STARTLING! LARRY BOOKER'S Latest Message!!!(wait til you see this!!!)

[tv1a]

The Bible is based on principle. I know a number of people who do not need the internet to function. That is a fallacy. I don't need the internet at all. It is a convenience.

The Bible doesn't permit one to throw principle out the window because of a perceived necessity.

Unfortunately, principles were compromised for convenience. Does anyone really think the preachers on the forefront of the anti-television movement would be gung ho for the internet? Their integrity suggests they would be quicker to denounce the internet than they did television.

The legalists today who hijacked the conservative movement are more concerned about keeping unscriptural mandates as part of their identity than finding out what God really meant on their own.

Outside or inside, the inconsistency is there. If one is permitted to judge the internet on its own merit, than one should be given the same opportunity to judge wardrobe on its merit. We know the fryer will freeze over before that happens.

Perception is not the problem. Inconsistent application of principles is your source of trouble.

The television issue would have stayed dead in the upci if the upci used the same principle for the internet as they did for television.

If anyone reads the upci manual's resolution against television and their resolution for internet, one would almost think they are reading the same resolution. Except, television is a no-no. Internet is okay.

If the best argument you have for violating principle is I need the internet, than you never had a strong position to begin with. Legalism shows that people can be bought for the right price.

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

Decisions are not blanketed. From the outside, it can seem inconsistent, but in reality, the spiritual community has the right and duty to make decisions about things on their own merit. While the internet may have far worse potential, the issue is television, which has been settled long ago and is still not needed in the sanctuary of our homes. On to internet, there's such a day-to-day use in education, business, etc that you couldn't exist in society at all without one. So we encourage filters, accountability, computers in open places and not bedrooms, etc. It's not full proof of error, and yes many are wrecking their lives over this. But this does not resurrect the tv issue from the dead. It just means we need the Holy Ghost to give us wisdom in this ever-changing society that is leaning toward "Barbarism in the 21st Century" (another great LB message that someone sent me).

Too many are trying to appoint themselves as lawyers. In reality, these are humans making decisions that they feel are best for the community. If people don't like it, they can leave. In my church, and others that we fellowship with, the proof is in the pudding. And people love and appreciate the community. The antithesis to godly, Holiness preaching is not always ugly, power-hungry, legalistic, bitter, angry men. Believe it or not, sometimes there are men that truly love God and want what's best for his flock.

[tv1a]

I am not suggesting doing away with "law". Obviously there are some laws which are still relevant today. But the laws that are important to the legalists are not that important to God.

If you think sociologists had a problem with television, wait until you do research to see what they think about the internet.

Again it all applies to principle. If one medium is going to be banned because of potentially bad programming, than all media should be held accountable to the same standards. Legalists are unable to withstand biblical challenges.

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

tv - I've used that same scripture as a lesson point many times. But calling churches that have Apostolic growth, revival and where people are getting saved as legalists is a hard point to make. Legalism and deadness usually have the most in common.

True, Jesus was trying to break these newly-saved Jews away from their old mentality of extreme orthodoxy and traditions, but I'm quite confident my church is not a legalist church. The spirit of the law is important, but that does not extinguish the law. And in reality, when one buys into the community of believers, falls deeply in love with God, these "laws" are not ever thought of, just as a married man never has to consider his vows at the mall to remind him of his duty of faithfulness. He instinctly knows this and conducts himself out of love.

No matter where you stand on the TV issue, just know it's a matter of wisdom, with both sides calling the other foolish. I do not pretend to believe tv = sin, but I do see and agree that homes with television share a stark contrast with those homes that do not. The secular social scientists even tell us this for crying out loud. TV is a dinosaur issue for even them.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The Bible is based on principle. I know a number of people who do not need the internet to function. That is a fallacy. I don't need the internet at all. It is a convenience.

The Bible doesn't permit one to throw principle out the window because of a perceived necessity.

Unfortunately, principles were compromised for convenience. Does anyone really think the preachers on the forefront of the anti-television movement would be gung ho for the internet? Their integrity suggests they would be quicker to denounce the internet than they did television.

The legalists today who hijacked the conservative movement are more concerned about keeping unscriptural mandates as part of their identity than finding out what God really meant on their own.

Outside or inside, the inconsistency is there. If one is permitted to judge the internet on its own merit, than one should be given the same opportunity to judge wardrobe on its merit. We know the fryer will freeze over before that happens.

Perception is not the problem. Inconsistent application of principles is your source of trouble.

The television issue would have stayed dead in the upci if the upci used the same principle for the internet as they did for television.

If anyone reads the upci manual's resolution against television and their resolution for internet, one would almost think they are reading the same resolution. Except, television is a no-no. Internet is okay.

If the best argument you have for violating principle is I need the internet, than you never had a strong position to begin with. Legalism shows that people can be bought for the right price.

What ignorant bologna!

Consistency is the new obsession. Everything from banking, music, people who work in offices/schools, etc need internet to perform their job duties. That alone doesn't justify it. It just says there's some legitimate value in it and because of that needs to be treated differently. True it's dynamite. True it has capabilities far greater than tv. However, there are some neccessities and we can digress into an Amish world. I could get along just fine without tv. So, we need more wisdom by the Holy Ghost to guide us and protect our homes that have long been sanctuaries. May it continue. I'll pray for your home and you pray for mine.

Your allegations of legalism or in one ear out the other. Blah Blah Blah
It may have won you some arguments 2 years ago, but it's a tired argument. You throw that word around so loosely. There's no bondage here, brother. Absolute liberty in Christ!

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I am not suggesting doing away with "law". Obviously there are some laws which are still relevant today. But the laws that are important to the legalists are not that important to God.

If you think sociologists had a problem with television, wait until you do research to see what they think about the internet.

Again it all applies to principle. If one medium is going to be banned because of potentially bad programming, than all media should be held accountable to the same standards. Legalists are unable to withstand biblical challenges.

The scripture and verse ilk are the true legalists. You can't bear with the fact that some churches have made a decision on TV and leave it at that. You want to point out what others things have in common. You want to debate their decision or see them turn into an Amish sect, thus articulating what you really feel about them anyway.

Internet will have negative effects and we are, as you, following this as we go. The rampant use of porn, for example. But there is a necessity to exist in a 21st Century world and have a computer. It's not JUST convenience anymore. That could have been said 10 years ago MAYBE. So... we need wisdom. Computers in open rooms. Accountability. Blockers and ISP filters. Families setting standards for use, etc...

With your logic, I see your point. Obviously! TV is lesser in some ways, so how can you not want TV but you have internet. I've also tried my best to answer this for you. I pray we all make the right decision on the internet issue. So far, as is evidence of my post, our church family has made ours.

[tv1a]

There is a difference in the need for a computer and a need for the internet. The internet is not a need. The internet is a convenience. You can go to the bank, you can walk to the post office. You can buy a stamp. You can shop at the store.

I just watch the movie "Facing the Giants". The producers of the movie say they don't internet in their homes. They produced a christian film that was distributed to a secular audience, and they don't use the internet personally.

One can use spreadsheets, powerpoint, word processing, without using the internet. A computer may be needed, but the internet is not a necessisty. Don't try to lump computer use in with allowing access to the inernet.

There are amish who legalists. I live in an area with a healthy amish population. They don't drive, but they hire people with minivans to drive them to Wal-Mart. There are amish who build mobile homes, install electricity in homes, yet don't have a breaker box on the side of their house. Even amish people are guilty of looking for loopholes.

You are still making excuses for compromising principle. Why not allow people the same opportunity to put filters on televisions? The filtering systems for television content are far superior to filtering systemsfor internet.

I find it appalling Larry Booker cannot preach against the internet even when a person in his own congregation has a job to catch people involved with child porn on the internet.

Legalism fails because legalists see themselves as the moral police. Legalists selectively applies principles to fit their agenda. Cursed be principle when it interferes with a legalist personal preference. Leave it to Legal Larry and company to find a loophole to compromise principle.

Here are the only two principled choices legalists have.
1. Apply the same principle to television as they do to the internet.
2. Ban the internet.

Name a principle in the Bible which shifted because of personal preference. You won't find one. If once changes the rules because of personal preference than the rules are not based on principle. Jesus pointed that out repeatedly in his run ins with the pharisees. One would think legalists would learn from Jesus's encounters with the self appointed moralists who have nothing better to do than to selectively apply principles whenever convenient for themselves.

What it all comes down to is a compromise of principle. People who do that should feel dirty. Instead they try to cover it up with psuedo explainations.
Legalists's principles are selective. God's principles are universal. God doesn't make acceptions to principles.

If Legal Larry and company were more concerned about the principle behind the television ban, they would have preached against the internet with the same fervor and tenacity. Instead, principles were compromised. The very same thing they accuse others of doiing they are guilty of.

I understand why legalism is compared to witchcraft. It takes a spirit of witchcraft to peddle legalsim.

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

The scripture and verse ilk are the true legalists. You can't bear with the fact that some churches have made a decision on TV and leave it at that. You want to point out what others things have in common. You want to debate their decision or see them turn into an Amish sect, thus articulating what you really feel about them anyway.

Internet will have negative effects and we are, as you, following this as we go. The rampant use of porn, for example. But there is a necessity to exist in a 21st Century world and have a computer. It's not JUST convenience anymore. That could have been said 10 years ago MAYBE. So... we need wisdom. Computers in open rooms. Accountability. Blockers and ISP filters. Families setting standards for use, etc...

With your logic, I see your point. Obviously! TV is lesser in some ways, so how can you not want TV but you have internet. I've also tried my best to answer this for you. I pray we all make the right decision on the internet issue. So far, as is evidence of my post, our church family has made ours.

[tv1a]

Internet is a conveience, not a need. All the examples you mention can be performed without the internet. In your personal life the internet is not needed. There is still telephone, the post office, the bank still hires people to cash your checks. The christian bookstore still sells music. Wal-Mart even stocks some christian titles.

There is legitimate value in television, but you refuse to give it the same consideration as the internet.

It just says there's some legitimate value in it and because of that needs to be treated differently.

That statement bothers me because it is so unscriptural. It goes against everything God stands for. God doesn't change his principles because of some perceived legitimate value.

Legitmate value which is based on humanistic perception. Which all comes back to the original conclusion that legalists are not interested in application of principle as they are in selectively laying down the law.

Legalists are scared of consistency. Constency peels away the facade of legalism. Consistency shows the fraud of legalism. Legalism hides behind hyperbole. By your own quote you admit that it is okay to compromise principle for the sake of legitimate value. You lose a lot of credibility. You may pick up an occassion nut job like Bill Price with that inconsistent view, but your arguement for compormise falls below the mark established by God.

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

What ignorant bologna!

Consistency is the new obsession. Everything from banking, music, people who work in offices/schools, etc need internet to perform their job duties. That alone doesn't justify it.

True it's dynamite. True it has capabilities far greater than tv. However, there are some neccessities and we can digress into an Amish world. I could get along just fine without tv. So, we need more wisdom by the Holy Ghost to guide us and protect our homes that have long been sanctuaries. May it continue. I'll pray for your home and you pray for mine.

Your allegations of legalism or in one ear out the other. Blah Blah Blah
It may have won you some arguments 2 years ago, but it's a tired argument. You throw that word around so loosely. There's no bondage here, brother. Absolute liberty in Christ!

[2020Vision]

QUOTE: By your own quote you admit that it is okay to compromise principle for the sake of legitimate value.

Banning TV is not the principle. The over-arching principle is promoting a godly environment in our homes. It was an easy choice with TV. Internet is a new age and a new decision to make. Running a business without internet - good luck. Going to school without resources of internet - good luck. Just pray we've made the right decision on this medium. The principle is not an abandonment of mediums. It is a consideration of each one on their own merit.

You've called plenty of names and have spewed some pretty hateful things. All that, and your position against neither tv or internet. Don't look for some legal loopholes, my dear legalist, to show why we shouldn't have a certain position. Get off the consistency high horse. I can point out many on your own side. Of course it is harder with people that don't have a stand. Consistency is seeking God for wisdom to make the right choices about things. Not applying a blanket for all ages to come. That's folly. Your argument stinks. I can understand you don't like anti-TV preachers, but to demean people that are taking a stand where you have not taken any is shameful.

[SOUNWORTHY]

This is the way I feel about TV and Internet, if you can handle either or both go for it. If you can't handle either or both get rid of them. This is something every person is going to have to decide for himself. A pastor shouldn't have to tell you either way. As far as I'm concerned the Internet seems is more dangerous than the TV has ever been, but that's just my two cents. (that's about all I had left)!!

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

This is the way I feel about TV and Internet, if you can handle either or both go for it. If you can't handle either or both get rid of them. This is something every person is going to have to decide for himself. A pastor shouldn't have to tell you either way. As far as I'm concerned the Internet seems is more dangerous than the TV has ever been, but that's just my two cents. (that's about all I had left)!!

Agree with part of this. Except, I feel it's okay for our spiritual leader of the faith community to make a decision on such an influential thing. If you don't, that's fine, but we do and that's why we attend the church and submit to the MOG.

Agreed internet has more potential for harm than TV. I think where most have a hard time is that a decision was made on each of them individually on their own merit, instead of a blanket. So when OPs started using internet, the accusers thought they should go ahead and resurrect the TV issue. Which is what happened. TV issue was dead years ago. We deal with the issue as we move forward.

[ashset]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

Agree with part of this. Except, I feel it's okay for our spiritual leader of the faith community to make a decision on such an influential thing. If you don't, that's fine, but we do and that's why we attend the church and submit to the MOG.

Agreed internet has more potential for harm than TV. I think where most have a hard time is that a decision was made on each of them individually on their own merit, instead of a blanket. So when OPs started using internet, the accusers thought they should go ahead and resurrect the TV issue. Which is what happened. TV issue was dead years ago. We deal with the issue as we move forward.

2020Vision you are soooooo smart!! Are you a preacher?