# Fireproof



## mahike (Aug 16, 2011)

Our MC asked us to watch Fireproof. This was tough for me to watch. Some of the fights seemed like us word for word. They touched on an EA that sent my blood pressure off the scale.

We were supposed to watch it together but I cannot watch a movie that even touches on an affiar with my wife.

Anyone else watch it? What did you take away from it.


----------



## canttrustu (Feb 22, 2012)

Didnt watch that and now Im sure we wont. I can say that we have recently(this week) turned off 2 shows b/c there was an infidelity subplot. I watch tv to turn my brain off of the stuff for a while. Twice this week we have looked at each other and said "had enough?" and turned the channel.

So I know what you mean.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

mahike said:


> Our MC asked us to watch Fireproof. This was tough for me to watch. Some of the fights seemed like us word for word. They touched on an EA that sent my blood pressure off the scale.
> 
> We were supposed to watch it together but I cannot watch a movie that even touches on an affiar with my wife.
> 
> Anyone else watch it? What did you take away from it.


I agree with Dalrock on this one:

Firebombed | Dalrock


----------



## highwood (Jan 12, 2012)

I know it is amazing how uncomfortable it is now watching tv with H at times and the topic of affairs comes up...whether it be a talk show about someone cheating, or a regular show, etc. I will still watch it but I feel uncomfortable and I suspect that H gets anxious wondering if I will bring something up and we will have another argument.


----------



## CH (May 18, 2010)

The entire movie is up on youtube if you want to watch it.


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

Thanks for the mention - I'm watching it on youtube at the moment! at part 6 of 12.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

This is that Kirk Cameron, holier-than-thou piece of religious propaganda garbage, right? The one that sends the message that, with blind faith in the Sky Bully, you can find the strength to buy back your cheating spouse's "love?"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

Okay, so I watched the whole thing.

Disturbed by how the wife's EA was swept under the rug as if it didn't matter. Both spouses were at fault, but he was the only one doing any heavy lifting.

I'm a sworn atheist, as is my H, but I don't mind the religious bent, I know that that speaks to many people. I think the movie had a good message beyond the proselytzing but man, the wife got off easy. She was one big biatch from the get-go.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

Grayson said:


> This is that Kirk Cameron, holier-than-thou piece of religious propaganda garbage, right? The one that sends the message that, with blind faith in the Sky Bully, you can find the strength to buy back your cheating spouse's "love?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Kirk Cameron? From that sh!tty 80's sitcom???


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

Yes, and according to a comment on the youtube version, the woman in the kiss scene is actually his wife, not the actress playing his wife, because he refused to kiss any woman other than his wife. Which is sweet, but also ridiculous if you know anything about professional acting.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> This is that Kirk Cameron, holier-than-thou piece of religious propaganda garbage, right? The one that sends the message that, with blind faith in the Sky Bully, you can find the strength to buy back your cheating spouse's "love?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You shouldn't let your enmity for Christianity bias your view of the film. I am a Christian and I think the film is deeply flawed for reasons that have nothing to do with theology.


----------



## hurtingbadly (Sep 14, 2011)

I posted about this movie before and the general response was don't watch it. My MIL gave it to WS and I to watch together. I took offense to that. She needs to stay out. From what I was told this movie doesn't make the BS feel any better at all. MIL blames me for our problems, I'm the one to blame cause I haven't forgiven him for his ONS with a stranger. Him giving me HPV. Him having an EA with a coworker. Him doing drugs behind my back... Go figure. 

I have read reviews on the Love Dare book at times of desperation, but I feel extremely hesitant about it. And it doesn't look like something you can do together, it looks more like something you do behind the other one's back??? :scratchhead:


----------



## sinnister (Dec 5, 2010)

Interestingly enough ^^^^ my inlaws also put this movie on while my wife and I were over. I sat through this crap with my blood boiling the whole time. I couldn't believe a firefighter...a man who must be born with the cojones to risk his life to save others was portrayed like a total b....for looking at porn and saving up for a boat. Well excuse me. If THAT is enough to get a woman to cheat we're all doomed.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> You shouldn't let your enmity for Christianity bias your view of the film. I am a Christian and I think the film is deeply flawed for reasons that have nothing to do with theology.


To be sure, it has many flaws, but daresay that some (many? all?) of them stem from beginning from a theological conclusion (faith can "save" even the worst marriage) and clumsily working backwards to try creating a story that reaches that conclusion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kurosity (Dec 22, 2011)

My H and I watched it together. I too saw the wife get off easy for her EA. 

I think they were trying to high light somethings that distroy a marriage and did a poor job in not explainning more. Porn addiction, EAs , unexpressed expectations, how each felt the other did not treat them well, and so on.
The fight was very realistic and the way they treated each other and talked with each other seems closer to reality more so then mainstream movies portay.

The Love Dare is about changing your self and how you treat your spouse, making an effort to make things better. It is not about doing it together because it is about making changes of ones self that might produce a desireable action out of spouse and a change in the way things work between the couple. 

There was a lot of silly stupid stuff in it and the movie was to promote then book (I heard it was based on a true story) well watching it did not change things for us and the part where he tells his wife he is sorry made me cry and made me wish my h could just pour it out like that to me. 
Who knows the book may have helped some people change or at least form a habit of being better to their spouse then they have.


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

I was expecting more to be made of the way they dealt with their finances. In the beginning, it was a big deal that his salary paid the mortgage and the cars, her salary paid the bills, etc. I was expecting there to be some point in the movie where they realized that a marriage = joint finances. A little surprised that that didn't happen. (Not that I don't think people can't have successful marriages with separate finances. But considering the point of the movie, I was expecting it. Instead, he gifts her parents the boat money, which is how he buys her love back - when the proper thing to do would have been to combine their finances and prioritize together.)


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

omega said:


> Yes, and according to a comment on the youtube version, the woman in the kiss scene is actually his wife, not the actress playing his wife, because he refused to kiss any woman other than his wife. Which is sweet, but also ridiculous if you know anything about professional acting.


Well, this IS the same person who had the actress playing his girlfriend fired from said bad 80's sitcom for *gasp* posing for Playboy, and who forced makeup artists to hide his wedding ring so it couldn't be seen on his single, teenaged character (rather than, y'know, taking it off like most actors). I don't think the word "professional" can apply to him beyond its most basic definition: he gets paid for the work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

sinnister said:


> Interestingly enough ^^^^ my inlaws also put this movie on while my wife and I were over. I sat through this crap with my blood boiling the whole time. I couldn't believe a firefighter...a man who must be born with the cojones to risk his life to save others was portrayed like a total b....for looking at porn and saving up for a boat. Well excuse me. If THAT is enough to get a woman to cheat we're all doomed.


Hmm I disagree, sort of. I don't think it's 'enough to get a woman to cheat' as I think that cheating is a choice that the individual makes, but I do think it's plenty to destroy a marriage. Porn is fine for some people and not fine for others. Catherine says - and I think this is very realistically portrayed - that she feels she can't compete with the porn and doesn't see the point. She's right about this. A real woman cannot compete with porn if her husband is addicted to it, as the firefighter was. 

I am in a marriage that is not porn-tolerant. If my H was looking at porn, it would be devastating to me. Other marriages are different; they look at porn as fun and innocent or sexy or whatever. However, in a 'non-porn-tolerant' marriage, this is definitely enough to devastate a marriage. Not an excuse to have an EA, but remember she files for divorce. The movie was trying to cover everything - porn addiction, EA, divorce, financial problems, lack of communication, bad fighting, toxic friends, AND the religious stuff. By trying to cover everything it muddied the waters.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

omega said:


> A real woman cannot compete with porn if her husband is addicted to it, as the firefighter was.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the movie never really established an "addiction" to porn. I believe that it did establish that he began viewing porn after she began intentionally withholding sex to punish him for not spending money on medical equipment whose necessity was likewise never established. The only reference to addiction being when, in a fit of trying to "win" back his cheating wife's affections, he smashed his computer saying, "No more addictions." Of course, given his treatment by his wife (as well as the theological roots of the production), I can understand both the character's and supporters of the movie's rush to the possible (probable?) incorrect conclusion that he was "addicted to porn."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

Grayson said:


> This is that Kirk Cameron, holier-than-thou piece of religious propaganda garbage, right? The one that sends the message that, with blind faith in the Sky Bully, you can find the strength to buy back your cheating spouse's "love?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, I like the Sky Bully just fine, but the movie sux on many different levels. However, it's in tune with American Christianity's pedestalizing of women for the last 180 years.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

High schoolers could have written and produced a more authentic movie.

Awful.


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the movie never really established an "addiction" to porn. I believe that it did establish that he began viewing porn after she began intentionally withholding sex to punish him for not spending money on medical equipment whose necessity was likewise never established. The only reference to addiction being when, in a fit of trying to "win" back his cheating wife's affections, he smashed his computer saying, "No more addictions." Of course, given his treatment by his wife (as well as the theological roots of the production), I can understand both the character's and supporters of the movie's rush to the possible (probable?) incorrect conclusion that he was "addicted to porn."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I took the porn addiction scene to be a very hidebound director's attempt to talk about a porn addiction. They danced around the subject the whole movie that I took it for granted there was a lot more to it, they just couldn't bring themselves to talk about it openly. 

I'm not a supporter of the movie but I don't think a timeline is ever established as to what happened first (internet porn / end of sexual intimacy).


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

omega said:


> I took the porn addiction scene to be a very hidebound director's attempt to talk about a porn addiction. They danced around the subject the whole movie that I took it for granted there was a lot more to it, they just couldn't bring themselves to talk about it openly.


They did everything else they could to justify her cheating, then make it perfectly acceptable for him to buy her back...don't see why including a single line to actually establish an addiction would be so out of their comfort zone.

I'd love to see a sequel that logically progresses from where it illogically left off: Husband continuing to toss money her way to keep her around, catering to her every whim, while wifey and the doc take their affair both physical and further underground.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## mahike (Aug 16, 2011)

I held back a bit about my opinion wanting others. I did not like the rug sweeping, the BS was doing all the work. The biggest problem was as we have all learned there is so much crap to deal with you cannot tie it up in a couple of hours. 

The fights that they had were more in tune with reality. I was able to swap my wife and I into that scene, not a problem. 

Yes TV is hard to watch so much cheating. Now that was my take on it as a BS. What would a WS think?


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

Grayson said:


> I'd love to see a sequel that logically progresses from where it illogically left off: Husband continuing to toss money her way to keep her around, catering to her every whim, while wifey and the doc take their affair both physical and further underground.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


ah yes but you forget - she's now a born-again Christian and therefore ...fireproof! (my a$$)


----------



## Ingalls (Mar 7, 2012)

We miss a lot of Sunday's at Church because we travel with our daughter almost every weekend. One Sunday we were in attendance and our pastor showed a brief clip. For one, I didn't just "feel" everyone's eyes on me I "KNOW" they were all on my to see my reaction. I was hyperventilating on the inside and praying to GOD that the tears I felt in my eyes wouldn't run down my face-they did! I was embarrassed to say the least. I haven't had to go back but only twice since that happened. Second I don't think I can watch it. I know it would cause a trigger and I honestly try to avoid those at all costs. 
I do have faith and believe God can heal and change people and marriages. I just know timing now isn't good.


----------



## mahike (Aug 16, 2011)

Ingalls said:


> We miss a lot of Sunday's at Church because we travel with our daughter almost every weekend. One Sunday we were in attendance and our pastor showed a brief clip. For one, I didn't just "feel" everyone's eyes on me I "KNOW" they were all on my to see my reaction. I was hyperventilating on the inside and praying to GOD that the tears I felt in my eyes wouldn't run down my face-they did! I was embarrassed to say the least. I haven't had to go back but only twice since that happened. Second I don't think I can watch it. I know it would cause a trigger and I honestly try to avoid those at all costs.
> I do have faith and believe God can heal and change people and marriages. I just know timing now isn't good.


I am not sure about what your situation was but I would imagine that would be difficult to deal with. 

The biggest challenge for a couple in R is not to sweep things under the rug. I get to point once in awhile asking myself why am I dealing with this crap. I know that I want to get past this and move forward and to get past this there is going to be pain for both of us to deal with. I am not saying this movie is the answer for anyone. As I said there is to much crap in an affiar and a beat up marriage to deal with in a 2 hour movie.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

omega said:


> ah yes but you forget - she's now a born-again Christian and therefore ...fireproof! (my a$$)


Mine too. Because there certainly aren't any lying, cheating, reprehensible born-again Christians in the world, right? (After all, the film's star Kirk Cameron himself is only reprehensible...at least he's honest and forthright about, say, his bigoted stance on homosexuality.) And, even in the fictional world of the movie, it's not like she'd ever break a vow she made on her faith...oh...wait....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

omega said:


> Hmm I disagree, sort of. I don't think it's 'enough to get a woman to cheat' as I think that cheating is a choice that the individual makes, but I do think it's plenty to destroy a marriage. Porn is fine for some people and not fine for others. Catherine says - and I think this is very realistically portrayed - that she feels she can't compete with the porn and doesn't see the point. She's right about this. *A real woman cannot compete with porn if her husband is addicted to it, as the firefighter was. *
> 
> I am in a marriage that is not porn-tolerant. If my H was looking at porn, it would be devastating to me. Other marriages are different; they look at porn as fun and innocent or sexy or whatever. However, in a 'non-porn-tolerant' marriage, this is definitely enough to devastate a marriage. Not an excuse to have an EA, but remember she files for divorce. The movie was trying to cover everything - porn addiction, EA, divorce, financial problems, lack of communication, bad fighting, toxic friends, AND the religious stuff. By trying to cover everything it muddied the waters.


The question begs asking...how many people can claim TRUE porn addiction, and not just use it as an excuse when they get caught out about it? Are they so embarrassed that instead of admitting to watching and using porn for pleasure, they have to lie, and claim an addiction?

Pretty soon, every little thing people do is going to be blamed on addiction. Oh. Wait a minute. It already is!


----------



## CantSitStill (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm really confused, watched fireproof years ago. Did not see an EA going on. It was years ago and I thought the acting suked and I remember getting mad at the wife, I remember the husband doing all these things for her nd she didn't care..Well shoot hubby and I thought we'd watch it now after all the problems we've been having since we don't remember really paying much attention to it.. Now the we both read this post he refuses to watch it. I don't remember an EA! hmmm should I just watch it alone or just give up on watching it again?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

CantSitStill said:


> I'm really confused, watched fireproof years ago. Did not see an EA going on. It was years ago and I thought the acting suked and I remember getting mad at the wife, I remember the husband doing all these things for her nd she didn't care..Well shoot hubby and I thought we'd watch it now after all the problems we've been having since we don't remember really paying much attention to it.. Now the we both read this post he refuses to watch it. I don't remember an EA! hmmm should I just watch it alone or just give up on watching it again?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The EA is between the wife and a doctor at the hospital where she works. He is also married. They both act inappropriately and they go back and forth as to who is more aggressive. She uses the promise of male attention to help her justify not trying to repair her marriage.


----------



## TINPHX (Apr 16, 2012)

I watched the movie and it made me cry like a baby. I wish that my life would turn out that way, it would make this whole thing worth while. The truth is that it doesnt always turn out that way, as a matter of fact it usually turns out with divorce and the children suffer a great deal! I know that I cannot change my wife, but I can change how I feel and react in situations. I have not been a perfect husband, I didnt watch fireproof with my wife when she wanted, I didnt work together on the bills with her, I didnt hold her enough, I didnt help out enough around the house ( even though she is a stay at home Mother ) But what I have done is provide a great life for my family and tried very hard to love my wife after 3 affairs that I know of currently, the last one she is still in right this very moment. Lust will win over love any and every day in the head. I can learn from my mistakes and walk in the ways of the Lord. I live by Biblical principles and be a great Father to my children. I just cant change my wife nor how she feels about me any longer.


----------



## CantSitStill (Feb 7, 2012)

TINPHX said:


> I watched the movie and it made me cry like a baby. I wish that my life would turn out that way, it would make this whole thing worth while. The truth is that it doesnt always turn out that way, as a matter of fact it usually turns out with divorce and the children suffer a great deal! I know that I cannot change my wife, but I can change how I feel and react in situations. I have not been a perfect husband, I didnt watch fireproof with my wife when she wanted, I didnt work together on the bills with her, I didnt hold her enough, I didnt help out enough around the house ( even though she is a stay at home Mother ) But what I have done is provide a great life for my family and tried very hard to love my wife after 3 affairs that I know of currently, the last one she is still in right this very moment. Lust will win over love any and every day in the head. I can learn from my mistakes and walk in the ways of the Lord. I live by Biblical principles and be a great Father to my children. I just cant change my wife nor how she feels about me any longer.


Wow you seem like a very very patient man and wonderful husband. When you work alot of hours and wife is at home it is undestandable that you're too tired to help out with household chores. My husband actually helps me when he can and I so love that about him, he don't have to but wants to. I am also a stay at home mom so feel the chores are my job.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TINPHX (Apr 16, 2012)

Cantsitstill; I am not so wonderful that my wife wants to cheat on me. I am very lost....


----------



## CantSitStill (Feb 7, 2012)

Are trying to blame yourself for her selfish behavior??? She had many chances and you deserve much better.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

CandieGirl said:


> The question begs asking...how many people can claim TRUE porn addiction, and not just use it as an excuse when they get caught out about it? Are they so embarrassed that instead of admitting to watching and using porn for pleasure, they have to lie, and claim an addiction?
> 
> Pretty soon, every little thing people do is going to be blamed on addiction. Oh. Wait a minute. It already is!


Somewhat touching on a conversation we've had previously, I'd say that it's not so much porn, itself, that's the addiction, but rather the chemical euphoria that some get from viewing it. Others might get that same chemical euphoria from gambling, shopping, etc. In these cases, unlike with, say, drugs or alcohol, it's not the "trigger" itself that the person is addicted to, but the "high" that comes with participating in that activity. But, in the addict's mind, that "trigger" and the euphoria are inextricably linked.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Mine too. Because there certainly aren't any lying, cheating, reprehensible born-again Christians in the world, right? (After all, the film's star Kirk Cameron himself is only reprehensible...at least he's honest and forthright about, say, his bigoted stance on homosexuality.) And, even in the fictional world of the movie, it's not like she'd ever break a vow she made on her faith...oh...wait....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Seriously. We get that you hate all things Christian. And if you want to bash the movie, go ahead. But using Christian theology on homosexuality, which should really be expanded to most religions, since most of them are against the practice, is really a stretch to try to use against the movie.

You should just start a new thread on the Off Topic/Politics and Religion board to rant against Christianity.


----------



## mahike (Aug 16, 2011)

TINPHX said:


> I watched the movie and it made me cry like a baby. I wish that my life would turn out that way, it would make this whole thing worth while. The truth is that it doesnt always turn out that way, as a matter of fact it usually turns out with divorce and the children suffer a great deal! I know that I cannot change my wife, but I can change how I feel and react in situations. I have not been a perfect husband, I didnt watch fireproof with my wife when she wanted, I didnt work together on the bills with her, I didnt hold her enough, I didnt help out enough around the house ( even though she is a stay at home Mother ) But what I have done is provide a great life for my family and tried very hard to love my wife after 3 affairs that I know of currently, the last one she is still in right this very moment. Lust will win over love any and every day in the head. I can learn from my mistakes and walk in the ways of the Lord. I live by Biblical principles and be a great Father to my children. I just cant change my wife nor how she feels about me any longer.


Three affiars! Enough is enough. I know it would be hard on your kids and you but it is time to show her the door. Your short comings as a husban does not excuse her from an affiar...


----------



## sinnister (Dec 5, 2010)

omega said:


> Hmm I disagree, sort of. I don't think it's 'enough to get a woman to cheat' as I think that cheating is a choice that the individual makes, but I do think it's plenty to destroy a marriage. Porn is fine for some people and not fine for others. Catherine says - and I think this is very realistically portrayed - that she feels she can't compete with the porn and doesn't see the point. She's right about this. A real woman cannot compete with porn if her husband is addicted to it, as the firefighter was.
> 
> I am in a marriage that is not porn-tolerant. If my H was looking at porn, it would be devastating to me. Other marriages are different; they look at porn as fun and innocent or sexy or whatever. However, in a 'non-porn-tolerant' marriage, this is definitely enough to devastate a marriage. Not an excuse to have an EA, but remember she files for divorce. The movie was trying to cover everything - porn addiction, EA, divorce, financial problems, lack of communication, bad fighting, toxic friends, AND the religious stuff. By trying to cover everything it muddied the waters.


I agree with this completely. They did a great job of identifying the main culprits but tried to cover all instead of focusing on the "less is more" principle. 

The reason why I'm so hung up on the porn thing is because they did a piss poor job in showing it was an "addiction". It looked much more like the typical LD wife not caring about HD husbands needs, and then him turning to computer. 

Add in the whole financial contribution to her mothers bed thing and you have successfully portrayed this wife in a really disturbing light.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> Seriously. We get that you hate all things Christian. And if you want to bash the movie, go ahead. But using Christian theology on homosexuality, which should really be expanded to most religions, since most of them are against the practice, is really a stretch to try to use against the movie.
> 
> You should just start a new thread on the Off Topic/Politics and Religion board to rant against Christianity.


Then you "get" incorrectly. While I will readily agree I don't see much about ANY organized religion that's worthwhile, I don't "hate all things Christian."

My comment you quoted was, in fact, exactly what it was...further commentary extrapolating future events for the characters in the movie, based upon their characterizations and actions as established in the movie, while applying both logic and the patterns of behavior we see all too frequently on this board. Or is it your suggestion that the wife, proven by the movie, to be a lying, cheating, manipulating person swayed more by materialism, is immune to continuing that behavior simply because she became born-again? That this character who was established as being ready willing and able to break one vow made on her faith would suddenly be incapable of doing so again? I'll grant you, this was framed in the context that such people - lying, cheating, reprehensible people who try to wrap themselves in the perceived invincibility of their religion - exist in the real world, leaving us to conclude that they exist in the fictional world presented in the movie. And, yes...it included editorial commentary on, not a religion as a whole, but a specific (and quite vocal) high-profile practitioner and self-appointed spokesperson for his religion, who not coincidentally, is the star of the movie in question. That editorial commentary even concedes that, as far as can be seen, this individual is neither a liar nor cheater, as he is at least honest enough to openly spew his hate-filled bigotry on national television on a program not aimed solely/primarily at an audience necessarily predisposed to agree with him.

Here, though, I think we see an example of something concerning the movie that's been percolating in my mind this morning. We've seen in this thread differing perceptions of some elements of the movie that went unclarified, and yet important developments of the plot hinged upon these points. I wonder if that's a flaw based upon the movie being produced to, almost literally, preach to the choir...that the principal audience is expected to share the same fundamental beliefs as the producers. Thus, we have a nebulous "use" of porn and stated intent to do so again (in the face of a wife withholding sex) as an act so inherently heinous as to instigate divorce and also to automatically be considered an "addiction." I mean, if commentary on the movie (and its star) based upon the movie itself and the existence of real people and actions is proof of "hatred of all things Christian," then it seems like one of the movie's biggest flaws is that it's like the tree on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back...what you find inside is what you take in with you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

sinnister said:


> I agree with this completely. They did a great job of identifying the main culprits but tried to cover all instead of focusing on the "less is more" principle.
> 
> The reason why I'm so hung up on the porn thing is because they did a piss poor job in showing it was an "addiction". It looked much more like the typical LD wife not caring about HD husbands needs, and then him turning to computer.
> 
> Add in the whole financial contribution to her mothers bed thing and you have successfully portrayed this wife in a really disturbing light.


Indeed. She returned to her husband, not because she "realized what a good man he was," but because he was, in the face of being treated horribly, sublimate his own wants and spend all his money on hers. It portrayed her as selfish and willing to break any vow she makes, as long as it's to her benefit and convenience.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Indeed. She returned to her husband, not because she "realized what a good man he was," but because he was, in the face of being treated horribly, sublimate his own wants and spend all his money on hers. It portrayed her as selfish and willing to break any vow she makes, as long as it's to her benefit and convenience.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


IKR? Even after they had their talk about R, the very next day she was visibly excited to see her OM, but only changed her mind after she found out her husband was the main contributor for her mother's med equipment. In the movie, the OM felt guilty and took his wedding ring out of his drawer and put it back on, then avoided the WW. IRL, OM would have made even more of a push on the WW and the WW would not have changed her mind because she's already so emotionally attached to OM. Her BH using his life savings to buy her parents med equipment would not have mattered to her. All that would matter to her would be her OM.


----------



## Ingalls (Mar 7, 2012)

mahike said:


> I am not sure about what your situation was but I would imagine that would be difficult to deal with.
> 
> The biggest challenge for a couple in R is not to sweep things under the rug. I get to point once in awhile asking myself why am I dealing with this crap. I know that I want to get past this and move forward and to get past this there is going to be pain for both of us to deal with. I am not saying this movie is the answer for anyone. As I said there is to much crap in an affiar and a beat up marriage to deal with in a 2 hour movie.


Oh we are the King and Queen of Rug Sweeping. But not anymore as we are trying to confront, deal, and learn to communicate. I'm still not great tho-are there any RSA classes out there? jk-MC is working except she threw me off with her opinion on porn so maybe we will be to another??? but otherwise I really like her-we just don't share the same opinion and this topic I'm very sensitive too.

After reading these threads porn must be a topic in this movie? So maybe I REALLY don't need to watch yet.


----------



## hurtingbadly (Sep 14, 2011)

So the consensus here is don't watch it with WS. MIL can shove it. That movie she gave us is going in the trash unopened. She saw it and she knew it would make me feel bad.


----------



## Ingalls (Mar 7, 2012)

hurtingbadly said:


> So the consensus here is don't watch it with WS. MIL can shove it. That movie she gave us is going in the trash unopened. She saw it and she knew it would make me feel bad.


I just figured out MIL (mother in law)....I know family members and friends mean well with their advice, help, love, time and support. HOWEVER, I have found those who are closest to me don't know what I need. They have their own opinions and BC they are close to me feel like I should receive their opinions all day/every day! 

Kinda like all these threads, I have to figure out my own choice and make it. Your MIL meant well no doubt so no disrespect to ya'll.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

lordmayhem said:


> IKR? Even after they had their talk about R, the very next day she was visibly excited to see her OM, but only changed her mind after she found out her husband was the main contributor for her mother's med equipment. In the movie, the OM felt guilty and took his wedding ring out of his drawer and put it back on, then avoided the WW. IRL, OM would have made even more of a push on the WW and the WW would not have changed her mind because she's already so emotionally attached to OM. Her BH using his life savings to buy her parents med equipment would not have mattered to her. All that would matter to her would be her OM.


Oh, I think that, as portrayed on the movie, she would have quite happily adopted the role of cake eater, having gotten her husband to buy back her attentions (as opposed to her affections), while keeping Dr Feelgood on the side. As you say, though, Dr Feelgood would more realistically step up his pursuit of this lovely woman, knowing his risk of her trying to derail his own cake eating is now minimalized. The supposedly happy ending in the movie is just plain bad writing. At the risk of being accused of attacking an entire religion again, I've seen this type of writing before. In a creative writing class I took in high school, a classmate would write these terrific character pieces...the characters and their various crises, both personal and large scale, virtually came to life, so infused with realism were they. Yet they all ended the same way: the protagonist would have a religious epiphany and *poof* their problems would disappear. He was a great guy and had an uncanny talent for presenting wonderfully descriptive and engrossing prose, but was seemingly locked into that same stock ending that would more often than not be at odds with the rest of the piece. I remember one particular story...had all of us in the classroom on the edge of our seats. It was a character study of a man who, as the piece progressed, we learn is a werewolf. He struggles against his nature...feels remorse for his half-remembered actions when he returns to human form. The character's pain and anguish was palpable...and then he saw the full figure of Christ, felt redemption, and was no longer a werewolf. The end.

Sloppy, sloppy writing. And it's not that stories with a religious perspective have a lock on that. But, a story can have religious over- and undertones without being clumsy, lazy and heavy-handed about it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Then you "get" incorrectly. While I will readily agree I don't see much about ANY organized religion that's worthwhile, I don't "hate all things Christian."


If you want to argue that you're not hostile to Christianity because you're hostile to all religion, then you are agreeing that you are hostile to Christianity.



Grayson said:


> My comment you quoted was, in fact, exactly what it was...further commentary extrapolating future events for the characters in the movie, based upon their characterizations and actions as established in the movie, while applying both logic and the patterns of behavior we see all too frequently on this board.


Your comment seemed to be nothing more than Christian bashing.



Grayson said:


> Or is it your suggestion that the wife, proven by the movie, to be a lying, cheating, manipulating person swayed more by materialism, is immune to continuing that behavior simply because she became born-again?


I wouldn't contend that. And I don't think the movie argued that, either. The movie would probably argue that committed Christians are less likely to cheat, and thus divorce. I think that is a reasonable and accurate statement.



Grayson said:


> And, yes...it included editorial commentary on, not a religion as a whole, but a specific (and quite vocal) high-profile practitioner and self-appointed spokesperson for his religion, who not coincidentally, is the star of the movie in question. That editorial commentary even concedes that, as far as can be seen, this individual is neither a liar nor cheater, as he is at least honest enough to openly spew his hate-filled bigotry on national television on a program not aimed solely/primarily at an audience necessarily predisposed to agree with him.


Cameron's statements on homosexuality are congruent with Christian theology, and the theology of most of the world's major religions. So we're back to religion bashing on a topic that wasn't even broached in the movie.



Grayson said:


> Here, though, I think we see an example of something concerning the movie that's been percolating in my mind this morning. We've seen in this thread differing perceptions of some elements of the movie that went unclarified, and yet important developments of the plot hinged upon these points. I wonder if that's a flaw based upon the movie being produced to, almost literally, preach to the choir...that the principal audience is expected to share the same fundamental beliefs as the producers. Thus, we have a nebulous "use" of porn and stated intent to do so again (in the face of a wife withholding sex) as an act so inherently heinous as to instigate divorce and also to automatically be considered an "addiction."


I think you're onto something here. Many Christians, both mainstream and evangelical, view porn as a mortal sin for men in marriage. And they would argue that there should be zero tolerance for it. I think most would stop short of explicitly saying porn justifies an affair. However, many will skirt the issue leaving the justification implicitly in place.



Grayson said:


> I mean, if commentary on the movie (and its star) based upon the movie itself and the existence of real people and actions is proof of "hatred of all things Christian," then it seems like one of the movie's biggest flaws is that it's like the tree on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back...what you find inside is what you take in with you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think you're onto something here as well. If I criticize the TV show Hogan's Heroes based upon the star's off-screen sexual practices, then my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of my criticism. Even if Cameron were a divorced man, you would be more justified in using his off-screen behavior as a criticism of his on-screen character's behavior. However, I still fail to see the connection. I wouldn't criticize Christopher Reeve for portraying Superman because Reeve wasn't actually able to fly in real life.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> If you want to argue that you're not hostile to Christianity because you're hostile to all religion, then you are agreeing that you are hostile to Christianity.


Considering that's not what I said, I'll leave you to argue points that weren't made.



> Your comment seemed to be nothing more than Christian bashing.


You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But if stating a simple fact - namely, that there are bad people in the world who are also "born-again" - and extrapolating that, based upon her behavior as seen on screen, the wife in the movie could very well be one of them is "nothing more than Christian bashing," I'm afraid that I can't help you.



> I wouldn't contend that. And I don't think the movie argued that, either. The movie would probably argue that committed Christians are less likely to cheat, and thus divorce. I think that is a reasonable and accurate statement.


Which would, based upon the events of the movie, invite the counter argument that this isn't what the movie presented...that it wasn't commitment to faith that "saved" the marriage, but that the husband found his estranged wife's (literal) price/



> Cameron's statements on homosexuality are congruent with Christian theology, and the theology of most of the world's major religions. So we're back to religion bashing on a topic that wasn't even broached in the movie.


Never said that it was broached in the movie. Rather, in the context of my comment that you took exception to, it was a concrete example of the concept that had just been presented - that it's possible to be "born-again" and not be a terribly nice or good person. Said specific example was, fortuitously, able to be made using the star of the movie.



> I think you're onto something here. Many Christians, both mainstream and evangelical, view porn as a mortal sin for men in marriage. And they would argue that there should be zero tolerance for it. I think most would stop short of explicitly saying porn justifies an affair. However, many will skirt the issue leaving the justification implicitly in place.


And, that is most certainly the implication put forth by the movie. Which, if I may invoke Cameron's off-screen activities again, a mindset that would seem to inform the production of the movie since, as I've mentioned, he had a co-star (who, by all accounts, was a popular addition to his hit sitcom) fired for appearing in Playboy. If he carried the clout as a teenager on a sitcom to have someone fired for being naked in a magazine, it would stand to reason that, in his current role within the evangelical Christian entertainment sub-industry, he has the clout to enforce such viewpoints in this film, as well.



> I think you're onto something here as well. If I criticize the TV show Hogan's Heroes based upon the star's off-screen sexual practices, then my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of my criticism. Even if Cameron were a divorced man, you would be more justified in using his off-screen behavior as a criticism of his on-screen character's behavior. However, I still fail to see the connection. I wouldn't criticize Christopher Reeve for portraying Superman because Reeve wasn't actually able to fly in real life.


Of course, since I DIDN'T use his off-screen behavior to criticize his character's onscreen behavior, I'll again leave you to debate points never made. Instead, I will simply reiterate that my reference to his off-screen life was used as a real-life example that there are indeed born-again Christians who aren't entirely honorable, as it applies to the notion that the wife's "born-again" status at the end of the movie doesn't preclude her from continuing her cheating ways.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rundown (Mar 21, 2012)

mahike said:


> Our MC asked us to watch Fireproof. This was tough for me to watch. Some of the fights seemed like us word for word. They touched on an EA that sent my blood pressure off the scale.
> 
> We were supposed to watch it together but I cannot watch a movie that even touches on an affiar with my wife.
> 
> Anyone else watch it? What did you take away from it.


This movie made me sick to my stomach. The only thing I got from it was, it's not ok to get your needs met by watching porn but it is just fine to get them met through an EA. Hell of a message to send.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But if stating a simple fact - namely, that there are bad people in the world who are also "born-again" - and extrapolating that, based upon her behavior as seen on screen, the wife in the movie could very well be one of them is "nothing more than Christian bashing," I'm afraid that I can't help you.


I'm really at a loss as to what you're arguing. Does being a born-again Christian guarantee that one will never again sin? Of course not. That point isn't argued in the movie, nor in any Christian church in existence. I don't know why you're using such a ridiculous standard to bash the movie.



Grayson said:


> Which would, based upon the events of the movie, invite the counter argument that this isn't what the movie presented...that it wasn't commitment to faith that "saved" the marriage, but that the husband found his estranged wife's (literal) price/


I think that criticism is fair. I'm sure the producers didn't intend to present that picture. I'm sure they wanted to show a couple guided through a crisis by faith. But I agree that a more cynical conclusion can certainly be drawn.



Grayson said:


> Never said that it was broached in the movie. Rather, in the context of my comment that you took exception to, it was a concrete example of the concept that had just been presented - that it's possible to be "born-again" and not be a terribly nice or good person. Said specific example was, fortuitously, able to be made using the star of the movie.


You're arguing that nice and good people must approve of homosexuality. That is not a given.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I'm really at a loss as to what you're arguing. Does being a born-again Christian guarantee that one will never again sin? Of course not. That point isn't argued in the movie, nor in any Christian church in existence. I don't know why you're using such a ridiculous standard to bash the movie.


Context, my friend, context.

My post that has you so up in arms was in direct response (thus the quoting of it) to this post of omega's:

_ah yes but you forget - she's now a born-again Christian and therefore ...fireproof! (my a$$)_

My own post was a continuation of this thought. (Notice that, after quoting omega's post, I begin with, "Mine too.") That thought, of course, being that the wife's "born-again" status does not, in fact, make her "fireproof" as the film's producers would presumably have the audience believe.



> You're arguing that nice and good people must approve of homosexuality. That is not a given.


And you're continuing to argue points that I didn't make. I would, however, say that, generally speaking, nice and good people don't go on national television espousing hate speech, don't run from invitations to discuss and debate their inflammatory rhetoric, nor do they force co-workers to be fired because they don't share your specific belief system.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> And you're continuing to argue points that I didn't make.


You deny arguing that honorable people must approve of homosexuality. Yet you condemn Cameron for dishonorable "hate speech" for stating his disapproval of homosexuality. Which is it? May honorable people disapprove of homosexuality? Or are you arguing that they may disapprove, as long as they are quiet about it?


----------



## hurtingbadly (Sep 14, 2011)

Ingalls said:


> I just figured out MIL (mother in law)....I know family members and friends mean well with their advice, help, love, time and support. HOWEVER, I have found those who are closest to me don't know what I need. They have their own opinions and BC they are close to me feel like I should receive their opinions all day/every day!
> 
> Kinda like all these threads, I have to figure out my own choice and make it. Your MIL meant well no doubt so no disrespect to ya'll.


I promise you my MIL means me no well.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> You deny arguing that honorable people must approve of homosexuality.


Indeed, I deny arguing that point because...I've not argued that point.



> Yet you condemn Cameron for dishonorable "hate speech" for stating his disapproval of homosexuality. Which is it? May honorable people disapprove of homosexuality? Or are you arguing that they may disapprove, as long as they are quiet about it?


You do a very good job of attempting to put words in my mouth by attempting to combine multiple related and semi-related statements into one, omitting portions of my statements, etc. but, I'm sorry, I won't be going after the straw men. I have, over the course of our current digression, stated that I view Cameron as an example of a born-again Christian who is "not terribly good or nice" as well as "*not entirely* honorable," as well as providing examples of various actions attributed to him that can be seen as fitting one or more of those descriptions. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that he had the strength of his convictions to go on national television and preach hate and intolerance, hoping to imply that I see some degree of honor there. I've also called him unprofessional, except in the strictest sense of the word. Will you now claim that I've characterized everyone who is zealous in their religious beliefs as unprofessional?

Of course, by choosing to focus on only one example of his actions to apply to all of the descriptors that I used, one can make a valiant attempt to try to spin my statements in a different direction than my actual words and context would indicate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Indeed, I deny arguing that point because...I've not argued that point.


Now you're arguing semantics. You have repeatedly condemned Cameron for his disapproval of homosexuality. Whether you choose to phrase his actions as being a little bit dishonorable, or a lot dishonorable, or entirely dishonorable, or hateful, or just not being nice, or whatever words you want to use is beside the point. I reject the notion that, on homosexuality, approval is the only acceptable (or honorable, or nice) viewpoint.

As to the issue of wanting his costar fired for posing nude, I'm not all that concerned. Morals clauses are standard fare in contracts in the entertainment industry, as well as many others. If you believe that entertainers should be free to behave immorally, that's your opinion. There are others who believe otherwise. If you again insist that your opinion is the only one that is acceptable, then I suggest you learn to be tolerant of others who have different beliefs.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> Now you're arguing semantics. You have repeatedly condemned Cameron for his disapproval of homosexuality. Whether you choose to phrase his actions as being a little bit dishonorable, or a lot dishonorable, or entirely dishonorable, or hateful, or just not being nice, or whatever words you want to use is beside the point. I reject the notion that, on homosexuality, approval is the only acceptable (or honorable, or nice) viewpoint.


Speaking of arguing semantics, you're continuing to apply a single example of his actions to all of the descriptors, and I'm still not falling for the straw man, nor will I repeat what I've already said, when you can just scroll back up to see it.



> As to the issue of wanting his costar fired for posing nude, I'm not all that concerned. Morals clauses are standard fare in contracts in the entertainment industry, as well as many others. If you believe that entertainers should be free to behave immorally, that's your opinion.


I'm fully aware of so-called morals clauses such as you describe. It would seem that the producers of the show had no problem with her posing until their teen heartthrob cash cow raised a stink about it. Cameron himself has confirmed that it was upon his insistence that she was fired. He was not her employer, was not a producer on the show nor a network executive. He was, however, in a position to say (in essence), "What she did in her off hours goes against my personal beliefs, and unless you fire her, I'm going to take my ball and go home."

And that's without going into the larger issue of whether or not appearing in a state of undress is, in fact, "immoral."



> There are others who believe otherwise. If you again insist that your opinion is the only one that is acceptable, then I suggest you learn to be tolerant of others who have different beliefs.


Once again, arguing points I haven't made. And quite ironic to defend someone's intolerance by saying one should be tolerant of that intolerance. If Cameron has the right to be intolerant of an entire group of people because of his beliefs, wouldn't I likewise have the right to be intolerant of his actions? Conversely, if you feel that I must be told to be tolerant of Cameron's views if they differ from my own, should you not also expect him (or should I not expect you) to behave that same way?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

And, congratulations to us both for making a mountain out of a contextual molehill and thoroughly derailing a thread about what a horrible, problem-laden piece I excrement this movie was, by choosing to nitpick a single post taken out of context.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CantSitStill (Feb 7, 2012)

Yeah really...bla bla so who cares who likes Mr. Kirk.. how about this movie? Well I gonna watch it soon..Hubby has chosen not to from what he read on this thread that it's about an EA. Weird how we watched it years ago but don't really remember it. Alls I have to say about you little debate is.. Christians do bad things too and one of them bad things is the way they are always judging others and their behavior.. As a Christian I say let God deal with it...we are to love others and well I have told people in my church about my EA..lol my feeling is..let them judge me because if they do well then God will be judging them even harsher.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Speaking of arguing semantics, you're continuing to apply a single example of his actions to all of the descriptors, and I'm still not falling for the straw man, nor will I repeat what I've already said, when you can just scroll back up to see it.


I'm not inventing a straw man. You're the one who brought up Cameron's views on homosexuality. You're the one who called Cameron's views a variety of disparaging things and accused him of "hate speech." And you've done it multiple times. And now, by arguing that you haven't actually done these things, it's unclear whether you want to stand by your statements, back away from them, or just change the subject so we don't actually know what your views are.



Grayson said:


> I'm fully aware of so-called morals clauses such as you describe. It would seem that the producers of the show had no problem with her posing until their teen heartthrob cash cow raised a stink about it. Cameron himself has confirmed that it was upon his insistence that she was fired. He was not her employer, was not a producer on the show nor a network executive. He was, however, in a position to say (in essence), "What she did in her off hours goes against my personal beliefs, and unless you fire her, I'm going to take my ball and go home."


That's the way most morals clauses are enforced. It's only after the outcry that the employers enforce the clause. And the agents of the outcry vary. Sometimes churches gin up protest. Sometimes interest groups do. Sometimes fellow employees do it. It doesn't really interest me.

I don't view Cameron's insistence of working with women who haven't posed nude as any different than another actor insisting on having German beer in his dressing room. The producers of the show had a choice of complying with his demands, or doing the show without him.



Grayson said:


> And quite ironic to defend someone's intolerance by saying one should be tolerant of that intolerance.


No more ironic than saying that your own intolerance is the only intolerance that should be tolerated.



Grayson said:


> If Cameron has the right to be intolerant of an entire group of people because of his beliefs, wouldn't I likewise have the right to be intolerant of his actions?


Yes. But you shouldn't try to disguise your views as tolerance. Cameron disapproves of posing nude and homosexuality. You approve of those things. It's fine to disagree. But it's disingenuous to say that Cameron is intolerant and hateful when what you really mean to say is that he is intolerant and hateful of the wrong things.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> And, congratulations to us both for making a mountain out of a contextual molehill and thoroughly derailing a thread about what a horrible, problem-laden piece I excrement this movie was, by choosing to nitpick a single post taken out of context.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The irony is that we each dislike the movie. Just for different reasons.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CantSitStill said:


> Alls I have to say about you little debate is.. Christians do bad things too and one of them bad things is the way they are always judging others and their behavior.. As a Christian I say let God deal with it...we are to love others and well I have told people in my church about my EA..lol my feeling is..let them judge me because if they do well then God will be judging them even harsher.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The Bible does not say that people are not to judge others. It does say not to judge unfairly. But there are many verses in both the Old and New Testaments where people are urged not to tolerate sinful people. In 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul writes, "But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I'm not inventing a straw man. You're the one who brought up Cameron's views on homosexuality. You're the one who called Cameron's views a variety of disparaging things and accused him of "hate speech." And you've done it multiple times. And now, by arguing that you haven't actually done these things, it's unclear whether you want to stand by your statements, back away from them, or just change the subject so we don't actually know what your views are.


And right there is the straw man.

I've referenced Cameron's views on homosexuality (or, more specifically, the manner in which he's expressed it) as one of several examples of traits that are, this time let's say less than admirable. If you'd like me to stop giving you credit for being savvy enough to draw the lines yourself, I'd characterize espousing hate speech as an example of my descriptor of "not terribly nice or good." His refusal to back up his comments with further debate and discussion when invited to do so as well as his forcing his co-star to be ousted is where I see him as being "not entirely honorable."



> That's the way most morals clauses are enforced. It's only after the outcry that the employers enforce the clause. And the agents of the outcry vary. Sometimes churches gin up protest. Sometimes interest groups do. Sometimes fellow employees do it. It doesn't really interest me.


Truthfully, it interest me only inasmuch as it's one of the first recorded example, in this individual's case, of him (over?)zealously allowing his beliefs to cause him to exert an undue influence on someone simply for not subscribing to his same belief system. Reading up a bit more in the past day or so on the incident, the actress in question identifies herself then and now as a practicing Catholic. Now, one can make a play on words that she needs more practice if she saw no conflict between her faith and posing nude.



> I don't view Cameron's insistence of working with women who haven't posed nude as any different than another actor insisting on having German beer in his dressing room.


I do see a difference there. Aside from the insistence on a certain food or beverage in the dressing room not impacting someone already working on the show (Cameron had no qualms about working with her or the quality of her work, apparently, as he voiced no complaints prior to her posing), nothing that she did disrupted the production. It was, in fact, Cameron's actions - insisting she be fired, demanding content changes to "sanitize" a show that co-star Alan Thicke described as "about as pablum as it gets" when ultimately suggesting to Cameron that perhaps he would be better suited to working on specifically Christian projects if the show's content now bothered him so much, refusing to fully do his job and portray an unmarried teenager by removing his wedding ring - that disrupted production. But, as you say...



> The producers of the show had a choice of complying with his demands, or doing the show without him.


Indeed. His was the face on teen magazines, t-shirts and lunch boxes that was bringing them a pile of cash. They also had at least one other option: telling him to put on his big boy pants and do the job he was hired to do, while letting the rest of the cast and crew do the jobs they were hired to do. But, that big pile of cash spoke to the producers and, I'm sure, to Cameron, allowing him to use that financial leverage to force someone out of a job for doing something that didn't affect him in the least.



> No more ironic than saying that your own intolerance is the only intolerance that should be tolerated.


And we're back to crediting me with things I've not said. Never have I said that his intolerance (or, for that matter, any of the other actions attributed to him) aren't allowed. What I *have* said is that they are all indicative of traits that are generally perceived in a negative light, thus allowing him to serve the purpose I intended him to serve in the post we're talking about: as an example that being "born-again" as the wife (and husband) in the movie were in the end, does not make one above reproach or beyond the capability of performing acts that are selfish and impact others negatively.



> Yes. But you shouldn't try to disguise your views as tolerance.


I'm not trying to "disguise" anything.



> Cameron disapproves of posing nude and homosexuality. You approve of those things. It's fine to disagree. But it's disingenuous to say that Cameron is intolerant and hateful when what you really mean to say is that he is intolerant and hateful of the wrong things.


Straw men *and* mind reading. Quite a combination. I make no call on whether or not he "should" or "shouldn't" agree with my views. I simply put him forward as an example of someone who is "born again" yet still capable of behavior which is generally perceived as a negative, as hatred and intolerance generally are. Once again, it goes into the context of the statement I was originally responding to...that Fireproof's wife's status as born-again at movie's end doesn't, as the movie suggests, make her "fireproof."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> The irony is that we each dislike the movie. Just for different reasons.


Even more ironic...I think we dislike it for many of the SAME reasons, just not necessarily on the source of the flaws.

And, for some reason, you seem to take great exception to my use of the film's star as an appropriate example that one can be "born-again" and still capable of improper behavior. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CantSitStill (Feb 7, 2012)

really? this debate is going on and on and on and on..If the bible states not to have anything to do with these people.. why did Jesus eat with and talk with the sinners..like aren't people supposed to be welcoming the sinnners who need help not just those that think they are soo holy and flawless? I'm annoyed..sorry carry on and I won't bother ya'll anymore
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

CantSitStill said:


> If the bible states not to have anything to do with these people.. why did Jesus eat with and talk with the sinners..
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Heck...Billy Joel answered that one. The sinners are much more fun. Only the good die young. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TheGoodFight (Oct 26, 2011)

Ok, I was curious so I watched it on YouTube. Overall, it comes across as a low budget after school special IMO.

K Cameron's character comes across to me as a real ass in the beginning, but they don't really show what lead up to it so I don't know who started it. I know I've never had that kind of yelling back and forth in my marriage. At least not before the A.

As far as the porn thing being an addiction, well I wouldn't say it shows that, but his wife obviously doesn't like it and it seems to hurt her, so if I were him I'd quit doing it whether I agreeded with her or not.

She is definately in an EA with the doc which seems to make her totaly ignore her husband's attempts to repair things with her. As far as that goes, it's a Plan-A type of movie which I don't think would have done any good in real life. At the very least, the issue got swept under the rug and not resolved.

It does have a relegious message, which I don't mind, but I think if someone used that movie as a blueprint for how to save their marriage (while their spouse is already checked out and engaged in a "relationship" with another man) they are going to be disappointed with the real life results.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

Hooray! A religious debate on the Internet! When is Hitler going to get mentioned?


----------



## TheGoodFight (Oct 26, 2011)

Almostrecovered said:


> Hooray! A religious debate on the Internet! When is Hitler going to get mentioned?


I'm pretty sure Hitler was behind the film. Oh, and Obama probably had something to do with it too. And **** Cheney.


----------



## RWB (Feb 6, 2010)

After catching my wife cheating (years of PAs), our MC, preacher, family, and a close friend were all there offering "wisdom and advice"... about as much help as a umbrella in a hurricane.

A young couple recently married had taken a FireProofing class and offered the video to us... as in here is the magic potion, make you all better now (being patted on top of head). 

What a crock of unrealistic Hollywood BS all tied up neatly in an hour and 20 minutes. To marriage that has already been destroyed by infidelity just a plain waste of time.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Almostrecovered said:


> Hooray! A religious debate on the Internet! When is Hitler going to get mentioned?


Honestly? I considered throwing him in there to maybe derail the derailing. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Grayson said:


> And, for some reason, you seem to take great exception to my use of the film's star as an appropriate example that one can be "born-again" and still capable of improper behavior. ;-)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And I see that, over the weekend, we've come full circle. You originally accused Cameron of improper behavior. You also used the words bigoted, dishonorable, reprehensible, and hateful. You listed, as examples of such behavior, things that are congruent with Christian theology and that tens of millions of people in this country see as unobjectionable. When I pointed that out, you engaged in some rhetorical arm-waving, only to come back to your original point.

You consider Christian behavior, such as disapproval of homosexuality, to be improper. You are not alone. But neither are the Christians who view homosexuality as improper behavior.

I'll leave the thread now before Grayson gets kicked off on another round of futile justification of why his Christian bashing shouldn't really be seen as Christian bashing, only to come back around to Christian bashing in the end.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CantSitStill said:


> really? this debate is going on and on and on and on..If the bible states not to have anything to do with these people.. why did Jesus eat with and talk with the sinners..like aren't people supposed to be welcoming the sinnners who need help not just those that think they are soo holy and flawless? I'm annoyed..sorry carry on and I won't bother ya'll anymore
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Paul's admonition to the Corinthians is specifically about associating with people who claim to be Christian while engaging in sin. He doesn't say that Christians can't sin, then repent, be forgiven, and be welcomed in the Church. And he doesn't say that Christians can't associate with the unfaithful in an effort to spread the Word. That's what Jesus did.

But Paul did say that, if one of the members in your church is cheating on his wife, or stealing money, stop hanging out with him. Don't passively stand by and implicitly approve of sinful behavior in the name of not being judgmental. That is not what Jesus did.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> And I see that, over the weekend, we've come full circle. You originally accused Cameron of improper behavior. You also used the words bigoted, dishonorable, reprehensible, and hateful. You listed, as examples of such behavior, things that are congruent with Christian theology and that tens of millions of people in this country see as unobjectionable. When I pointed that out, you engaged in some rhetorical arm-waving, only to come back to your original point.


Espousing hate is congruent with Christian theology?
Having a co-worker fired because she did something outside work that you don't agree with which was neither illegal nor against your employer's policies is congruent with Christian theology?
Refusing to do the job you were hired to do as you are expected to do it is congruent with Christian theology?
Forcing other co-workers to change the content of their work is congruent with Christian theology?



> You consider Christian behavior, such as disapproval of homosexuality, to be improper. You are not alone. But neither are the Christians who view homosexuality as improper behavior.


I've never said otherwise, now, have I?

But, based upon your objections to my use of the film's star as an example, the logical conclusion to draw is that you believe that, simply because an individual or group strongly believes in particular tenets of their religion, it is impossible for such behavior to, ultimately, be negative behavior. By extension, that means that, as such a concept applies to the movie that this thread is really about, then Cameron's character literally buying back his wife's attention and her claiming to have found religion as a result means that she really, really means it, and they all lived happily ever after, because she couldn't possibly be capable of doing anything remotely wrong.



> I'll leave the thread now before Grayson gets kicked off on another round of futile justification of why his Christian bashing shouldn't really be seen as Christian bashing, only to come back around to Christian bashing in the end.


If you truly feel that voicing objections to a single person's publicly documented actions is "Christian bashing," I'd say it most certainly is well past the time to end this thread-jacking digression. Heck...it's long past that time anyway. But, you can be sure that as long as what I've said is mischaracterized, I will continue to respond.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

so about Hitler...


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Almostrecovered said:


> so about Hitler...


Maybe if I do go ahead and make the reference, it will put a double-tap to the head of the digression (that I will be the first to agree was blown WAAAAY out of proportion. Really? A couple of pages on whether or not Kirk frakkin' Cameron is an acceptable example of the point being made about the wife in the movie?). I'm tempted to try, just to see.... ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

