Apostolic Summit - Tulsa, OK - Pastors are now receiving it.

[LadyChocolate]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I am sure someone would propose a rule: "No 'slide show' may operate at more then 2 frames per second lest our eyes perceive it as VIDEO!!!!"

Now this really cracked me up!!!!! Guess because where I was from, that pretty much summed it up. If it was moving then it was sin............. The pastor went to dramas and plays of movies and classic literature but forbid us to have home movies of our children..... !!!! It's like if you saw it live then it was okay but if you recorded the same play, you were hell bound.... You think I am joking? wish i were!!!!!!!!!!

I think they should outlaw books and tablets... because of the capability to make those moving cartoon pictures by flipping through the pages really fast...

The real cause of division...

The information age is what is causing this division... For the last decade or so, people all around the world are starting to compare notes, through the wonders of the internet and the other advancements in communication. The world is becoming a much smaller place, so people are more likely to be able to see the inconsistencies in other places and have their own inconsistencies pointed out to them.

It will only get worse... (but some of us do not see that as a bad thing).

[LadyChocolate]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

I think they should outlaw books and tablets... because of the capability to make those moving cartoon pictures by flipping through the pages really fast...

again, another funny!!!

[tv1a]

I hear that someone will bring a couple tablets of stones from the finger of God. One which will have no television engraved in granite and the other engraved skirts, burps, and long sleeve shirts.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

BobDylan, long time no see.

I don't agree. First it wasn't "shoved down" anyone's throat. There was a vote just like the vote in 1977 that put the ban on TV ministry and advertising into place. If this vote was everything you say, then 1977 was exactly the same; just as divisive and pretty much, just as close of a vote.

I think you're being unneccessarily harsh with the "shoved down their throats" comment. But it is good to "see" you again.

Good to see you P. I think the idea of "shoved down throats" is befitting in the sense that visionary leadership would have never allowed this divisive measure to even come up for vote. IMO, if NU would have been sup., or anyone else, their own sway within the org. would have convinced those handling the measure not to promote it to the level they did. Also, it was clear to everyone in leadership how divisive this measure was, so much so they postponed the vote for a year so they could "survey" the constituency to determine what repercussions there would be after passage. When the measure was allowed for a vote, the leadership ABSOLUTELY KNEW how divise it was, and "shoved it down the throats" of the constituency anyway. The measure was divisive, and those who promoted the measure were divisive, not those who stated their concerns and are parting ways with the org. Who would want to be in fellowship with such divisive men anyway? Once again, I think I have stated several times that I am not UPCI, never have been, so it doesn't directly involve me, the politics behing passing resolutions in the UPCI GC... however, the fallout of this particular divisive measure is and will be felt by all apostolics, especially the independents and other consservatives, because of the new "fellowship" we will be having. I appreciate you P, and always enjoy our exchanges, even though challenging at times! But I stand by my statement that this measure was "shoved down the throats" of the constituency of the UPCI... just my opinion, thanks!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Kutless

this is so unbelievably weak.

Do you have anything of substance to offer? Your statement is laffable!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Don't you know that moving pictures of any kind are wrong for some of these preachers. The Western District cannot have any video at any district event. They only allow slide shows/PowerPoint. Because of the influence of some of the preachers that have been mentioned along this thread.

The men in the Western District, not that I am speaking for them, but simply speaking from my own perceptions of their positions, have a strong and well developed phlosophy/theology on word vs. image communication. The opposition doesn't seem to be to the "moving image", but to the concept of using imagery as a method of primary communictation. Get the book "The Vanishing Word"... (secular author... BTW)

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

The men in the Western District, not that I am speaking for them, but simply speaking from my own perceptions of their positions, have a strong and well developed phlosophy/theology on word vs. image communication. The opposition doesn't seem to be to the "moving image", but to the concept of using imagery as a method of primary communictation. Get the book "The Vanishing Word"... (secular author... BTW)

Just a note, not all men in the WD hold to this philosophy/theology. And if that is the only opposition to it, why not allow the district events to be recorded via video? They have audio recorded the events for years, but for some reason offering the visual companion is unacceptable?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Just a note, not all men in the WD hold to this philosophy/theology. And if that is the only opposition to it, why not allow the district events to be recorded via video? They have audio recorded the events for years, but for some reason offering the visual companion is unacceptable?

Again, I think it is the concept/theology/philosophy of communication via imagery vs. communication via word. Audio recordings are word oriented, whereas video recordings are image oriented... I am not sure this is all there is to the subject, and I know that not all in the WD agree with this concept. But the statement was made that there were many in the WD who were opposed to any use of video technology. I was only speaking from my perception of these men's position. I see the validity of their position, although I don't agree wholly with it. It has merit.