internal condition and his external performance is at all "untruthful."

As has been pointed out, there are many situations in everyday life where we do the same. Sometimes we even conceal our emotions for our own protection, or simply because it's necessary. Our inside may be filled with fear, but our performance is composed and steady to outside observers.

Intent to deceive seems to matter more to me with respect to the 9th commandment than simply performance at odds with one's inner state.
 
It is neither my duty nor my intent, at least in this matter, to persuade anyone out of his opinion, however much I may disagree with it. I think that the assertions here have been more than adequately countered. Let the reader decide.
 
Pergamum said:
So you won't arrange a tour for me? Oh well, Korea is sort of cold anyway.
Click to expand...
Cold! Not this year. We’ve had one snowfall. Only half a centimetre. Sadly, it’s been a mild winter. Come in the summer and you’ll enjoy 35 degrees and choking humidity. Too much for this Canadian, but maybe pleasant for you!

P.S. Don’t forget to try the fried chicken. Legendary.
 
This is standard reformed theology guys..

“Thus two things are always required in a lie: (1) that the enunciation be false, contrary to the truth of the thing; (2) that there be a will of enunciating what is false and so the speech be contrary to the thought. Hence they hold that the word mentiri is equivalent to contra mentem ire. A person can speak what is false and yet not lie because through ignorance he believes it to be true and his speech does not contradict his thought. ”

What is evil according to itself in its own kind can in no way be made good and lawful. Now every lie is evil in itself, falling under undue matter. It is a disorder both of the liar in himself because it is against the order of nature of his speech (the interpreter of the mind plainly disagrees with the mind) and against his neighbor because each one owes a regard for the truth to his neighbor, from natural obligation and that of divine right. “Words,” says Thomas Aquinas, “are naturally signs of thought, it is therefore unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words that which he has not in his mind.” So Durandus, “Words were instituted, not that men might deceive each other by them, but to convey their opinions to others; therefore it is an undue act for anyone to use words to signify what he does not have in his mind” ”

“(3) If a pernicious lie only is sinful, its illegality (anomia) would be drawn only from its end. Which is false, because in itself the very deformity and disorder (ataxia) of the lie (viz., in the divorce of the mind and tongue, which ought to be the interpreter of the mind) makes up its illegality (anomia). (4) If a lie could be justified by its end (namely by the intention to benefit a neighbor), so also thefts which would be officious might be justified, when one would wish to benefit a neighbor by stealing. However no one would say this because the apostolic rule ought to obtain here: “Evil must not be done that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). ”

Excerpt From
Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol 2)
Francis Turretin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex:

Here is a proposed compromise.

It is true that many of the Puritans opposed the theater. While I disagree with a few of their assertions that acting and fiction is lying, most of the Christian writers at that time who opposed the theater did so because of the low moral quality of the actors and the environs. Theaters were places to go and drink, the area was a place with pubs and prostitutes and many of the plays were bawdy. Thus pastors told their flocks to avoid these places.

I would say that fiction and acting are not inherently wrong, but that we should be careful about exposing ourselves to fiction of low moral quality. Not fiction per se (it is not inherently wrong), but we all know Hollywood is run by creeps, pedophiles, and godless Jews who often try to subvert traditional values and push agendas at every corner. Just try to watch anything from Netflix. And yet, there are good quality movies to watch and for our children to watch if we are careful. A good story is a good story.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
Pergamum said:
Alex:

Here is a proposed compromise.

It is true that many of the Puritans opposed the theater. While I disagree with a few of their assertions that acting and fiction is lying, most of the Christian writers at that time who opposed the theater did so because of the low moral quality of the actors and the environs. Theaters were places to go and drink, the area was a place with pubs and prostitutes and many of the plays were bawdy. Thus pastors told their flocks to avoid these places.

I would say that fiction and acting are not inherently wrong, but that we should be careful about exposing ourselves to fiction of low moral quality. Not fiction per se (it is not inherently wrong), but we all know Hollywood is run by creeps, pedophiles, and godless Jews who often try to subvert traditional values and push agendas at every corner. Just try to watch anything from Netflix. And yet, there are good quality movies to watch and for our children to watch if we are careful. A good story is a good story.

What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

I think… that one of the reasons why acting is of a low moral quality and thus to be avoided is because it’s against the 9th commandment.
 
alexmacarie said:
I think… that one of the reasons why acting is of a low moral quality and thus to be avoided is because it’s against the 9th commandment.
Click to expand...
Ugh.....ok, no progress then.

You should go and picket school plays holding a sign that says "Repent children..." . I will make one and ship to you. These children need to be warned of their sins.
 
Tom Hart said:
There are just so many problems that arise when you say “fiction is bad.” You’ll end up needing to produce countless qualifications in order to try to dig yourself out of the apparent absurdity. It gets to the point where you have a four-page thread on the Puritanboard and you’re no closer to a resolution.
Click to expand...

Tom Hart said:
The point is not that we are talking time to discuss it. It is that it is unfruitful, and made up of increasingly intricate qualifications, to the point that it is just too much to take in. From what I gather, you yourself have not worked out the implications of your position... We are going round and round on an issue where definitions have not been agreed upon, where assumptions have been made without necessary qualifications, where qualifications have been suddenly and arbitrarily introduced, and where serious challenges are not being answered.
Click to expand...

This is a patently untrue accusation to level against Alex. He has been consistent throughout this discussion in his opposition to fiction and acting. He has explained how he distinguishes between parables and novels (and it is absurd to claim there is no fundamental difference between one of Christ's parables and a novel like Wuthering Heights). It is you and those on your side who have brought in the myriad qualifications and equivocations. "Good" vs. "Bad" literature. "Moral" vs. "Immoral" acting/theatre culture. "Moral secular acting is better than heretical Christian acting." "It's wrong to pay money to an immoral subscription service but allowed to pay money to an immoral film studio by buying one of their dvds." "As long as you don't spend more time reading fiction than the Bible it's OK." It is you and your side who have not provided a consistent doctrine of what is and isn't acceptable but rather made reference to vague notions of liberty and personal discernment. You have not sought in any way to refute what Alex has quoted from divines from the past. Instead scorn and derision has been approach of those who disagree with him.
 
alexandermsmith said:
This is a patently untrue accusation to level against Alex. He has been consistent throughout this discussion in his opposition to fiction and acting. He has explained how he distinguishes between parables and novels (and it is absurd to claim there is no fundamental difference between one of Christ's parables and a novel like Wuthering Heights). It is you and those on your side who have brought in the myriad qualifications and equivocations. "Good" vs. "Bad" literature. "Moral" vs. "Immoral" acting/theatre culture. "Moral secular acting is better than heretical Christian acting." "It's wrong to pay money to an immoral subscription service but allowed to pay money to an immoral film studio by buying one of their dvds." "As long as you don't spend more time reading fiction than the Bible it's OK." It is you and your side who have not provided a consistent doctrine of what is and isn't acceptable but rather made reference to vague notions of liberty and personal discernment. You have not sought in any way to refute what Alex has quoted from divines from the past. Instead scorn and derision has been approach of those who disagree with him.
Click to expand...
Well, hello Mr. Broad Brush.

A lot of people disagree with Alex for different reasons and have brought these up. You seem to agree with him, so of course you don't find these arguments sufficient.

With respect to his quotations from the divines, these appear to me to be a mixed bag. I've not studied any of them, but I suspect many of them are not saying quite as much as he takes from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top