Belly sin...
 

This is the latest mote of pointlessness currently doing the rounds with the bloggers:

This review of a recent film denounces it for portraying "belly sin". Unfortunately, no-one but the reviewer seems to know exactly what "belly sin" is. I emailed him on Monday, but so far have had no response.

Anyway, you lot being as diverse and learned as you are, I thought I'd ask here:

Does anyone know what "belly sin" is? Is it really sinful, or just a little bit? Is it mentioned in the bible? Is it fun? Does it hurt? Or is it just a typo? I'd love to know, just to make sure I don't accidentally commit it...

The public must know!

Re: Belly sin...
 

Anyone seen the movie?

Maybe when someone sees it they'll be able to figure out what is meant.

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ewww... My first guess would be simply 'gluttony' since the belly is often a metaphor for the appetite. But after reading it and seeing what a morbid example of fundamentalist guilt-mongering it is, I suppose it could have all sorts of other strange meanings that I can't guess. How did you come to be reading this? I had no impression that you were the religious sort...

[ September 11, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">i've found that i can mock almost any belief. so, mockery of a belief is meaningless as an arguement.

Re: Belly sin...
 

I can find no definition of "belly sin", nor have I heard of it in 30+ years of association with evangelical churches, so I'm afraid I can't help you there.

While I find the site a bit "preachy", and would not refer to it myself, I would offer this thought in its defense. There aren't many sources out there for a Christian parent to refer to when trying to make decisions about movies and such for their teenage children to see. It is neither possible nor desireable to prescreen every movie to find out whether it would be suitable, so some reference is needed that has a viewpoint similar to that of the parents. This site is not trying to ban movies, merely to provide information about the movies to parents. As I said, the reviewer gets too "preachy" for my taste, but at least I have a pretty good idea of what the film is like so that I can make a decision on its appropriateness for my teenager.

Re: Belly sin...
 

Does the movie contain belly dancers? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Belly sin...
 

Perhaps it refers to the display of the midrift. Though why they would use that term and not "Display of midrift, straight female and apparently homosexual male", I wouldn't know.

Re: Belly sin...
 

I'm really surprised it doesn't come up on a google search, except in reference to that site, someone asking what it is, and some pr0n sites which I don't expect are trying to directly explain it.

I seem to recall that it refers to unwed women with big bellies from pregnancy. So I expect the film shows an unwed woman who is visibly pregnant.

PvK

Re: Belly sin...
 

Ah... that makes some sense PvK because it's listed in a column of problems on the side under 'sexual' issues. It must be one of those mincing euphemisms that the fundamentalist types use to discuss things they don't want to openly name.

Re: Belly sin...
 

as apposed to the work-arounds everone else uses? i remember the PC people trying to rename man-hole cover's to person-hole cover's...your bais is affecting your judgement.

bad logic serves no-one. and what is a fundamentalist anyway? the label isn't adiquatly defined as it is used now and the word itself does not, by definition, limit it to any belief. it simply designates someone who wants to get back to the fundamental belief's of whatever they believe. the word itself contains no negative connotations or beleif connotations whatsoever.

[ September 12, 2003, 02:00: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

I believe the term is a shortened expresion. I think it used to be Fundemental Extremist.

See previous comment, in another thread, on history.

Re: Belly sin...
 

the word itself contains no negative connotations or beleif connotations whatsoever."

Only if you go by dictionary definitions. Language doesn't work like that.

Re: Belly sin...
 

yes, well, in this case i think it's a mangling. mabye FCE? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ September 12, 2003, 02:11: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

It takes no bias to realize that the site is run by Christian Fundamentalists. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif This is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, but it is indeed the case.

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">that was the particular bais i was refering to, since all sorts of Groups use 'mincing euphemisms'.

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not, I just find the website hysterically funny. I'm only just coming round to the idea that it's not an eloborate hoax. You should read their review of the South Park film ('Straight from hell'), it's brilliant. I wouldn't be surprised if the makers of the film had a copy of that review framed somewhere.
Another good one is "Mary Poppins" where dear old Mary is criticised for practising the Black Arts.

I was first introduced to capalert by a fantastic website called www.ntk.net, which i read every week. Among other things, ntk reviews all the latest films by simply quoting from other film review sites, including www.imdb.com (internet movie database) www.cndb.com (celebrity nude database) capalert, the bbfc (british board film classification) and various others. The ironic bit is that while capalert may review a film as follows:
"Three seconds of gratuitous cleavage exposure. Disgusting!"
the cndb (for example) would say:
"Three seconds of gratuitous cleavage exposure. Cool!"

The "unmarried pregnancy" explanation sounds convincing. Thanks. I'm kind of disappointed that it turns out to be a sin I couldn't ever commit myself (I have a collection) but at least my curiosity has been satisfied and my vocabulary enhanced. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

EDIT: Just been back to check but it looks like both the south park and mary poppins reviews have been toned down.

[ September 12, 2003, 09:17: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

I have tried to avoid posting on this thread, but I can't hold back any longer...

I am aware of this website - I first encountered it when the first LOTR film came out. (In their criticism, they actually counted how many times Gandalf cast a spell, so they could properly condemn his sorcery.) I frankly find this sort of extreme nitpicking embarassing. It's also illogical. First, given their standards NOTHING would be watchable - I often wonder, 'what would they consider acceptable'? Second, according to their own standards as applied to movies, the Bible itself would be unacceptable (it's full of murders, rapes, mass combat). Third, this sort of massive fingerpointing at non-Christians misses the point of the Christian faith entirely. I seem to recall Christ saying something about removing a plank in one's own eye before going speck-hunting in others'...

Thus endeth the sermon.

Re: Belly sin...
 

Just my off-topic 0.02 :

- I'll consider PC as more than a joke when Marvel and DC rename their characters to 'X-People', 'Spider-person', 'Superperson' and 'Batperson'.

- The following conversation actually happened (although the original references were different) :
Fundamentalist mother - "I don't want my son to read the Harry Potter books because he might want to become a witch."
Schoolteacher - "By your logic, then, if he reads Hans Christian Andersen, he might want to become a mermaid ?"

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then again, how many people have really become Satanists by reading Tolkien or Rawlings?

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well none if you believe like I do that simply reading a book or watching a show makes you into something. And it's not at all what I said anyway so I am not sure why you quoted me GW.

But what you read does have an influence on you. Everyone of us is the sum of all our experiences after all. And it's not totally irrational for parents to be concerned about what their children read. But there are better ways to guide your child then banning books. Perhaps *gasp* read the book with your child and use it as a lesson in the differences between fantasy and reality. But that's more work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ September 12, 2003, 13:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

[this post is not serious]

But is the solution to this 'occult threat' vilification? I don't think so. I also don't think the solution is to teach the children to regard it as fantastic or utterly harmless dallying.

If something is to be done about it, it must be Education. Teach your children what is, and is not, possible, why some people think they possess powers beyond those of normal humans and what kind of trouble they can get in.

Teach them what role 'magic' and superstition play in human culture, and how different these roles are from those portrayed in fantasy settings. Tech them the nature of fiction and escapism.

Of course, if you've already taught you kids that there is a Santa Claus, you might have some credibility issues on the subject of magic, either way you take it.

Re: Belly sin...
 

I would agree. I was "reading off" what you were saying rather than responding directly to it. But the underlying assumption of the site that started this discussion is that *any* exposure to "bad" things will be instantly corruptive. At least that's how they come across....

Re: Belly sin...
 

No Geo, you missed the point entirely. The point is that children understand the difference between fact and fiction. Or, in other words, the inability to distinguish fact from fiction does not depend on age.

'Real-life' magic, whether actuallly 'real' or not, is not like the fantasy-book variety. I knew that when I read Tolkien (at age 10) and I believe a 10-year-old reading Harry Potter today does too (excepting, of course, the occasional individual who can't distinguish fact from fiction).

To be fair, there aren't many 'creepy occult types' in my country, although they are starting to show up as our religious demographic slowly shifts from Catholic to Catholic/Protestant. The way I see it, it is mostly a teen rebellion / forbidden fruit issue.

Protestant teen wants to shock parents : gets into the occult.
Catholic teen wants to shock parents : becomes an atheist.

Edit : I took too long to answer, so you've already covered some of this ground yourself. Helping your children understand the difference between fact and fiction is certainly a very good start.

[ September 12, 2003, 14:25: Message edited by: Erax ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

Something that struck me a few years ago... it was when South Park was all the rage, and people were criticising it for the corruptive influence it was having on their children, asking why their kids were being exposed to this kind of program.

Well duh...

Because you let them watch it, you stupid wankers. It's never shown on UK TV before 10 or 11 O clock at night. The film in the cinema had an 18 certificate. Anyone with even half a functioning brain and has seen more than 3 minutes of SP content will be well aware that it IS NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY SUITABLE FOR KIDS. But no, they see that it's a cartoon and that all the other kids are talking about it so they assume it's ok then go out and blindly buy their own little Cartman-wannabes the plushies that swear profusely when you squeeze them and the "hundred deaths of Kenny" posters and suddenly the penny drops and their up in arms about it...

Stupid stupid stupid people.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but it really made me angry at the time. Sorry. I'll shut up now...

[/rant]

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, there are little boys who want to become mermaids. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: Belly sin...
 

actually, in the mythology of the lotr, gandalph's an angel of a false god, so what you have is the corrupting influence of heathens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To state this, you must first establish the identity of the 'true' god in the Lord of the Rings setting.

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since Gandalph and the god are both fictitious, calling them 'true' or 'false' becomes completely irrelevant. (am I starting to sound like Fyron ?)

Re: Belly sin...
 

*sticks his tungue out*

Re: Belly sin...
 

Really, Narf. I thought you guys loved the Chronicles of Narnia. How is Aslan less of a false god than whoevers in charge of Tolkiens world?

Re: Belly sin...
 

Um, what do you mean by 'you guys' ?

Re: Belly sin...
 

I'm more interested in what happened to all the outrage over 'bias' myself. He accuses me of 'mocking' for observing something about the content of the review but ignores dogscoff, the original poster who was in fact mocking, and continues to ignore him after he's posted yet more mocking -- he actually says he's not fully convinced the site isn't a hoax/satire itself. So what happened to the high principles?

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Outspoken Christians, I think.

C.S. Lewis is something of a heroic figure to those pursuing a ... word... ah.. philosophical Christianity. I think it's especially the Protestants, but I don't meet to many Catholics enthusiastic about sharing or publicly exploring their faith.

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ironically, Tolkien was a Christian, and the mythology of Middle Earth mirrors a Biblical view of the world. Aragorn having to "walk the Paths of the Dead" to assume his kingship is but one of many reflections of Tolkien's Christian viewpoint. Gandalf was indeed a fictional angelic character in a fictional world, but that world is a reflection of a Biblical reality.

Re: Belly sin...
 

It is not ironic that Tolkien was a Christian, it is ironic that he was a very devout Christian. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif A lot of authors (in Christian-dominated countries) that write evil occult stuff are Christians. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Of course, all of the Christian/Biblical similarities are a lot more pronounced in The Silmarillion than they are in LOTR.

[ September 12, 2003, 21:35: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

I agree 100% about the irony, but the joke is not on Tolkien, but rather on those who don't understand his work.

Loser, the best explanation of the Catholic doctrine I could find was Dante's Divine Comedy, but you have to read all of it, not just the Inferno.

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly my point. Even more interesting is the fact that Tolkien was a friend of C. S. Lewis and was one of the men involved in his conVersion to Christianity. To accept one and reject the other is a significant mistake.

Re: Belly sin...
 

i can't beleive people are taking my 'heathen' and 'false god' comments so serieusly. i'm still using a large, cartoon mouse as an avatar, right? and i did post a smiley with that post? just checked, yes i did.

and i hereby critisize anyone who mocked in this thread, including myself.

whoop, i think that was mockery.

and what was THAT? sarcasm?

AND YET more sarcasm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

my point is, sarcasm and mockery can be fun as long as both sides know your not serious, but using it as a mean of logic is bad logic. not to beat a dead horse or anythin, but that bit i first critisized implied that only fundementalist's used work-arounds. that does not mean i have a responcibility to point out all the bad logic, that's Fyron's job. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

i was serious about that bit of critisism, though.

Re: Belly sin...
 

Wow! If this keeps up Belly sin will out post the Name Changing thread.

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yeah, Need To Know is a must read.

[ September 12, 2003, 12:23: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

Wow, you guys(all you guys) are all over the place on this one. Which is to be expected and is appreciated from such a diverse and, for the most part, intelligent group.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This isn't ironic or should it surprise anyone. People who profess to be Christians find themselves on opposite ends of just about every spectrum imaginable. There are "Christians" who support abortion, the Pope believes evolution to be fact, the Anglican church believes it is okay to promote practicing homosexuals in their denomination, there are denominations that believe music is bad, some believe only rock music is bad, some do not believe in the Virgin Birth, etc., etc. There is even division among, what was the term... Fundamental Christians, an example being Dr. James Dobson and Richard Lamb being on different sides of Alabama's Judge Moore debate.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Context, my friend, context. The context of what Christ is saying here is talking about believers correcting other believers. He is cautioning that all are sinners and all deserve death. He goes on very soon after to caution against "throwing pearls to swine." Only by discerning the swine can we avoid wasting our pearls.

This is from a different thread but I figure I'd plug my response in here as it seems to fit the general theme of things:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gotta love general Christian tolerance...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As a Christian, I am to be tolerant, that is loving despite everything, of all individuals. I am also to "Hate what is evil." Christ's work on the cross frees the Christian from sin, it does nothing for the sins of corporations, Groups or countries.

So, having said all this, I believe the most important thing to being a Christian is to glorify God. Does everything I do live up to this, hell no. Fortunately, my God is a gracious and forgiving God. Do the works of Tolkien, Lewis, and/or Rawlings glorify God? This seems to be the issue. I would say the first two do through the allegory and symbolism they use, while I'm not sure about Rawlings. I have only read one of the Potter books and I personally wasn't all that impressed with either the story telling or the story. I did hear a snippet from an interview with Rawlings (mind you, on a Christian radio program) where she was talking about her books introducing kids to the occult. When considering whether to expose your children (or yourself for that matter) to anything, what the Christian needs to determine is if that movie, book, music, TV show or what ever, glorifies the Lord. While the web page mentioned at the beginning of this thread may help with determining this, the best thing to do is to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to give you discernment in such matters. Of course there are some Christians who don't believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today's Christian. Go figure.

It's interesting that this type of topic has come up as I have been thinking a lot lately about discernment. More on how Christian leaders champion certain issues and whether this effort by these leaders is glorifying God, or whether the efforts and considerable resources of these leaders would be better spent on something more "God glorifying."

Maybe all this should go to a new thread, or not, but I would appreciate feed back from all.

Re: Belly sin...
 

Oh yeah, and I have no idea what a belly sin is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Belly sin...
 

Why did you quote a post that has nothing to do with this discussion? Context, my friend, context!

Re: Belly sin...
 

read that report just now. if disney knew that people where engaged in 'simulated sexual acts' - more or less verbatim qoute - i don't see how they can justify it.

context? this thread has context?

[ September 13, 2003, 00:50: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While I agree that the reaction of some religous types is way over the top regarding Harry Potter, this hypothetical teachers logic isn't exactly sound either. If your child wanted to become a mermaid after reading H.C.A. no matter how hard they tried they could never be a mermaid. On the other hand it is entirely possible that an inquisitive child wanting to find out more about witchcraft could find some more detailed sources on the subject and could potentially get into some very serious, and very bad stuff. There is a significant difference between fantasy and the occult. Even if you believe that "serious" occultism is all a bunch of superstitious garbage, there are some very odd people that take it very seriously. Probably not the kind of people you want your kids hanging around.

[ September 12, 2003, 12:53: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, seemed to me both Posts (IF's and Woundwort's) were saying the Christian has no right to judge. Seemed very similar context to me.

Re: Belly sin...
 

My statement had nothing to do with rights to judge... it was mostly about the hypocrisy of the many Christians that preach tolerance but aren't really very tolerant themselves (which was quite appropriate in the context of the thread it was made in).

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe this belongs back in the other thread but here we are with it so I will continue (especially as I have already quoted the post in question.)

To be tolerant of an individual is a good thing, it is very Christian to "love thine enemy." To be intolerant of sin is also a good thing. Back to "Hate what is evil."

Maybe you can explain to me where the hypocrisy is. The referenced article was not condemning any particular person, it was speaking out against a sin (homosexuality) and the perceived promotion of that sin by a corporation (Disney.) And I was merely referencing the article to pine of a seemingly more innocent time. I fail to see any hypocrisy, of course this plank may be in my way!

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quick question: where do you get that you should hate at all?

Hate is like an acid, it damages not only the object it is applied to, but also the vessel in which it is kept.

Anger, anger I can understand. That is usefull. But hate takes so long, changes so many things. Why?

Re: Belly sin...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not quite. Everyone has moral criteria by which they judge things (movies, in this case). But it's not so black-and-white where you can say "This movie contains depictions of 'x', therefore this movie is to be avoided." This sort of self-defeating criteria (at least from a Christian perspective - see my original post) is what I'm arguing against. There is a difference, for example, between the violence in Band of Brothers and the violence in Freddy vs. Jason. The one realistically portrays the violence of war as part of portraying the men of E Company and the war's effect on them. The other - well, if it had any real point other than tittilating horror freaks and making money, somebody wiser than me will have to explain it to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif But I hope the kinds of distinctions I'm making are clear. And I wholeheartedly agree with the numerous people on this thread who have argued for parental responsibility in dealing with films and TV. Labels are no substitute for parental guidance and discussion.