You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
May 23, 2006
TheoHacks is back...
John Chandler and Zach Lind have finally brought TheoHacks back to the Podosphere, emerging with a wonderful new dialog on The Da Vinci Code. Listen here.
(Now, if I could just get my butt in gear long enough to make my own grand reappearance.)
Posted at 11:32 am
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (4):
Sometimes newborns can slow down the getting a butt in gear process.
john chandler () (URL) - May 23, 2006 at 11:37 am
You…ain’t…kidding, John.
timsamoff () (URL) - May 23, 2006 at 11:39 am
Well, i have to say i appreciate zach’s drumming more than his thoughts, honestly. the “CNAF” is just as silly as the things he addressed with the same description, though I assume it was intended that way. Some good points were made as well, though i didn’t hear anything more than what im doing here and thats airing an opinion. What role did scripture play in this podcast? They should change thier name to just Hacks. There was as much theology discussed as on my heavy metal radio show.
I don’t see how boycotting the movie AND using it as a conversation piece are exclusive from one another. My pastor loaned me the book and i thumbed through it.. i didn’t see the movie. But I don’t really need to see it to know already that it uses Christ as central character for fiction? The issue, really is: Is it okay to do that? Dan Brown has the best of both worlds and it pisses me off. He puts this crap out to the marketplace and has the convenience of calling it Fiction while stating in the press “I think there’s truth to what i’m saying”. I won’t give Dan Brown a minute of my night’s sleep, but the public will. While i might agree with some of the “cheesy” comments that were made, tactics aside, i won’t for a moment agree that it shouldn’t be the church’s concern or that we should turn a blind eye to something so clearly deserving of an address or reply. And I know scripture holds Christ’s name in high regard. Where is the clause that it permits its use for fictional story telling? Though i do agree, more important things are deserving of the Church’s attention, does the fact that there are more important things to be addressed, really eliminate the need for attention to this issue at hand? I don’t think so. Something of this media size deserves SOME attention from a protestant viewpoint And I’m glad some people out there are willing to publicly say its offensive. I hardly call that silly. In fact its reasuring. I say the best boycott is to simply not attend but being passive isnt always the best approach. i’ve given conversations thier due about the topic but should we really consider such movies an aide because they spark conversation? Thats like saying you should slap someone in the face cause it feels so much better when you stop. Expecting and welcoming such movies (or any form of entertainment) are two different things. And before im misunderstood, I might welcome the converstaion and diologue but not the means by which its brought about. But the issue is not if fiction is bad and i think that by that being Zach’s and pastor’s starting place, already the podcast was going south (personally). The issue is: Is it okay to entertaining untrue statments or ficion about Christ okay? Where i come from, thats called blasphemy. You want to change the word to something less offensive and more marketable like “fiction”? well, that doesn’t change anything, really.
Just as King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. And this movie, really, isnt anything new… ulitmately. Before this it was another movie, another book, another song… And i’m not gonna claim that the attendance of any movie or purchase of any record puts someone’s salvation at risk OR in question. As I get older i typically acknowledge these types of things with a roll of the eyes and say “oh boy, another one” But thats not really the issue. Its SHOULD these things be an issue? I may be mistaken, but more than anything i got the feeling the issue in the podcast was with people in the church making public opinions about the movie. Not necessarily the content of the opinions. Isn’t that the same thing these guys are doing?
Its the marketplace of ideas and for me, when it comes to entertainment, its free game, dont get me wrong. And when all the Hubub about the bad rap albinos were getting in movies came out, i laughed. “oh, c’mon!” I’d say. Know what? I have an Albino niece (well, not by blood). That really got me into a lot of hot water with my girlfriend’s family. But what i didn’t tell my soon to be sister and brother in law was that it was silly for them to voice thier opinion. or that thier time was better spent on other concerns. Personally, i have some irritations that prevent me from movies as far as content goes. But is nothing sacred anymore? there is a big difference between a personal guideline and the representation of God himself. It used to be that this kind of movie wouldn’t see the light of day, but now it shines like the sun. thing’s have changed in our culture And regardless of how many movies or books come out, that should always be a concern. And more power to the people that are willing to say so.
I don’t see how boycotting the movie AND using it as a conversation piece are exclusive from one another. My pastor loaned me the book and i thumbed through it.. i didn’t see the movie. But I don’t really need to see it to know already that it uses Christ as central character for fiction? The issue, really is: Is it okay to do that? Dan Brown has the best of both worlds and it pisses me off. He puts this crap out to the marketplace and has the convenience of calling it Fiction while stating in the press “I think there’s truth to what i’m saying”. I won’t give Dan Brown a minute of my night’s sleep, but the public will. While i might agree with some of the “cheesy” comments that were made, tactics aside, i won’t for a moment agree that it shouldn’t be the church’s concern or that we should turn a blind eye to something so clearly deserving of an address or reply. And I know scripture holds Christ’s name in high regard. Where is the clause that it permits its use for fictional story telling? Though i do agree, more important things are deserving of the Church’s attention, does the fact that there are more important things to be addressed, really eliminate the need for attention to this issue at hand? I don’t think so. Something of this media size deserves SOME attention from a protestant viewpoint And I’m glad some people out there are willing to publicly say its offensive. I hardly call that silly. In fact its reasuring. I say the best boycott is to simply not attend but being passive isnt always the best approach. i’ve given conversations thier due about the topic but should we really consider such movies an aide because they spark conversation? Thats like saying you should slap someone in the face cause it feels so much better when you stop. Expecting and welcoming such movies (or any form of entertainment) are two different things. And before im misunderstood, I might welcome the converstaion and diologue but not the means by which its brought about. But the issue is not if fiction is bad and i think that by that being Zach’s and pastor’s starting place, already the podcast was going south (personally). The issue is: Is it okay to entertaining untrue statments or ficion about Christ okay? Where i come from, thats called blasphemy. You want to change the word to something less offensive and more marketable like “fiction”? well, that doesn’t change anything, really.
Just as King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. And this movie, really, isnt anything new… ulitmately. Before this it was another movie, another book, another song… And i’m not gonna claim that the attendance of any movie or purchase of any record puts someone’s salvation at risk OR in question. As I get older i typically acknowledge these types of things with a roll of the eyes and say “oh boy, another one” But thats not really the issue. Its SHOULD these things be an issue? I may be mistaken, but more than anything i got the feeling the issue in the podcast was with people in the church making public opinions about the movie. Not necessarily the content of the opinions. Isn’t that the same thing these guys are doing?
Its the marketplace of ideas and for me, when it comes to entertainment, its free game, dont get me wrong. And when all the Hubub about the bad rap albinos were getting in movies came out, i laughed. “oh, c’mon!” I’d say. Know what? I have an Albino niece (well, not by blood). That really got me into a lot of hot water with my girlfriend’s family. But what i didn’t tell my soon to be sister and brother in law was that it was silly for them to voice thier opinion. or that thier time was better spent on other concerns. Personally, i have some irritations that prevent me from movies as far as content goes. But is nothing sacred anymore? there is a big difference between a personal guideline and the representation of God himself. It used to be that this kind of movie wouldn’t see the light of day, but now it shines like the sun. thing’s have changed in our culture And regardless of how many movies or books come out, that should always be a concern. And more power to the people that are willing to say so.
Dennis the Menace () - June 21, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Ummm… Wow, Dennis. 
> soon to be sister and brother in law
Ok, so… There is something you didn’t tell me?
> soon to be sister and brother in law
Ok, so… There is something you didn’t tell me?
timsamoff () (URL) - June 22, 2006 at 09:36 am
