MeBNme already defined compromise: "When one goes back on their beliefs, giving in to the pressure, that is compromise." So, if "they" believe TV is OK, they would be compromisers if they joined up with the anti-TV crowd.
So, meBNme, did you once believe that TV was OK? If so, then I guess you are a compromiser. If not, have you ever changed anything you believe?
Know any Trinitarians that converted to Oneness? Compromisers!
Bump.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
On my side.....
Maybe that's the problem with apostolics today, They are so busy taking sides against one another they lose sight of whats really important.
On my side....
And you aren't? You are not on the side of wanting churches to grow, souls to be saved, The name of Jesus to be lifted up and the truth to be shared?
THATS the side I am on. And I don't really give a flyin flip if someone doesn't agree 100% with all of my beliefs. If they are on the same side I am on, that's what matters.
Also, just because someone is "on my side" does not mean that I will support every bad spirit, attitude, or action that they take.
I don't like the name calling, bashing, personal attacking, liberal socialists out there. But I also don't like it when conservatives that do the same things.
If its wrong, its wrong. No matter what "side" you are on.
Sounds like you and your great pastor have the same viewpoint... great post...
__________________
Always put off 'till tomorrow what you should not do at all.
..........
So, you don't think UCs would like to forbid the internet, if they could? (BTW, some, in fact, do! I guess all those jobs meBNme mentioned that require it are also forbidden.) Look again at meBNme's explanation. It looked like he was arguing with himself there, for a while. Then there was the out-of-left-field conclusion:
"but realized the same restrictions simply cannot apply to the Internet."
Sure makes it sound like they tried, but decided they couldn't.
It seems that a major reason not to forbid the internet is that many jobs require it. OK. How many jobs is enough to justify it? There are many jobs in the TV industry, too. Some jobs require women to wear pants. Some jobs require serving alcohol to customers. Some jobs require making lists of do's and don't's for their followers. (Sorry, couldn't resist!) Should any of these things not be banned, just because jobs depend on them?
Whats a "UC"?
Where was I arguing with myself?
Or do you feel that when someone tries to present more than one side of an argument that they are contradicting themselves?
On the other hand, it sounds as if you are contradicting yourself when you say "So, you don't think UCs would like to forbid the Internet, if they could? (BTW, some, in fact, do!"
If some do, then obviously others could if they wanted to, so that's invalid.
I cannot explain every churches/persons motivations for what they disapprove/approve of. I can only explain mine.
While the Internet and TV do have some similarities, they are quite different.
You are comparing an apple, to a fruit basket.
I can't speak for those who ban everything. I can't speak for those who allow everything. I can only give my perspective as to why TV is not approved, but the Internet is.
You have to draw a line somewhere, or else there is confusion, which is not of God. Personally, I don't want to be a part of that. My personal line is at TV, as is the church I am blessed to be a part of. I gave my explanation as to why that's where the line was drawn.
If you don't like that, draw yer own line Fred. Make it as close to the edge of the cliff as you like. Make it anything from a fishing line to a barbed wire electric fence.
Hey, just pretend the line is there if you want. As for me, I draw it at TV. I don't need TV, if I had TV I would wind up seeing things I shouldn't. You have to click things on the web, with TV, you could be watching the news and some ungodly trash comes on. Its in commercials, shows, nearly everywhere. I do however need the Internet, and with filters and software I can block the crud that would pop up, and just not click the sites that show the filth.
So therefore, that's where my line is drawn.
You asked why, that's why. You don't like it, go watch TV.
Sure, one big reason the Internet is allowed is for employment reasons, but it's certainly not the only reason. So why attack that one reason and pick apart the whole idea as if that were the only reason? Are you going to ignore everything else just so your argument will seem stronger? You don't do that with scripture do you? So why do it here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy
Sure makes it sound like they tried, but decided they couldn't.
So if someone evaluates a situation, and attempts to see it from all sides in order to come to the best decision, that now means "they tried to restrict it, but decided they couldn't"?
How about "They looked at it with an open mind and realized it was a different situation all together, and felt it should be allowed"?
Or do we just like looking at things with a negative spirit?
As for the job requirements you spoke of.
If you take a job offer, but it requires you to compromise your beliefs, would you take it?
For those who feel the Internet is inappropriate, they should not take web based jobs. The same with alcohol, and pants.
However, for those who feel that the Internet is OK (if safety measures are taken) what is wrong with allowing the Internet, and jobs requiring it's use?
Again, you have to draw the line somewhere, so why bash someone simply because their line isn't in the same place you have yours?
On my side.....
Maybe that's the problem with apostolics today, They are so busy taking sides against one another they lose sight of whats really important.
On my side....
And you aren't? You are not on the side of wanting churches to grow, souls to be saved, The name of Jesus to be lifted up and the truth to be shared?
THATS the side I am on. And I don't really give a flyin flip if someone doesn't agree 100% with all of my beliefs. If they are on the same side I am on, that's what matters.
Also, just because someone is "on my side" does not mean that I will support every bad spirit, attitude, or action that they take.
I don't like the name calling, bashing, personal attacking, liberal socialists out there. But I also don't like it when conservatives that do the same things.
If its wrong, its wrong. No matter what "side" you are on.
"It became apparent that it is up to the individual to police his actions"
"Many churches have adapted by teaching holiness from a love and dedication stand point, instead of just banning one form or another." (This sounds like a good thing, to me, and you don't seem to be painting it in a bad light.)
"Pastors have come to realize that people are going to do what they want"
"So they teach what the bible says about sin, murders, adultery etc,"
Quote:
Or do you feel that when someone tries to present more than one side of an argument that they are contradicting themselves?
Have to admit, it kinda threw me!
Quote:
On the other hand, it sounds as if you are contradicting yourself when you say "So, you don't think UCs would like to forbid the Internet, if they could? (BTW, some, in fact, do!"
If some do, then obviously others could if they wanted to, so that's invalid.
Good point! I could have said it better, but what I meant was that some conservatives would like to ban the internet, but don't, for various reasons, even though they technically could. As someone pointed out on another thread, I bet it's sometimes for personal reasons: they find it useful, themselves. You are right -- "would if they could" is too strong a statement. (But I was replying to your saying "...simply cannot apply...", after all.)
Quote:
I cannot explain every churches/persons motivations for what they disapprove/approve of. I can only explain mine.
While the Internet and TV do have some similarities, they are quite different.
You are comparing an apple, to a fruit basket.
Ah! This is an interesting analogy! Is TV the apple, and the internet the fruit basket? That seems apropos, considering that you can get virtually all the content of TV on the internet, and a whole lot more! So yep, you're right. Similar but different. The internet is way more dangerous.
Quote:
I can't speak for those who ban everything. I can't speak for those who allow everything. I can only give my perspective as to why TV is not approved, but the Internet is.
Thanks.
Quote:
You have to draw a line somewhere, or else there is confusion, which is not of God.
Sure! It certainly doesn't bother me where you draw your line. Odd, though, to characterize those who draw a different line as compromisers. (Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to your response to the post I bumped a while ago, if you don't mind.)
Quote:
Personally, I don't want to be a part of that. My personal line is at TV, as is the church I am blessed to be a part of. I gave my explanation as to why that's where the line was drawn.
If you don't like that, draw yer own line Fred.
OK.
Quote:
Make it as close to the edge of the cliff as you like.
OK. I wonder what internet banning folks think about your line? Same as you think about mine, I suppose.
Quote:
Make it anything from a fishing line to a barbed wire electric fence.
Hey, just pretend the line is there if you want. As for me, I draw it at TV. I don't need TV, if I had TV I would wind up seeing things I shouldn't. You have to click things on the web, with TV, you could be watching the news and some ungodly trash comes on. Its in commercials, shows, nearly everywhere.
You do have something of a point, there. Assuming that it is going to somehow damage you, or your spirit, or your relationship with God, or something, if you accidentally get a glimpse of, say, a girl wearing a bikini. Or a beer commercial.
Quote:
I do however need the Internet, and with filters and software I can block the crud that would pop up, and just not click the sites that show the filth.
Also somewhat of a good point. As long as you have the integrity not to bypass it. It's self-control, isn't it? But that's the same as TV (other than the filth that jumps out at you, when you're just watching the news or something. Can't help ya there.)
Quote:
So therefore, that's where my line is drawn.
You asked why, that's why. You don't like it, go watch TV.
Sure, one big reason the Internet is allowed is for employment reasons, but it's certainly not the only reason. So why attack that one reason and pick apart the whole idea as if that were the only reason? Are you going to ignore everything else just so your argument will seem stronger? You don't do that with scripture do you? So why do it here?
So if someone evaluates a situation, and attempts to see it from all sides in order to come to the best decision, that now means "they tried to restrict it, but decided they couldn't"?
How about "They looked at it with an open mind and realized it was a different situation all together, and felt it should be allowed"?
Or do we just like looking at things with a negative spirit?
As for the job requirements you spoke of.
If you take a job offer, but it requires you to compromise your beliefs, would you take it?
No.
Quote:
For those who feel the Internet is inappropriate, they should not take web based jobs. The same with alcohol, and pants.
However, for those who feel that the Internet is OK (if safety measures are taken) what is wrong with allowing the Internet, and jobs requiring it's use?
Nothing.
Quote:
Again, you have to draw the line somewhere, so why bash someone simply because their line isn't in the same place you have yours?
Yeah. Why?
Question: is it a sin to watch TV? I mean the very act of watching something on TV, not (at this point) considering exactly what the show is.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Now this is cool. We can actually have a conversation like this.
I think that's the way it should be personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy
what I meant was that some conservatives would like to ban the internet, but don't, for various reasons, even though they technically could. As someone pointed out on another thread, I bet it's sometimes for personal reasons: they find it useful, themselves. You are right -- "would if they could" is too strong a statement. (But I was replying to your saying "...simply cannot apply...", after all.)
I have no problem with this.
Quote:
Ah! This is an interesting analogy! Is TV the apple, and the internet the fruit basket? That seems apropos, considering that you can get virtually all the content of TV on the internet, and a whole lot more! So yep, you're right. Similar but different. The internet is way more dangerous.
Yes, that's what I meant exactly. With one exception.
I agree that the Internet has the potential to be more dangerous. But it also has more methods to filter, block and limit the content that is available. If all these Are in place, it is far more manageable than TV.
How many times have you been watching a show, or movie, that seems perfectly fine, only to be blasted half way through with partial nudity, and/or a slew of F words and GDs? Even on PG13 rated media.
Personally, if there were a way to eliminate that sort of thing, and all commercials/previews and other crud that has inappropriate content, I wouldn't have such a problem with TV. So far I haven't see that.
Quote:
Sure! It certainly doesn't bother me where you draw your line. Odd, though, to characterize those who draw a different line as compromisers. (Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to your response to the post I bumped a while ago, if you don't mind.)
If I gave that impression, I apologise. I thought I had made it clear before hand what my view of compromise means. Just because they are different from me does not mean they are compromisers. But if they once believed it, and now have gone back, that is compromise. A lesser conviction than mine is just that, and not necessarily compromise.
(I was wondering what "bumped" meant! LOL)
Quote:
OK. I wonder what Internet banning folks think about your line? Same as you think about mine, I suppose.
That it is a lesser conviction and a danger? probably. But just the same, I would hope they would look at my view with an open mind before declaring how I am wrong and a heathen worthy of flogging.
Quote:
You do have something of a point, there. Assuming that it is going to somehow damage you, or your spirit, or your relationship with God, or something, if you accidentally get a glimpse of, say, a girl wearing a bikini. Or a beer commercial.
Romans 1:29-31 describes in detail some of the things/sins that are so boldly presented on TV. Verse 32 goes on to say.....
"Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
If we don't have pleasure in watching "them that do them" why are we watching them?
Romans 12:2
"And be not conformed to this world : but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind......"
What we watch, hear, read, does affect us, and over time conforms us.
1 Corinthians 15:33
"Be not deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners."
Deuteronomy 7:26
"Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: But thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing."
Many of the things shown on TV are abominations unto God. I don't think the bible leaves any grey area on that.
What you see certainly will affect you. The random bikini girl/beer commercial? What about all the other stuff? It's like walking through a sewer and not being grossed out until you see some floating toilet paper. you are up your knees in people poop George! And you only make note of the clumpy toilet paper!?!?!? wake up and smell the.......
Quote:
Also somewhat of a good point. As long as you have the integrity not to bypass it. It's self-control, isn't it? But that's the same as TV (other than the filth that jumps out at you, when you're just watching the news or something. Can't help ya there.)
It is self controll, thus the reason for my comments about many churches now teaching it from a love and commitment standpoint, and realizing that it isn't so simple as to just say no to things anymore. One realizes that people now have to know Why TV was restricted, and apply that to all the other areas in our lives.
And it isn't the same as TV, with TV you simply will see it. Its in everything from deodorant commercials to comedy shows. You "ain't gotta click it", its just there.
Quote:
Question: is it a sin to watch TV? I mean the very act of watching something on TV, not (at this point) considering exactly what the show is.
A sin to watch TV? There's nothing evil about the box. I see nothing wrong with some of the few good things on TV. Its all the other crud that worms its way in there. Maybe you can discipline yourself to only watch the history Chanel, but the major majority will wind up seeing the other stuff too.
So its certainly understandable that a pastor would feel the need to draw the line there. That the shepherd would want to keep the wolves away, even the "tame" ones, the ones that are someones pet and just like a puppy.
MeBNme already defined compromise: "When one goes back on their beliefs, giving in to the pressure, that is compromise." So, if "they" believe TV is OK, they would be compromisers if they joined up with the anti-TV crowd.
So, meBNme, did you once believe that TV was OK? If so, then I guess you are a compromiser. If not, have you ever changed anything you believe?
Know any Trinitarians that converted to Oneness? Compromisers!
Nah, I've never believed Tv as a whole was Ok
Compromise, as defined by websters dictionary third colledge edition pg287
"to weaken or give up (one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of expediancy"
If one strengthens ones beliefs it is not compromise. If one goes back on their beliefs, it IS compromise.
Simply changing something you believe is not compromise.
Did Paul compromise the gospel when he was converted?
How about the church of Laodicea, did they compromise?
The definition of compromise is exactly what was done when the upic supported the internet.
The 2005 upci manual almost word for word says the same thing about television and the internet except the internet was accepted and television wasn't.
The same principle for television should apply to the internet. Legalism favorite two words is "Yeah, but....".
Compromise does not always mean one goes back on what one believes. Compromise also means to sacrifice one's principles for the sake of convenience. That is what the legalists did with the internet. Biggest mistake legalists ever made was to support internet. It opened the door for the passing of the tv resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meBNme
This is just for you Timmy
Nah, I've never believed Tv as a whole was Ok
Compromise, as defined by websters dictionary third colledge edition pg287
"to weaken or give up (one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of expediancy"
If one strengthens ones beliefs it is not compromise. If one goes back on their beliefs, it IS compromise.
Simply changing something you believe is not compromise.
Did Paul compromise the gospel when he was converted?
How about the church of Laodicea, did they compromise?
__________________
A religious spirit allows people to tolerate hatred and anger under the guise of passion and holiness. Bill Johnson
Legalism has no pity on people. Legalism makes my opinion your burden, makes opinion your boundary, makes my opinion your obligation-Lucado
Some get spiritual because they see the light. Others because they feel the heat.Ray Wylie Hubbard
Definition of legalism- Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. TV
Linear Mode
