One Less Anti-TV vote? WD Presybter leaves UPC?

Originally Posted by vrblackwell

When the resolution was sent to a committee it was killed. There is no more res. 6. The committee does not make the decision. There must be another resolution put in.

Quite true. I heard that from KH himself.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's called a slippery slope logical fallacy. Maybe we should preach against radio and internet too if that is the case.

Slippery slope fallacy? Have you read "A Christian Manifesto" by Shaeffer, "Future Shock" by Toffler, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Bork, "The Vanishing Word" by Hunt? Not to mention the Bible. There are numerous examples of people accepting, as Shaeffer points out, what was once unthinkable, because of the gradual steps leading to such acceptance.

It goes like this:

1. Something unthinkable to the majority of us is mentioned; it produces shock, outrage, etc. But it is talked about.
2. The talking causes people to consider the various sides of the argument. Points are made on the various sides.
3. What was once "unthinkable" is therefore thought about; but we'd never do it!
4. Now that the "shock" of the thought has worn off; we become desensitized to the thought. More debate, arguement and consideration leads some to think it's okay.
4. What was once unthinkable becomes thinkable.
5. What is thinkable, becomes doable.

It happens all the time. Read "The Marketing of Evil" by Kupelian and you'll see many recent examples in our society. It's already had its influence in the church.

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

National elections have implications that only last for a few years as the man moves on or the Brethern elect someone else. Resolutions and Amendments to By-laws are long term and should not be taken lightly at all.

How very true.

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

The UPC will most likely have a split in the next 5 years anyway, so why not get it out of the way now.

Why do neocons feel the need to dictate their ultra con standards and doctrine to ~everyone~ in the organization? Why must ~everyone~ follow their standards or go to hell?

It irritates me that neocons are this way. They can't just be content to be who they are. They have this ridiculous mission to try and change everyone to think and follow how they do.

This shouldn't even be up for debate or vote at Conference. This should be an issue each individual church chooses or not for themselves.

Neocons ask "where will it end?" if the television resolution is passed . . . the real question should be "where will it end?" if this resolution isn't passed. What's next? Are the neocons going to become emboldened and try to pass more resolutions dictating what standards of dress are or are not acceptable.

Will wedding rings and watches be next up for a resolution banning the use or wearing? What about colored dress shirts on the platform?

Sounds ridiculous, but it's a neocon dream.

I'm incredulous at the logic that you use. Conservative brethren are not trying to change ANYTHING. they are trying to keep others from changing things. We've voted multiple times on this issue and it's failed every time. The same minority tries continually to bring it up again and again to impose THEIR WILL on everyone else. To quote from the recent book "Television Advertising, Televangelism & the United Pentecostal Church...A Good Idea?":

"Our Fundimental Doctrine, as outlined in the Manual of the UPCI, ends with this statement: 'We shall endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that thay should not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.' Brethren, please pardon my boldness, but bringing up the issue of advertising and ministering on television repeatedly every few years when it has been consistently voted down each time is, to me, an example of brethren contending for their different views to the disunity of the body. There does not seem to be a more devisive issue among us!"

I couldn't agree more.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by AGAPE

audio? sure
video? no

why not??

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by ChicagoPastor

C'mon...you know regardless of what happens with this resolution you can always preach against or in favor of whatever you want. The UPC will never tell you to stop preaching against TV, if it passes.
If that is the way the UPC handled stuff, I wouldn't have to keep 4 plain button white dress shirts in the back of my closet for when I visit my ultra-con friends. We wouldn't have churches in favor of wedding rings and then some preaching against them. We wouldn't have half the churches using grape juice and the other half wine. It will become another grey area where you as the Pastor can make the decision for your local church....just like every other rule in the UPC

Originally Posted by warrior81680

A post worthy of bumping.

Thanks, HP2!

"Bumping?" As in bumping off? I'm a little new to web-related jargon. Can you enlighten me? Thanks.

[warrior81680]

Originally Posted by HappyPastor2

"Bumping?" As in bumping off? I'm a little new to web-related jargon. Can you enlighten me? Thanks.

Bumping a post simply means you want it to get "bumped" back to the top so that it stays on the first page, thus making it more likely that others will read it.

If a poster posted something he/she thought needed to be read or commented on and thought it was passed over, they will "bump" it themselves, looking for a response.

I simply though you had a good post and exhibited a good attitude with it and I wanted others to have a chance to read it.

Have found much substance in all of your posts, BTW.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

JTullock, are you UPC licensed?

No, my former pastor would not allow people in his church to have a license. There were others that he allowed to obatin a license, but not I. Not that it really matters too much to me. It was all for the best, because with all that is/has gone on I would have to turn it in anyway.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I think the figures are wrong as far as how many the McCool church runs. I have been there when I lived in Knoxville a little over a year ago, and I personally do not think the church can seat over 600, and the times I was there it had plenty of seats empty.

Can I tell you that you are wrong and you not get mad? I was apart of that church for about 20 yrs. The last 5 I have been back and forth to AZ. I can tell you this that they are building a new sanctuary that will seat 1200-1500 people. Wednesday is a smaller service. But Sundays are packed. I know that if everyone shows up there at one time for the same service there would not be enough seats. The sanctuary sits about 700 with the balcony, I believe. But unless the church had a GREAT falling away then I believe you are wrong. They may not run 900, but they are every bit of 800+. What is your name maybe I know you?