Chester Wright's Letter to the UPC!!!!!

[Hesetmefree238]

I believe it is a good article. As he said, if the resolution is passed it is not going to make anyone preach or advertise on television that does not want to.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I couldn't get it to open up.

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Because it is silly to think there are major consequences to others if a sister church advertises on TV or not.

If one church wishes to, and another does not - who cares? Some react as if something was being forced upon them.....


IMHO

The problem is that if Resolution 6 passes, then the issue IS indeed being forced on those who oppose it since they will not be forced to comply by headquarters, but by members from other churches who will likely pressure members of churches who are against the measure.
This will not likely be direct, but it will certainly be there.
Further, it will open a pandora's box of issues such as what is truly godly. Those who are for it already ask that question. It has caused great division.
Finally, UPCI has always stood against it. To change that stance would mean an admission that they were wrong for all of those years. I think that would be a travesty.

If those who want this to happen truly want it, then why are they calling us divisive who are opposed? We didn't bring it up or try to push it. They did. The division has come from their camp.

It would have been more godly on their part to have removed themselves for the sake of unity (which would have been a godly response) instead of fomenting the rebellion that is amongst the ranks.
JMO
NI

[CC1]

Originally Posted by NobodyImportant

The problem is that if Resolution 6 passes, then the issue IS indeed being forced on those who oppose it since they will not be forced to comply by headquarters, but by members from other churches who will likely pressure members of churches who are against the measure.
This will not likely be direct, but it will certainly be there.
Further, it will open a pandora's box of issues such as what is truly godly. Those who are for it already ask that question. It has caused great division.
Finally, UPCI has always stood against it. To change that stance would mean an admission that they were wrong for all of those years. I think that would be a travesty.

If those who want this to happen truly want it, then why are they calling us divisive who are opposed? We didn't bring it up or try to push it. They did. The division has come from their camp.

It would have been more godly on their part to have removed themselves for the sake of unity (which would have been a godly response) instead of fomenting the rebellion that is amongst the ranks.
JMO
NI

The sentance I highlighted is one of the main problems with old time Pentecost. They can never admit anything they have ever done or any stance they have ever taken was wrong or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Originally Posted by CC1

The sentance I highlighted is one of the main problems with old time Pentecost. They can never admit anything they have ever done or any stance they have ever taken was wrong or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

I understand where you are coming from, but may I add something here?
To say that something always preached against is now okay is to say that you are now a hypocrite. Certainly not a viable stance.
Also, IMO it is still something that doesn't belong in the home.
Consider:
III VIOLENCE
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000 (!)
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000 (!)
Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79
There are a number of other stats that show the detrimental effect of tv.
If we are to set no wicked thing before our eyes, how can we condone tv?

It displays:
nudity
murder
homosexuality
promiscuity
alcoholism
drug addiction
This list could be astronomically larger.

NI

[rrford]

Originally Posted by CC1

The sentance I highlighted is one of the main problems with old time Pentecost. They can never admit anything they have ever done or any stance they have ever taken was wrong or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

In some cases I would agree. But at times changing a stance is not necessarily the same saying "We were wrong." Sometimes it is simply stating that things have changed and so are we.

[Thad]

Originally Posted by NobodyImportant

I understand where you are coming from, but may I add something here?
To say that something always preached against is now okay is to say that you are now a hypocrite. Certainly not a viable stance.
Also, IMO it is still something that doesn't belong in the home.
Consider:
III VIOLENCE
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000 (!)
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000 (!)
Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79
There are a number of other stats that show the detrimental effect of tv.
If we are to set no wicked thing before our eyes, how can we condone tv?

It displays:
nudity
murder
homosexuality
promiscuity
alcoholism
drug addiction
This list could be astronomically larger.

NI

that's all true. no one should argue against that but what about the internet and the problem related to porn and child molestation???
are you equally alarmed about that ?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by NobodyImportant

I understand where you are coming from, but may I add something here?
To say that something always preached against is now okay is to say that you are now a hypocrite. Certainly not a viable stance.
Also, IMO it is still something that doesn't belong in the home.
Consider:
III VIOLENCE
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000 (!)
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000 (!)
Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79
There are a number of other stats that show the detrimental effect of tv.
If we are to set no wicked thing before our eyes, how can we condone tv?

It displays:
nudity
murder
homosexuality
promiscuity
alcoholism
drug addiction
This list could be astronomically larger.

NI

All things you can find on the internet for free, including porn, child porn, adult males pretending to be a teen friend to your young daughter, how to make bombs, beheadings by Islamic Terrorists....and more, much more

Originally Posted by Thad

that's all true. no one should argue against that but what about the internet and the problem related to porn and child molestation???
are you equally alarmed about that ?

There is a whole lot of difference between the two.
For me to go to a porn site, I have to decide to do it. It doesn't happen by accident.
For someone to view something digusting on tv, one need only channel surf and they will see it regardless of whether they intend to or not.
This argument is so worn and thin that it really doesn't have much merit since the two mediums are vastly different.
Also, there are such things called internet filters to protect the accidental viewing of porn. Not available on tv as I recall.
NI

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by NobodyImportant

There is a whole lot of difference between the two.
For me to go to a porn site, I have to decide to do it. It doesn't happen by accident.
For someone to view something digusting on tv, one need only channel surf and they will see it regardless of whether they intend to or not.
This argument is so worn and thin that it really doesn't have much merit since the two mediums are vastly different.
Also, there are such things called internet filters to protect the accidental viewing of porn. Not available on tv as I recall.
NI

Uh, for me to go to a channel that displays the stuff you talked about, I have to decide to do it.

On the other hand knowing all that stuff is freely there can be a huge temptation for the average man, let alone teen and even women nowadays.

Filters can be thwarted. At home you can decide NOT to order channels that get porn at all