K
Kirane
Guest
Lurid, sensational, gruesome material designed to cause shock or horror.
Also, I recommend reading the previous posts by Jeanette L and Marquette.
- Status
Also, I recommend reading the previous posts by Jeanette L and Marquette.
K
Kirane
Guest
vz71 said:
The point is that it is immoral to enjoy and feel good about such violence in entertainment. Again, I recommend the posts by Jeanette L and Marquette.
M
marthax2
Guest
… Do you need EWTN?, I have heard it seems to promote some very liberal ideas from time to time. HOWEVER, I do not think that it is a good idea for most people to not watch it. As one develops in their faith, they will not need it so much and would eventually want to drop it, but I would agree it can be a powerful tool for conversion. …
Andre, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say except 2 issues: trousers not being for women, which I don’t want to get into here because I want to say something about the more important issue, EWTN.
I gather you have not watched EWTN since you base your judgment on what you have heard. Your sources are very much misinformed. You can watch EWTN on your computer if you want to see for your self. If you go to the document library, you will find the book, Liberalism is a Sin (ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM) and many articles on the topic.
I have learned much about my faith, both in belief and right practice, the spiritual life, apologetics and how to evangelize on EWTN. I find a distinct difference for the better in my spiritual life when I watch more rather than less EWTN because the more I watch the more I remember to turn to God in prayer as I go about my day. Even though I know much about the faith,I would no more want to dispense with EWTN than with the Mass homily. EWTN is a powerful tool for conversion, as you say, but also for much-needed ongoing conversion
If I hadn’t been watching Mother Angelica all those years, I would not know many beautiful stories, such as one about one of John Paul the Great’s visits to the U.S. Security, as usual, using a dog trained to find hidden people, checked out a seminary in which our Holy Father was to stay. The dog froze in position indicating someone hidden … in the TABERNACLE! EWTN televised the Holy Father’s visits, so the staff would be in a position to know this.
God belss.
M
marthax2
Guest
Jeanette L., You couldn’t have hit the nail more squarely on the head.
Magicsilence:
Andre, I agree with you more than disagree. I don’t like to wear revealing clothes, so I wear loose-fitting trousers and avoid knits. I need to think about this more since I am hearing a man’s point of view.
A
AndyF
Guest
Yes.Two examples that immediately come to mind are computer gamers that purposefully go over-the-top in terms of violence, and those zombie horror films where the only real appeal is seeing zombies get blown apart. Is there anything wrong with enjoying this sort of entertainment (not disproportionately so, but occasionally), and if so, what, specifically?
Thanks in advance
The exercise is conditioning to violence to desensitize the individual.
The remedy is to discernment spirits. This evil spirit presents appealing conditions that look somewhat benign, but has a future unknown purpose the desensitizing will serve.
Andy
A
Alterum
Guest
I’m sorry I haven’t kept up on this post.
While I certainly agree that violent entertainment has little redeeming value – aside perhaps from the social atmosphere that may result from a bunch of friends watching a tongue-in-cheek zombie film, for example – my question is whether it is in-and-of-itself sinful. I mean, I see of little value many other common things: watching television (I don’t even own a television), playing competitive games, going to a fancy restaurant (and wasting lots of money in the process), shopping, going to plays or musicals or symphonies, and so forth. That doesn’t mean these are inherently sinfiul actions, does it? I do however think these would be sinful if they are engaged in to excess. This is why I further conditioned my question by supposing that one’s enjoyment of violent entertainment is periodic, i.e., every once-in-a-while he will watch a zombie horror film or a violent cartoon or something of that sort.
I think the question is not whether a given for of entertainment has redeeming value – because surely most forms of entertainment have very little value. Rather, is it immoral to enjoy a fake, dramatized, over-the-top, unreal form of violence in entertainment? I agree that a voyeuristic viewing of violence is indeed sinful; so, for example, watching a television show where they just show people getting hurt (parachutes not opening when sky-diving, bicycle stunts going wrong, bull fights, Nascar crashes, etc.) is absolutely wrong. But I do think there is a large difference between this and watching Hollywood violence, or playing violent video games.
While I certainly agree that violent entertainment has little redeeming value – aside perhaps from the social atmosphere that may result from a bunch of friends watching a tongue-in-cheek zombie film, for example – my question is whether it is in-and-of-itself sinful. I mean, I see of little value many other common things: watching television (I don’t even own a television), playing competitive games, going to a fancy restaurant (and wasting lots of money in the process), shopping, going to plays or musicals or symphonies, and so forth. That doesn’t mean these are inherently sinfiul actions, does it? I do however think these would be sinful if they are engaged in to excess. This is why I further conditioned my question by supposing that one’s enjoyment of violent entertainment is periodic, i.e., every once-in-a-while he will watch a zombie horror film or a violent cartoon or something of that sort.
I think the question is not whether a given for of entertainment has redeeming value – because surely most forms of entertainment have very little value. Rather, is it immoral to enjoy a fake, dramatized, over-the-top, unreal form of violence in entertainment? I agree that a voyeuristic viewing of violence is indeed sinful; so, for example, watching a television show where they just show people getting hurt (parachutes not opening when sky-diving, bicycle stunts going wrong, bull fights, Nascar crashes, etc.) is absolutely wrong. But I do think there is a large difference between this and watching Hollywood violence, or playing violent video games.
Very well.
The referenced posts make a mistake. The posts center on an idea that if something does not bring you closer to christ, it is wrong.
The answer, they do not. But my argumment has to do with violent TV shows, stories, movies. Not Video games. There is a real difference there. And also, the fact that they do not does not make them immoral.
And in the other post, there is another fallacy.
Jeanette L:
I am not going to be so bold as to claim I know all that offends God. I am only a finite human. But I am going to wager that Wile E Coyote getting crushed by a boulder is not offensive.
But beyond that point, when did violence become a ‘denegration of humanity.’
I believe it can be, but I also believe that the line between immoral and moral lies there.
I believe you are all painting violence in too broad of terms here. The claim is made that it is morally offensive, and there are attempts to pigeon hole it in with pornography, among other things, apparently in an effort to make it guilty by association.
There is no effort made to consider what is or is not morally wrong violence.
Actually, that too is wrong. I am here, and I do make a distinction of what is morally offensive violence, and what is not. If I may quote myself from a previous post,
That makes room for Wile E Coyote, and The Passion of the Christ. It also makes room for Kill Bill, and the evening news.
It better suits the world we live in. And it better suits the Bible. We all should enjoy reading our bible once in a while, but it is filled with political intrigue, murder, war, all the worst that man can be.
How can we enjoy this with all of the violence? Perhaps we should be making a distinction of what is and is not morally offensive. We should know what is and is not offensive to God.
We should know that God does not find all violence offensive.
Or perhaps we should not enjoy our bible reading…
Smile.
Z
L
Libero
Guest
My friends dragged me off to go and see Final Destination 3 the other day - and it was rubbish, I really thought it was ridiculous, how can anyone really enjoy just watching death? I was even more disturbed to see the advert for the film “Hostel” which looks truly repulsive - I was disturbed.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
Depends on whether the only reason for the existence of the entertainment is violence, I think. Most video games have other things going for them. Movies are more iffy. Call me an old crank, but movies with violence used to be well done. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, the old Harrison Ford action flicks. These days they seem to go for style over substance, and it’s less redeemable than before.
This is purely a viewpoint from the stance of entertainment. I think “sinful thoughts” could be expanded to include dang near anything you can think of, and thus I don’t worry about what I think about too much.
This is purely a viewpoint from the stance of entertainment. I think “sinful thoughts” could be expanded to include dang near anything you can think of, and thus I don’t worry about what I think about too much.
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
Andy made the point exactly. Gratuitous violence, whether in video games, TV shows, movies, cartoons… is a spiritual tool of conditioning to desensitize the human person to the immorality of violence against God’s creation, especially the human being.
Some violence is portrayed to show the horrors of violence itself and to point to the specific lesson of the immorality of the violence, as in The Passion of the Christ. But horror movies…, which have no useful moral lesson, are in and of themselves gratuitous and harmful to the spirit, as they are meant to be. This is where spiritual discernment comes into play.
To pretend that you can participate in the ‘entertainment value’ of gratuitous violence without spiritual affect is only an act of self deception. These things lead to gradual and eventual death in the spirit itself.
The Bible is in fact full of stories of violence, but not for the gratuitousness of the violence itself, but for moral lesson. I’m not sure many people read the Bible for sheer entertainment value, but for spiritual food, enrichment.
The old line “garbage in, garbage out” is perfectly appropriate for this topic. Also “you are what you eat”, and your spirit consumes all these things that you put before it. That’s why we are to guard it against corrupting influences.
The Scriptures tell us that we are the temple of God, that his Spirit indwells us.
**…for what partnership have righteousness with lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
…for we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,“I will dwell in them and walk amoung them; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. Therefore come out from their midst and be separate,”
2 Cor 6 : 14,16,17**
To choose to partake in darkness, (and I think we all can agree that when we view these things,we see darkness, not light) you cannot be at the same time a partaker of light, which is what we are called to be. You can’t have it both ways. You do have to choose.
Some violence is portrayed to show the horrors of violence itself and to point to the specific lesson of the immorality of the violence, as in The Passion of the Christ. But horror movies…, which have no useful moral lesson, are in and of themselves gratuitous and harmful to the spirit, as they are meant to be. This is where spiritual discernment comes into play.
To pretend that you can participate in the ‘entertainment value’ of gratuitous violence without spiritual affect is only an act of self deception. These things lead to gradual and eventual death in the spirit itself.
The Bible is in fact full of stories of violence, but not for the gratuitousness of the violence itself, but for moral lesson. I’m not sure many people read the Bible for sheer entertainment value, but for spiritual food, enrichment.
The old line “garbage in, garbage out” is perfectly appropriate for this topic. Also “you are what you eat”, and your spirit consumes all these things that you put before it. That’s why we are to guard it against corrupting influences.
The Scriptures tell us that we are the temple of God, that his Spirit indwells us.
**…for what partnership have righteousness with lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
…for we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,“I will dwell in them and walk amoung them; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. Therefore come out from their midst and be separate,”
2 Cor 6 : 14,16,17**
To choose to partake in darkness, (and I think we all can agree that when we view these things,we see darkness, not light) you cannot be at the same time a partaker of light, which is what we are called to be. You can’t have it both ways. You do have to choose.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
I’m with him. The Birds, anyone?
A
AndyF
Guest
Alterum:
We are created in the image of God. God is not violent therefore violence is alien to the human character, has we are designed for the purpose as servants(submission) and to love each other. Therefore, reasoning giving us this clear heads up, we should be suspect as to our every motive, and calls for continuous self analysis in every thought and action we make. In my view, violence should only be accepted when it is imposed as a required good.
In this case, this thing that causes us obtain delight out of something out of our character is the demon of subtlty described in Rev 3:15-19, and is not the run of the mill demon that tells us to rob that candy, and we respond by instantly knowing the temptation that is occuring to us, almost laughable by it’s lack of subtlty. No, this demon is more tactful and strategic, is probably higher on the intelligence scale of the higher orders that fell, and the choice’s consequence can rarely be seen immediatly, but has affected the soul. But this temptation exploits the person’s weakness in stages, and is a setup for that final temptation that will achieve the end.
For an anology for our point, perhaps it is a prison guard who is known for his kindness and fairness. He wiles away his off time in the warden’s office by being amused and theatrically fascinated at the sight of dismemberments and such. Now, we know that any relinquishing to a lesser good by the scene’s lack of the expression of charity to the victim, causes us to be amused by it, lessens by proportion the graces we require to fend off further attacks. One day he snaps back at a prisoner with the night stick, quite out of character at what he would normally tolerate. This is an initial weakening. Now he is subconsciously accustomed to going this far and it now becomes a norm. He ponders this out of character act for a second, but gives it no more thought, and chocks it up to a bad day. And so it goes until one day the prisoner on the floor is one kick away from receiving the fatal liver damage. It has come this far for the demon and he finally reaps the rewards of his patience.
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So,because you are luke warm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say,” I am rich anaffluent and have no need of anything," and yet you do not realize that you are wretched,pitiable, poor,blind,and naked. I advise that you buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and chastise. Be earnest therefore, and repent."
I will spit you out of my mouth.
Here we can see from these words the temptee should choose by giving the situation the doubt. There is no immediate harm perceived, and he can’t count on it as he would if he shined a flashlight down a dark tunnel but still revealing no end to it. But reasoning points out this is alien to his character. He says to himself “I don’t need this stuff, nor am I entertained”.
And here are a few words from St. Ignatius on being prudent:
Newadvent.org
“St. Ignatius begins by enunciating this clear principle, that both the good and the evil spirit act upon a soul according to the attitude it assumes toward them**.** If it pose as their friend, they flatter it; if to resist them, they torment it. But the evil spirit speaks only to the imagination and the senses, whereas the good spirit acts upon reason and conscience.”
Andy
We are created in the image of God. God is not violent therefore violence is alien to the human character, has we are designed for the purpose as servants(submission) and to love each other. Therefore, reasoning giving us this clear heads up, we should be suspect as to our every motive, and calls for continuous self analysis in every thought and action we make. In my view, violence should only be accepted when it is imposed as a required good.
In this case, this thing that causes us obtain delight out of something out of our character is the demon of subtlty described in Rev 3:15-19, and is not the run of the mill demon that tells us to rob that candy, and we respond by instantly knowing the temptation that is occuring to us, almost laughable by it’s lack of subtlty. No, this demon is more tactful and strategic, is probably higher on the intelligence scale of the higher orders that fell, and the choice’s consequence can rarely be seen immediatly, but has affected the soul. But this temptation exploits the person’s weakness in stages, and is a setup for that final temptation that will achieve the end.
For an anology for our point, perhaps it is a prison guard who is known for his kindness and fairness. He wiles away his off time in the warden’s office by being amused and theatrically fascinated at the sight of dismemberments and such. Now, we know that any relinquishing to a lesser good by the scene’s lack of the expression of charity to the victim, causes us to be amused by it, lessens by proportion the graces we require to fend off further attacks. One day he snaps back at a prisoner with the night stick, quite out of character at what he would normally tolerate. This is an initial weakening. Now he is subconsciously accustomed to going this far and it now becomes a norm. He ponders this out of character act for a second, but gives it no more thought, and chocks it up to a bad day. And so it goes until one day the prisoner on the floor is one kick away from receiving the fatal liver damage. It has come this far for the demon and he finally reaps the rewards of his patience.
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So,because you are luke warm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say,” I am rich anaffluent and have no need of anything," and yet you do not realize that you are wretched,pitiable, poor,blind,and naked. I advise that you buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and chastise. Be earnest therefore, and repent."
I will spit you out of my mouth.
Here we can see from these words the temptee should choose by giving the situation the doubt. There is no immediate harm perceived, and he can’t count on it as he would if he shined a flashlight down a dark tunnel but still revealing no end to it. But reasoning points out this is alien to his character. He says to himself “I don’t need this stuff, nor am I entertained”.
And here are a few words from St. Ignatius on being prudent:
Newadvent.org
“St. Ignatius begins by enunciating this clear principle, that both the good and the evil spirit act upon a soul according to the attitude it assumes toward them**.** If it pose as their friend, they flatter it; if to resist them, they torment it. But the evil spirit speaks only to the imagination and the senses, whereas the good spirit acts upon reason and conscience.”
Andy
“…But the evil spirit speaks only to the imagination and the senses, whereas the good spirit acts upon reason and conscience…”
Indeed…
There are some that say that some violent entertainment is OK, and some violent entertainment is immoral. They place specific conditions on what is and is not moral, and they can place very concrete examples with their argument.
There are others that seem to declare all violent entertainment as a bad thing, morally unacceptable. And they have no concrete examples. But do have imaginary ones.
This probably sounds much harsher then I wish it to be. My apologies in advance.
I do not believe it fair to attempt write off some people as under the influence of evil spirits for a disagreement.
And to that, the only thing I could really say is who exactly is under an evil spiritual influence? and to what end?
Are those speaking for conditions under which violent entertainment can be immoral, falling into a sin of indifference?
Are those taking a completely opposite view, treating all violent entertainment as immoral, falling into the sin of pride?
I suspect I am on solid moral ground keeping a discerning eye upon what is and is not healthy entertainment.
Z
C
cheeto1
Guest
And I suspect you’re not.
People who disagree with you have the sin of pride?
What if someone has the sin of pride, does that make
enjoyment of violence right? There will be no more violence
in heaven. Those who want to enjoy it for eternity will have
to do it elsewhere. Would you make Jesus sit through some
of that violence? That is what you are doing if Jesus lives in
you. Are you not the temple of the Holy Spirit?
People who disagree with you have the sin of pride?
What if someone has the sin of pride, does that make
enjoyment of violence right? There will be no more violence
in heaven. Those who want to enjoy it for eternity will have
to do it elsewhere. Would you make Jesus sit through some
of that violence? That is what you are doing if Jesus lives in
you. Are you not the temple of the Holy Spirit?
You are free to believe that. But if it is wrong to look at something with a discerning eye, then how are we to know the good from the bad?
No one said that, or implied that. What was stated is that it is unfair to start throwing around an accusation of ‘under the influence of evil spirits’ for a simple disagreement of opinion.
I suspect my statement response above applies to that as well.
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
That depends, generally speaking, when I find something truly entertaining, I like others to share in it.
Yes, in fact I bring Christ in to share my life in the most intimate of ways possible…through the Mass every week.
Perhaps someone here should try to quantify what exactly violence is.
Are we talking about Boxing?
Or maybe Warner Brothers Cartoons?
Or Action movies?
Or horror movies?
Or snuff films?
Each of these is violent. The question is to the degree and to the purpose. And that would be where someone would have to use some kind of discerning eye.
I am not going to sit back and declare across the board that enjoying violence is wrong. That would be irresponsible at best. There are too many variables to consider that would have direct bearing on the morality involved.
Z
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
I doubt I’m the only one in this thread who finds this “enjoying violence” to be the most disturbing part of your statements. You have to question what is going on when violence is enjoyable.
Now, the kind of violence I think that most of us here find objectionable, is the kind that portrays suffering, whether physical or emotional, that is inflicted upon another human being for it’s own sake. That is what is gratuitous.
As far as catagories and subcatagories, I think that line of questioning is completely missing the point. We’re talking about violence in any catagory against human beings that is gratuitous.
And to say that you wouldn’t mind sharing that experience with Jesus makes me wonder even more about where you are coming from. Anyone who truly believes that Christ dwells within him and has any concern about wanting to please Christ, (which is as a believer what you should be concerned about) would not want to subject Christ to something that is contrary to the purity that is Christ himself. To say you don’t have a problem with sharing such an experience with Christ is amazing to me. I have to question whether you are even serious at this point.
It appears that (again) someone is taking a single sentence from one of my posts, and using it to pass a judgement upon me that is neither wanted, or deserved.
I am still on the page where we are trying to decide what types of violence are and are not moral. Which page are you on?
If it is the page that says ‘enjoyment of ANY violence is wrong’ then I could understand why the rush to judgement.
But I would also not understand your problem with cartoons.
There have been plenty of references throughout the message to indicate that the gratuitous violence you defined IS NOT what everyone is speaking of.
Thus far I have had more judgements of condemnation against me then I care to count.
And I do not deserve that. The question at hand was “Is it immoral to enjoy violence in entertainment?”
I want to narrow the definition of violence a little more before making a judgement upon it.
My apologies to anyone that may find this course of logic offensive.
Z
Or you simply have to question if this person is on the same page.
I am still on the page where we are trying to decide what types of violence are and are not moral. Which page are you on?
If it is the page that says ‘enjoyment of ANY violence is wrong’ then I could understand why the rush to judgement.
But I would also not understand your problem with cartoons.
Spoken like someone that apparently can read the minds of everyone else. Of course that is what we are all talking about.
There have been plenty of references throughout the message to indicate that the gratuitous violence you defined IS NOT what everyone is speaking of.
Believe me, I wouldn’t have stayed with this thread, and taken the beating that I have been getting if I were not sincere.
Thus far I have had more judgements of condemnation against me then I care to count.
And I do not deserve that. The question at hand was “Is it immoral to enjoy violence in entertainment?”
I want to narrow the definition of violence a little more before making a judgement upon it.
My apologies to anyone that may find this course of logic offensive.
Z
- Status