In Which Bob Takes A Look At Those New-Fangled Talking Picture-Shows

Bob thinks that, 'The devil uses the film industry to spread his lies.'

I note from the national press that the film "Ouija", which is being shown on cinemas at the moment, is leading to a huge increase in people dabbling in the occult.

Hmm. Given the timing and Bob's known obsession with the site, I rather think he actually got this from The Freethinker but doesn't want to mention it as a source. I could be wrong, but it is rather notable that he generally doesn't like to name atheist sites and blogs, even when talking of them directly.

This will, in turn, lead to a corresponding increase in people being taken over by demonic forces and suffering all sorts of mental and physical troubles in their lives.

I'm sure it'll lead to a small rise in belief in the efficacy of the Ouija board. Given that neither the spirits of the dead nor demons exist, though, that's the only effect it'll have; and a relatively harmless one at that. Certainly it's more harmless than beliefs, such as Bobs, that a big boogie-man in the sky has granted him the right to treat others as second-class citizens.

Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that the devil has destroyed many people's lives (not to mention their eternal souls) by drawing them into activities like "Ouija" boards and so on. Moreover, he uses all sorts of ways in which to lead people into godless behaviour with the film industry (as we see from this latest "offering") being one of those ways.

Umm, yes, that is an exaggeration. The devil is a fictional character who has destroyed precisely zero lives. Belief in the devil, on the other hand, has ruined many. Though not as many as belief in Bob's petulant god and his silly demands has.

Another example of the devil using a film to lead people astray is "Brokeback Mountain" (released about 10 years ago). I saw a trailer for this and quickly realised that it was promoting a particularly filthy and vile perversion of the most unnatural kind.

Well, I don't particularly like cowboy boots either, but I wouldn't say showing people wearing them is extraordinarily filthy or perverted…

A cursory read over a review confirmed this to be the case. No doubt the aim of the film was to convince people that this kind of "behaviour" was acceptable and that anyone who objects was a narrow minded bigot.

Yep! Anyone who judges people's worth on their romantic and sexual preferences is a narrow-minded bigot. From Merriam Webster:

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Does Bob 'strongly and unfairly dislike,' and 'hate or refuse to accept the members of a particular group,' for no good reason? Yes he does. Therefore Bob is a bigot. The fact that he uses an old book of mythology to excuse his bigotry, and self-describes his hate as some perverse form of love, means nothing, what with the former not actually being a good reason and the latter being a crock of shit.

That's kinda how word-definitions work, Bob. You're a bigot. Own up to it and live with it. I'd say you should try to change it, but somehow I think that seed would fall on very stony ground indeed.

This kind of tactic from the devil is nothing new; in the 1960s "The Dirty Dozen" was released and quickly became popular. It was about a group of US soldiers who went on a suicide mission to kill Germans. However, in keeping with the anti-Bible spirit of that decade, one of the characters used the Bible to justify his killing of women. I'm sure that many watching that film were led to believe that Bible-believing Christians were extremist nut cases and, as a result, closed their minds to the Gospel.

So-called Bible-believing Christians—as in people who think the Bible is true from cover to cover in a very literal sense—are nutcases, Bob. Nobody with an ounce of sense—which includes most Christians—thinks that it's possible to defend such a reading.

And your Biblically-based view of LGBT people is not, I should add, a million miles away from Telly Savalas's character's Biblically-based view of women. Both of you are using Bible-verses to justify your own abhorrent prejudices.

A more recent example of this satanic chicanery is "12 Years A Slave" about a black man kidnapped and sold into slavery while in a drunken state. One could argue that his drunkenness led him into the suffering he endured over the next 12 years (a clear warning against abusing alcohol).

Bob, your compassion for a human being being treated as nothing more than a commodity to be bought, sold and used as a beast of burden overwhelms me. Still, I shouldn't be surprised, given that you believe the concept of infinite torture for trivial and finite offenses to be perfectly fine and dandy.

However, as I watched this film it became clear to me that this was yet another case of the devil trying to discredit the Bible. The "villain" of the story was Edwin Epps who, even by Southern standards of brutality, was particularly wicked. What I objected to was the way the film showed his use of the Bible to justify mistreating the slaves.

Well, now, here's some reading for you, Bob. Published in 1851, the Bible Defence Of Slavery:

or, The origin, history, and fortunes of the Negro race, as deduced from history, both sacred and profane, their natural relations—moral, mental, and physical—to the other races of mankind, compared and illustrated—their future destiny predicted, etc.
6th stereotyped ed.
by Josiah Priest. To which is added a plan of national colonization adequate to the entire removal of the free blacks, and all that may hereafter become free, in a manner harmonizing with the peace and well-being of both races by Rev. W. S. Brown.

You'll note, I hope, that this copy is the sixth edition. Hardly an unpopular book, then.

Actually, I'd think Bob would agree with at least the sentiment. Here's the opening couple of sentences of the publisher's preface:

In presenting the following work to the American public, no apologies are offered. We live under a Government which tolerates liberty of thought and freedom of the press, and in this expression of our honest views and feelings upon a subject relating to the general welfare of the country, we are but exercising a right which belongs to every American citizen.

That's right. 'We may be extolling the subjugation and persecution of people based on nothing but prejudice and trivial biological differences, but FREEDUMB OF SPEECH!!11eleventy-one!!'

Sound familiar, Bob? It should. Just substitute 'homosexual' for 'negro,' and think on it for a moment.

While it is true that many people have misinterpreted the Bible in order to claim that their vile conduct is justified in God's sight, it is also true that the devil will use every means at his disposal to put people off reading the Bible and seeking after God – the film industry being one of the most obvious examples.

I… what? Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw an atheist portrayed in a sympathetic light in a Hollywood movie? While there may be many characters whose religious views are never shown, virtually no-one is allowed to be an atheist in a major movie unless they're openly and bitterly 'angry at god.' Some kind of religious belief, or at best a 'crisis of faith' atheism brought on by the death of a child or such, is the default norm for any sympathetic character. Any atheist whose position is thought-out and not engendered by such a crisis is almost always portrayed as lacking something; as emotionally stunted and cold, mildly sociopathic.

It makes as much sense to say Hollywood is anti-religious as it does to say Buzz Aldrin is scared of heights.

What should be our response to this?

Umm, maybe you could try using some common sense and ditching the persecution complex?

Silly me. Not gonna happen.

We should simply rest in the sovereignty of God.

Bob, you spikka da Ingliss? What the hell does that sentence even mean? Well, you obviously speak fluent Gibberish. Must be nice to have a second language.

We need to recognise that the devil has always been in the business of attacking people's souls by seeking to lead them away from the truth BUT he is a defeated foe. No matter how much he uses his devious means to fulfil his purposes he will never stop the elect from being saved. ALL people elected, according to the foreknowledge of God, WILL be saved. In John 6 v 37 we read that every person given to Jesus by His Father will believe in Him. The devil will use many and varied ways to draw people after himself, but even he cannot stop God from drawing the elect to the foot of the cross in repentance and faith in Christ.

And there we go with the 'God drawing people to him' business again.

Bob, if there's a god and he needs to draw me to him before I believe in him, and he hasn't seen fit to do so, then it's hardly my bloody fault, is it, if I don't believe in him. His son went and got himself nailed to a plank, there to die in agony, in order to further this project, yet Daddy can't even be bothered to keep up with the drawing-in quota? Tell the stupid fucker to get his lazy arse off the throne and pay some attention to his job, fer Chrissakes.

As we spread the glorious truths of the Gospel let us do so in absolute confidence that the Gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes". Romans 1 v 16.

The Gospel. That'd be Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. So Bob finishes on a quote from Paul talking about the Gospel at second-hand. Well done Bob. Another bulls-eye perfectly missed.
—Daz

---

You may use these HTML tags in comments
<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†
* is generally preferred over †