Ligon Duncan on the Non-Negotiables of the Gospel

Christian Skepticism endorses:

monergism.com

This site contains some of the most valuable God-centered resources a Christian Skeptic could ever want. Whether you peruse the copious free items or purchase something from their excellent online store, your worldview will never be the same!

Start Here to become a Christian Skeptic

We wanted to highlight this compilation by Paul Manata - The Philosophy of the
Christian Religion
- an excellent online resource for the development of the
well-considered Christian worldview.

Skeptical Insights

Good Blogroll (from Pyromaniacs)

  • Colin Adams
  • Charlie Albright
  • Aletheuo
  • Scott Aniol
  • Tom Ascol
  • Derek Ashton (TheoParadox)
  • Zachary Bartels
  • Tim and David Bayly
  • Rick Beckman
  • Tyler Bennicke
  • Bible Geek
  • Big Orange Truck
  • Andy Bird
  • John Bird
  • Bob Bixby
  • Timmy Brister
  • Fred Butler
  • Calvin and Calvinism (Classic and moderate Calvinism)
  • Cal.vini.st
  • Bret Capranica
  • Nathan Casebolt
  • Lane Chaplin
  • Tim ("The World's Most Famous Christian Blogger"®) Challies
  • The Conservative Intelligencer
  • The Contemporary Calvinist
  • The Conventicle
  • Craig's Blog
  • Deliver Detroit
  • Daniel (Doulogos)
  • William Dicks
  • The Doulos' Den
  • Martin Downes
  • Connie Dugas
  • Doug Eaton
  • Nicholas Edinger
  • Brother Eugene
  • Eusebeia
  • Stefan Ewing
  • Eddie Exposito
  • Expository Thoughts
  • Faces Like Flint
  • Reid Ferguson
  • Peter Farrell
  • Bill Fickett
  • Fide-o
  • Foolish Things
  • Chris Freeland
  • Travis Gilbert
  • Ron Gleason
  • Go Share Your Faith!
  • God is My Constant
  • Phil Gons
  • Joel Griffith (Solameanie)
  • Matt Gumm
  • Gregg Hanke
  • Jacob Hantla
  • Chris Harwood
  • J. D. Hatfield
  • Michael Haykin
  • Tony Hayling (Agonizomai)
  • Steve Hays and the amazing "Triablogue" team
  • Scott Head
  • Patrick Heaviside (Paths of Old)
  • Marc Heinrich's Purgatorio
  • Sean Higgins
  • Illumination (Rich Barcellos and Sam Waldron)
  • Inverted Planet
  • Tim Jack
  • Jackhammer
  • Craig Johnson
  • Alex Jordan
  • The Journeymen
  • Justified
  • Lane Keister (Green Baggins)
  • John Killian
  • David Kjos
  • Ted Kluck
  • Patrick Lacson
  • A Little Leaven (Museum of Idolatry)
  • Janet Lee
  • Let My Lifesong Sing
  • Libbie, the English Muffin
  • Light and Heat
  • Greg Linscott
  • Bryan Maes
  • Brian McDaris
  • Doug McMasters
  • Allen Mickle
  • The incomparable Al Mohler
  • Jonathan Moorhead
  • Ryan Moran
  • Stephen Newell
  • Dean Olive
  • Dan Paden
  • Paleoevangelical
  • A Peculiar Pilgrim
  • Jim Pemberton
  • The Persecution Times
  • Bill Pershing
  • Kevin Pierpont
  • Matt Plett
  • Wes Porter
  • Postmortemism
  • The Red and Black Redneck
  • Reformata
  • Reformation 21
  • Reformation Theology (sponsored by Monergism.Com)
  • Reformed Evangelist
  • Remonstrans
  • Carla Rolfe
  • Tony Rose
  • Andrew Roycroft
  • Eric Rung
  • Said at Southern Seminary
  • Seeing Clearly
  • Sharper Iron
  • Kim Shay
  • Neil Shay
  • Brian Shealy
  • Ken Silva
  • Tom Slawson's "Tom in the Box"
  • Tom Slawson's other blog
  • Doug Smith
  • Richard Snoddy
  • Social Hazard
  • SolaFire
  • Rebecca Stark
  • Kevin Stilley
  • Cindy Swanson
  • Talking Out Of Turn
  • Justin Taylor's "Between Two Worlds"
  • Robert Tewart (StreetFishing)
  • TheoJunkie's Thoughts on Theology
  • Theology Bites
  • Through the Veil
  • Three Times a Mom
  • Voice of the Shepherd
  • Jared Wall
  • Adrian Warnock
  • David Wayne
  • Jeremy Weaver
  • Steve Weaver
  • Über-apologist James White's legendary "Pros Apologian" blog
  • Brad Williams
  • Doug Wilson
  • Writing and Living
  • Ryan Wood
  • Todd Young
  • Friday, March 13, 2009

    Kings

    WORLD: Another of the more controversial elements of the show was the choice to make the Jack/Jonathan character gay. Can you talk a little bit about what led you to that decision and what you think it brings to the show?

    GREEN: I don't think it is controversial. The goal of the show was to take the story of David and make it contemporary. So I wanted anything that exists in our world to exist in the world of Kings. And people of all sorts exist in our world, and they make for a good story.

    WORLD: Fair enough, but how do you think the Christian community will respond to that interpretation of Jonathan?

    GREEN: That depends on how you define Christian community. Most of them we have heard from so far have been extremely positive about it. But I know that there are some people who think that any representation of any gay character on any network or cable show is wrong. And anyone who thinks that a gay character is not welcome on television is perfectly welcome not to watch my show.


    Above excerpt taken from a World Magazine article where they interviewed the producer of the upcoming NBC series called Kings.

    As far as answering the question of making Jack/Jonathan gay by switching and saying "But I know that there are some people who think that nay reprersentation of any gay character on any network or cable show is wrong" ... is nothing but a dodge and an example of the fallacy of accident or universal generalization.

    For those who are tempted to point out he stated "Most of them we have heard from so far have been extremely positive about it"; let me point out what the producer did not address was evidence to support the suggestion that the Bible sought to portray Jonathan as gay.

    I wonder if by stating "I don't think it's controversial" the producer is as naive as he tries to come across or whether he's simply trying to tell us how to think.

    46 comments:

    jazzycat said...

    That depends on how you define Christian community.

    TRUTH TRANSLATION: You can use the Bible or we humans can define it to suit our imaginations…………

    Most of them we have heard from so far have been extremely positive about it.

    TRUTH TRANSLATION: We have not heard from very many, but more are positive than negative…..

    But I know that there are some people who think that any representation of any gay character on any network or cable show is wrong.

    TRUTH TRANSLATION: Some people think that representing gay characters as having normal sexual desires is wrong, and the evidence from gay rights parades paint an entirely different picture.

    And anyone who thinks that a gay character is not welcome on television is perfectly welcome not to watch my show.

    TRUTH TRANSLATION: I and (entertainment establishment) do not care if you do not watch our program as we know we have met all the PC standards and many people have our back.

    swordbearer said...

    jazzy, you have a great way of breaking things down, only the last one should say "I and (entertainment establishment) do not care what God's Word intended or what Bible believing Christians think, in projecting a view of life we want to see adopted and embraced, we'll show it trusting that many will watch it anyway and overtime without using discernment will begin to accept the practice even if they don't adopt it themselves and eventually the practice will become normalized in American minds and society.

    Anton said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    Xan said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
    Smo said...

    It's things like this that makes people associate "Christianity" with "hate".

    Perhaps you should actually attempt to love other human beings, as opposed to judging and condemning them.

    A said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
    Sarah Milan said...

    I completely agree with Parker and Smo.
    If you don't agree with the TV show, then don't watch it. It's really that simple.

    medb555 said...

    But the interview never said that in the Bible Jonathan is gay, simply that in updating the story to modern times, it was updated to include members of society we recognize today, including gay men. If you are going to complain about the show on the grounds that it reinterpreted a character in a modern way, you might as well complain about the fact they aren't all living in the same kind of houses and wearing the same kind of clothes that people did two thousand years ago.

    Puritan Lad said...

    OK.

    I don't like the fact the characters aren't all living in the same kind of houses and wearing the same kind of clothes that people did two thousand years ago.

    This is NOT a Biblical story by any stretch of the imagination.

    swordbearer said...

    1. Smo, having asserted hate, how about defining what constitutes the hatred here. Disagreement and opposition to a position of morality does not constitute hatred, or else you've just done what you accused us of. :)

    2. medb555, while you're technically correct when you say "the interview never said that in the Bible Jonathan is gay", you can't be that naive as to think this decision has nothing to do with today's issues and setting forth a particular side.

    Anton said...

    "Disagreement and opposition to a position of morality"

    So that's how you justify your hatred of gay people.

    Whatever lets you sleep at night.

    swordbearer said...

    Another accusation without substantiation....

    Parker said...

    swordbearer, i'm assuming you were looking in a mirror when you typed that.

    swordbearer said...

    Childish ad hominem. Any defensible arguments addressing the post?

    Anton said...

    That would require there actually be something defensible in the topic itself.

    Parker said...

    it would be useless to try to insert reason into your completely unreasonable belief system. you are ignorant. i cannot cure you of that. so there's no use arguing with you. you will never change your mind, you will continue to spread hate when a real christian made in God's image would spread love. so, what else is there to say? this is something you'll have to explain to God, not me. explain to Him why you twist His words into hate, it makes no difference to me.

    swordbearer said...

    more ad hominem...

    But since you want to oppose the post though you can't produce defensible arguments against it, if experience suggests anything it wouldn't surprise me if you're associated with the practices within it though you know it's morally wrong, am I correct?

    swordbearer said...

    parker stated: "it would be useless to try to insert reason into your completely unreasonable belief system....a real christian made in God's image would spread love..."

    Response: Doesn't this seem a little inconsistent to you? Which is it? "completely unreasonable", if so, then why do then base your latter argument upon it....

    Seems to me, you just want to argue. (It's the reason for this that I hope expose).

    Parker said...

    YOUR belief system is unreasonable, not ALL belief systems.

    Yes, only gays don't hate gays. I am a straight female.

    i could quote Leviticus to you until your eyes bled with all the other things God does not approve of, that you, surely, do not abide by...but i'm sure you would have a way to slime around it.

    and i haven't seen you explain why you think homosexuality is wrong, except it's something you read one time, right? you'd have to be pretty simple minded to base your life on someone that you read in a book once.

    and i already said i don't want to argue. this will be my last comment. have a nice, hateful life. hope hating others one day makes you feel some sort of contentment someday.

    swordbearer said...

    "YOUR belief system is unreasonable, not ALL belief systems."

    Response: Don't you think you should inquire as to my belief system before condemning it?

    "Yes, only gays don't hate gays. I am a straight female."

    Response: So, does this mean YOU hate gays?

    "i could quote Leviticus to you until your eyes bled with all the other things God does not approve of, that you, surely, do not abide by...but i'm sure you would have a way to slime around it."

    Response: One which (although consistent with hemeneutical principles and the reading of the text itself) you would not accept even if "biblical" reasons themselves were set before you.

    "and i haven't seen you explain why you think homosexuality is wrong, except it's something you read one time, right?"

    Response: Not the purpose of the post. :)

    "you'd have to be pretty simple minded to base your life on someone that you read in a book once."

    Response: Who says this is the case?

    "and i already said i don't want to argue. this will be my last comment."

    Response: Too bad, we could benefit through discourse, but that's hard for those who are afraid to submit their own thoughts and beliefs to examination and evaluation.

    "hope hating others one day makes you feel some sort of contentment someday."

    Response: I love righteousness so much I hate to see it opposed and then false statements made concerning it.

    Anton said...

    "But since you want to oppose the post though you can't produce defensible arguments against it, if experience suggests anything it wouldn't surprise me if you're associated with the practices within it though you know it's morally wrong, am I correct?"

    No, I just find your ignorance amusing.

    Keep on holding to the past, while your "values" become even more outdated. You're practically a dinosaur.

    swordbearer said...

    1. even more ad hominem.

    2. Besides the fact that that's not the case around the world, what's more important is not the opinion of man but the eternal law of God to which all men stand accountable. For this reason, all who violate the law are called to repent and turn from their rebellious and sinful ways.

    swordbearer said...

    So Anton, WHY is it this particular post has caught YOUR attention? Just seeking to justify your behavior or is conscience bothering you?

    Anton said...

    Actually, I just found your post while googling for NBC's Kings.

    But thanks for your concern.

    jazzycat said...

    There is certainly much hate being displayed in this thread by those who are intolerant and ignorant of Christian doctrine.....

    Anton said...

    Yes, you poor Christians are so persecuted.

    http://i42.tinypic.com/2e1dche.gif

    jazzycat said...

    Anton,
    Yes, that as well. Your ignorance, hatred, judgmentalism, and intolerance is well documented in your first comment where you equate disagreement with the practice of unatural sex as being hateful.

    No one on this blog has expressed hatred for sinners, but they do express opposition to sinful practices. However, you have made it clear that your view of tolerance is a one way street where you not only disagree with those who hold other views, but you insult, impugn, express hate, contempt, and sarcasm.

    Do you really believe that we are persuaded or impressed by this type of conversation or have any interest in going to links you leave?

    swordbearer said...

    While the reader may accept or reject jazzy's observation (one which I agree with), the point remains (and has nothing to do with Christian persecution) that the producer of Kings while clearly and intentionally enterring the fray of an issue of modern debate, seemed to try to "dodge" the issue being raised and certainly while making a suggestion in the series did not provide reasonable historical or biblical support for that position but rather based his grounds on issues of the present or contemporary world. While certainly a writer and producer has the artistic freedom for doing do, several points should be made:
    1. It's a legitimate move not only on his part, but on our part as well to point this out (that "by his own admission" this series is not based on biblical grounds, but the producer's desire to address the contemporary)
    2. One would have to be naive to think that the producer doesn't understand that though he may have done so on these particular grounds, the average viewer will not be aware of these distinctions and hence the series has not only the possibility but the probability of "suggestion" that Jonathan and David's relationship somehow mirrored the homosexual relationships of contemporary debate, a position which is unsupported by biblical and historical evidence.
    3. The producer while claiming it is "not controversial" is either clueless or lying.
    4. The producer while claiming that most of the Christians they have heard from so far have been extremely positive either has a very limited and selective exposure to the Christian commmunity or is "spinning" his answer, ... and the fact that he makes reference by saying "it depends upon how you define the Christian community" shows he's not ignorant of the issues at all, but rather is not only subtley trying to make reference to division, but then goes to make a claim sound as if it applies generally while it only truly applies to some (which conveniently happens to be his selective group).

    For these reasons, I stand firmly by my post, and encourage readers not only to be aware of the issues and distinctions admitted by the produceer himself, but also to make these issues known when the subject of this series is talked about, that the subtle suggestions of those who oppose Christianity do not either go unnoticed or unchallenged!

    Anton said...

    http://threadbombing.com/data/media/66/bvprJDocPjenq20tgF2KGUwvo1_500.jpg

    Puritan Lad said...

    Anton,

    Time for a little education on how to have a logical discussion.

    Check out http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

    I would particularly encourage you to take note of Argumentum ad hominem, Argumentum ad nauseam, Dicto simpliciter, and Straw man. (There are others that you've been guilty of as well).

    In addition, I must say that you really don't add much to any discussion that you've commented on.

    Anton said...

    haha, I thought you were a troll with your "I don't like the fact the characters aren't all living in the same kind of houses and wearing the same kind of clothes that people did two thousand years ago." comment.

    Smo said...

    "1. Smo, having asserted hate, how about defining what constitutes the hatred here. Disagreement and opposition to a position of morality does not constitute hatred, or else you've just done what you accused us of. :)"

    I define the belief that gay people are wrong/disgusting/unacceptable/etc as hatred. I'm perfectly willing to accept & appreciate other people's morals and opinions, up until the point at which they are, if you will, hateful towards groups of people.

    Smo said...

    And just for reference, I do not oppose Christianity. I am Christian myself.

    Puritan Lad said...

    "I define the belief that gay people are wrong/disgusting/unacceptable/etc as hatred".

    Rather an arbitrary definition don't you think?

    "And just for reference, I do not oppose Christianity. I am Christian myself."

    If you are a Christian, why do you oppose God's laws concerning homosexuality?

    Anton said...

    I'm guessing you don't think women should have the right to vote either.

    Sarah Milan said...

    I'm guessing you also don't shave, don't wear mixed fabrics, and don't go near women while they're on their periods either. Because that's all in the Bible as well.

    Smo said...

    Because I do not consider that to be one of God's Laws. Please do not pretend that you can only be a Christian if you follow each and every one of "God's Laws" to the letter. If that's your definition of a Christian, then I assume you refuse to each shellfish, would never mix fabrics for fear of condemnation, and would be perfectly happy to stone adulterers to death.

    And no, I do not think my definition was arbitrary.

    swordbearer said...

    I CERTAINLY DON'T have to guess whether the previous individuals distinguish between the O.T. laws particular to the theocracy of Israel and the moral law which is universal and applies to all, for their posts reveals they haven't!

    Puritan Lad said...

    Sounds like you have a problem with God, and therefore want to make your own laws. Psalm 2 has a good description of those who want to cast the Lord's cords from them.

    I don't concern myself with ceremonial laws that have their fulfillment in Christ (1 Timothy 4:3), but a born again Christian does "walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." (Ezekiel 36:27).

    Those who practice homosexuality shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Honor Paul's warning "Do not be deceived".

    Smo said...

    Haha, okay. I don't really have an interest in arguing with fundamentalists, sorry. I try to live my life following the simplest rules from the Bible (turn the other cheek, love your neighbour) as opposed to condemning, judging and casting out. Just for the record, claiming I have a problem with God simply because I interpret the Bible a little different from you is pretty transparent.

    Honestly, I think the best way to live your life is to love & accept everyone as best you can, without judgment. God is the only one who can and should cast final judgment.

    Puritan Lad said...

    Sorry Smo, but you cannot pick and choose what you want to obey in the Bible. You don't "interpret" the Bible, but you flat out reject the major portion of it, not for any logical reason, but on your own opinions about right and wrong. In this sense, you have ascended to the throne of the Almighty and decided what "hate" is based on nothing more than your own personal opinion. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32 don't require much interpretation. They are pretty straightforward.

    So yes, you do have a problem with God. If God says that homosexuality is a sin, you consider Him to be "homophobic", or "hateful".

    But since you are not interested in arguing, I'm not sure why you weighed in anyway.

    swordbearer said...

    Smo,
    Your statements and position are no different than others who try to sound pious and "better than thou" according to your OWN standard, but fail to recognize, observe, and keep GOD'S standard when you fail to distinguish between "judging" others and the Christian's responsibility to make right "judgments" in all things. Does not the Scripture state "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things ..." (1 Cor 2:15) In effect, by simply "picking and choosing" which of God's statutes you are willing to follow, you are not submitting to God but serving yourself, your own desires, and determining the law that you follow.

    In addition, while claiming to follow the simplist rules of the Bible such as love your neighbor, you fail to discern that one love must be defined. For example, is love allowing others to participate in homosexuality just because they want to without making them aware of God's will OR is it to seek to persuade them with their interest in mind to turn from their sinful ways and to walk in the ways of the Lord? Too often, people who claim to live according to the "simple" truths state this as in order to avoid scrutiny of their views as well as to continue in their practices as if to evade the greater truths. The light of truth however, exposes this as well, and proves it's weaknesses.

    Smo said...

    You, too, are a pick-and-choose Christian. Unless you follow all those laws both Sarah Milan and I pointed out earlier.

    Homosexuality is hardly "the major portion" of the Bible.

    Smo said...

    Heh, on second thoughts, no. Thanks for a rather amusing discussion, but I've lost all interest in this. Toodles!

    swordbearer said...

    Hopefully you'll catch a biblical exegesis or ethics class, where you learn the differences in the O.T. civil, ceremonial and moral law, and how and when they apply. This will keep from from not only making but repeating statements like you have - which may work with the uneducated, but hold no water with those who have studied the law and know how it applies.

    Toodles too.

    panta dokimazete said...

    Abandon the debate - interesting debate strategy - probably a good one when your premise is exposed as invalid...good job, sword! :)