Resolution #4: What it's NOT About!!!!!!!! - Page 11

#**101** 09-13-2007, 03:57 PM

a television is an appliance. If I joined an organization that said I could not have a toaster oven, I would probably disregard that as an archaic rule that no longer applied... like those ones where you can get a ticket for chewing gum in public.

I believe the push/pull argument is false as well... it is not like you are logging into an FTP server and pulling one specific file down. You are subject to whatever content the website owner has published and any links or ads that might have been placed on the site.

When you open your browser and point to a URL, you might be pulling the data, but it is not a selective pull, you are pulling whatever happens to be out there on that particular website. Similar to switching to a certain channel on television and you are subject to whatever the "owner" of that channel decides to broadcast. I realize this is this is push vs. pull at a very high level, but in this scenario, I see absolutely no difference between the two.

StillStanding · #**102** 09-13-2007, 04:12 PM

Let's see if we can sort this out!

Reasons to BAN TV:

1. Bad words

The same words are spoken on the radio, so why isn't radio banned also?

2. Men and women dressed ungodly and promote sex

The same pictures are in magazines and on the internet, so why aren't they banned also?

3. Promotes an ungodly lifestyle

Billboards, magazines, newspapers, radio, and the internet do the same thing!

4. Takes away from family time together

The internet is worse, so why does it get a pass?

Note: I could go on and on with reasons NOT to watch TV, but in each case there will be another "approved" media that will have the same issues!

Just as we use wisdom as to what magazines to read, what radio stations to listen to, and what websites to visit, we can use godly wisdom as to what channels or programs to watch!

#**103** 09-13-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

I have a difficult time taking anybody seriously on this topic that hasn't read The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian. I highly recommend you read this book. Then consider, in light of the information revealed in Kupelian's book, the fact the the TV resolutions, while not affecting any regs about ministry or laity having TV in their homes, would by their very nature grant tacit approval to the partaking of television programming.

I don't have to read that book to know what it says... My generation already is fully aware of it (and its a large part of the reason that the Daily Show is slowly becoming the #1 news source in America... imagine that a show on Comedy Central = top news source?? Huh? Why? Because they're honest, any spin they do is to make fun of what is happening (and everyone knows exactly what the spin is))

and you don't grant any sort of approval to anything by owning a television...

mfblume · #**104** 09-13-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianoman

The internet is worse, so why does it get a pass?

Note: I could go on and on with reasons NOT to watch TV, but in each case there will be another "approved" media that will have the same issues!

I have noticed that the arguments for internet and against TV, by the same people, are actually an outcropping of simply defending an organization's position without conasidering whether the position is correct or not. Let's face it, they actually wrote in the preacher's magazine that banning internet IS TOO LATE. So they told people to be "Christian" and control it. In other words, had they caught it in time, internet would have been banned as much as TV.

Instead of banning the issue, they realized it was too late for that, so they SETTLED with being "Christian." Why not be "Christian" with everything? Or, why not ALWAYS put Being "Christian" above banning things? Was it implied that banning is preferable to teaching people how to be "Christian"? I think not, but what a hole to dig for oneself!

All the arguments against the TV by the same people who are for the internet are absolutely silly. But saying this will accomplish nothing as far as they are concerned. They simply will defend ANYTHING a group says, no matter if it is absurd or not.

StillStanding · #**105** 09-13-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have noticed that the arguments for internet and against TV, by the same people, are actually an outcropping of simply defending an organization's position without conasidering whether the position is correct or not. Let's face it, they actually wrote in the preacher's magazine that banning internet IS TOO LATE. So they told people to be "Christian" and control it. In other words, had they caught it in time, internet would have been banned as much as TV.

Instead of banning the issue, they realized it was too late for that, so they SETTLED with being "Christian." Why not be "Christian" with everything? Or, why not ALWAYS put Being "Christian" above banning things? Was it implied that banning is preferable to teaching people how to be "Christian"? I think not, but what a hole to dig for oneself!

All the arguments against the TV by the same people who are for the internet are absolutely silly. But saying this will accomplish nothing as far as they are concerned. They simply will defend ANYTHING a group says, no matter if it is absurd or not.

TV was banned in it's infant stage, and it's banning has become part of the DNA of the UPCI because it's been banned for so long. In fact, the TV banning has reached to the level of doctrine.

That is why it is the "line in the sand" for some. They feel that it's on the same level as abandoning the Apostolic Oneness doctrine. They can't seperate TV banning from oneness doctrine.

OP_Carl · #**106** 09-13-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

I don't have to read that book to know what it says...

There you have it folks.

oloroid

Even if I was making stuff up I couldn't top this!

lalalalalalala I'm not listening lalalala

All I can say is . . . WOW.

Hoovie · #**107** 09-13-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianoman

TV was banned in it's infant stage, and it's banning has become part of the DNA of the UPCI because it's been banned for so long. In fact, the TV banning has reached to the level of doctrine.

That is why it is the "line in the sand" for some. They feel that it's on the same level as abandoning the Apostolic Oneness doctrine. They can't seperate TV banning from oneness doctrine.

I am amazed at these types of statements. This tells me either you are way out of touch with current mainstream UPC beliefs and practice, or after 22+ years in the UPC I have yet to experience the "banning" that has reached the "level" of "doctrine".

The fact is, I think the vast majority of those attending a UPC have and watch some TV.

StillStanding · #**108** 09-13-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I am amazed at these types of statements. This tells me either you are way out of touch with current mainstream UPC beliefs and practice, or after 22+ years in the UPC I have yet to experience the "banning" that has reached the "level" of "doctrine".

I didn't mean to paint the whole organization that way! Sorry!

I believe that it is that way for those that are threatening to leave if the resolution passes!

Hoovie · #**109** 09-13-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I didn't mean to paint the whole organization that way! Sorry!

I believe that it is that way for those that are threatening to leave if the resolution passes!

OK then, we are speaking of a tiny minority.

#**110** 09-13-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianoman

TV was banned in it's infant stage, and it's banning has become part of the DNA of the UPCI because it's been banned for so long. In fact, the TV banning has reached to the level of doctrine.

That is why it is the "line in the sand" for some. They feel that it's on the same level as abandoning the Apostolic Oneness doctrine. They can't seperate TV banning from oneness doctrine.

WOW... I see I missed all the excitment on here today. TV was banned at it's infant stage and for good reason. When it was banned there were shows on like "I Love Lucy". Now all these liberals want TV in their homes to watch shows like "wife swap"? I'm sure this is edifying to your spirit. Oh... wait a minute, it can be used as an outreach tool. It's all about evagelism. I would say IMO that most of the people wanting to use TV as advertising are using that as just an excuse just so they can justify the lie they've been living. If it's only about advertising then why are there so many TV/movie threads on this forum. It's not about control. What makes me sick is that liberals hide behind this idea that "Cons have a bad spirit", this is just not true. I state a fact that a liar is backslidden and I get attacked? And who has the bad spirit?

Pianoman, TV is not oneness but it is a holiness issue to me. If the UPC leaves their stance on TV then IMO (backed up by the trend of other pentecostal movements) we will eventually lose all of our standards. Of course this would be just fine with many of the people on this forum but there are some people that still believe that the church should be called out and seperate from this world.