Television Issue!

[unitedpraise10]

It aggravates me to no end, when people sit here and continue to argue about UPCI and television, and then say that internet is ok. I don't have a problem with either. I'm a music minister, and I have internet and Charter!

Furthermore, I do believe when DBK updates the UPCI church manual in the next few years that the Television Issue will be removed.

Thoughts...??

[onefaith2]

It aggravates me to no end, when people sit here and continue to argue about UPCI and television, and then say that internet is ok. I don't have a problem with either. I'm a music minister, and I have internet and Charter!

Furthermore, I do believe when DBK updates the UPCI church manual in the next few years that the Television Issue will be removed.

Thoughts...??

Other than the same content is on both, how do you compare the two to be the same?

[unitedpraise10]

Other than the same content is on both, how do you compare the two to be the same?

Exactly....then why do they argue about having tv then? Why is having an internet connection ok, and having a tv no ok?

[onefaith2]

Exactly....then why do they argue about having tv then? Why is having an internet connection ok, and having a tv no ok?

I was asking why you considered tv and internet the same?

[ILG]

I don't attend church at all anymore. I left the UPC 6 years ago. But, I have internet and not TV. Here are my arguments. First off, I don't think the legalistic UPC stance is healthy. I watch all the videos I want without commercials and there are lots of shows on the internet. TV is noisy and I don't like that. I don't like commercials. With the internet, I pick and choose and don't have shows spoon fed to me. I watch TV in hotels and get my fill there. Will I never have a TV? Never say never, but I don't even think about it usually. I don't feel deprived. I would feel invaded if I had a TV in my house. I am just used to it this way. My very liberal sister (I mean vegetarian, environmentalist type) doesn't have a TV either.

[Timmy]

It aggravates me to no end, when people sit here and continue to argue about UPCI and television, and then say that internet is ok. I don't have a problem with either. I'm a music minister, and I have internet and Charter!

Furthermore, I do believe when DBK updates the UPCI church manual in the next few years that the Television Issue will be removed.

Thoughts...??

So, two wrongs do make a right? :heeheehee

[onefaith2]

I don't attend church at all anymore. I left the UPC 6 years ago. But, I have internet and not TV. Here are my arguments. First off, I don't think the legalistic UPC stance is healthy. I watch all the videos I want without commercials and there are lots of shows on the internet. TV is noisy and I don't like that. I don't like commercials. With the internet, I pick and choose and don't have shows spoon fed to me. I watch TV in hotels and get my fill there. Will I never have a TV? Never say never, but I don't even think about it usually. I don't feel deprived. I would feel invaded if I had a TV in my house. I am just used to it this way. My very liberal sister (I mean vegetarian, environmentalist type) doesn't have a TV either.

Good argument from a non UPC stance. There are many logical arguments for not having a cable/satellite TV in my opinion. (one of them is my wallet).

On a moral issue I think the heart is in the bolded of your post. The same content is on both and while the internet has it readily accessible, you pick and choose whether you indulge in poison or flowers. The UPC is consistent in that it strongly advises filters for the internet. They are not necessarily completely hypocritical on it.

[ILG]

Good argument from a non UPC stance. There are many logical arguments for not having a cable TV in my opinion. (one of them is my wallet)

The wallet issue is ALWAYS relevant. :)

[ILG]

My husband was saying the other day that you have to pay for TV now because it's all on cable. So, he says now you pay them to advertise to you! :D (Of course internet is the same!)

[notofworks]

It aggravates me to no end, when people sit here and continue to argue about UPCI and television, and then say that internet is ok. I don't have a problem with either. I'm a music minister, and I have internet and Charter!

Furthermore, I do believe when DBK updates the UPCI church manual in the next few years that the Television Issue will be removed.

Thoughts...??



My thought is, your blatant disobedience to what the guidelines of your organization demand, isn't pleasing to God. If you have Charter cable TV while the Article of Faith clearly state that it's "Disapproved of", you should do the honorable thing and get rid of it, or be honest with yourself and leave the UPC.

[Truthseeker]

I don't attend church at all anymore. I left the UPC 6 years ago. But, I have internet and not TV. Here are my arguments. First off, I don't think the legalistic UPC stance is healthy. I watch all the videos I want without commercials and there are lots of shows on the internet. TV is noisy and I don't like that. I don't like commercials. With the internet, I pick and choose and don't have shows spoon fed to me. I watch TV in hotels and get my fill there. Will I never have a TV? Never say never, but I don't even think about it usually. I don't feel deprived. I would feel invaded if I had a TV in my house. I am just used to it this way. My very liberal sister (I mean vegetarian, environmentalist type) doesn't have a TV either.

I do think there more control with internet as far as watching shows. You can buy whole series without commercials, which sometimes commercials are worse then the shows on TV.

[Truthseeker]

My thought is, your blatant disobedience to what the guidelines of your organization demand, isn't pleasing to God. If you have Charter cable TV while the Article of Faith clearly state that it's "Disapproved of", you should do the honorable thing and get rid of it, or be honest with yourself and leave the UPC.

Wouldn't that only be if he held a UPC license?

[Hoovie]

I don't attend church at all anymore. I left the UPC 6 years ago. But, I have internet and not TV. Here are my arguments. First off, I don't think the legalistic UPC stance is healthy. I watch all the videos I want without commercials and there are lots of shows on the internet. TV is noisy and I don't like that. I don't like commercials. With the internet, I pick and choose and don't have shows spoon fed to me. I watch TV in hotels and get my fill there. Will I never have a TV? Never say never, but I don't even think about it usually. I don't feel deprived. I would feel invaded if I had a TV in my house. I am just used to it this way. My very liberal sister (I mean vegetarian, environmentalist type) doesn't have a TV either.

That pretty much sums up what I think too!

[onefaith2]

My thought is, your blatant disobedience to what the guidelines of your organization demand, isn't pleasing to God. If you have Charter cable TV while the Article of Faith clearly state that it's "Disapproved of", you should do the honorable thing and get rid of it, or be honest with yourself and leave the UPC.

I understand your point. The word "disapprove" doesn't connotate that a person cannot be in fellowship and have a TV in their home. I can disapprove of a lot of things my son does, but that doesn't mean I don't accept him. I see your point on the pastoral level. If you are in leadership and your pastor says you need to get rid of the cable to be in leadership, then you should do it.


Now the WPF is much harder..

No DVDS in your home at all.

[NorCal]

I understand your point. The word "disapprove" doesn't connotate that a person cannot be in fellowship and have a TV in their home. I can disapprove of a lot of things my son does, but that doesn't mean I don't accept him. I see your point on the pastoral level. If you are in leadership and your pastor says you need to get rid of the cable to be in leadership, then you should do it.


Now the WPF is much harder..

No DVDS in your home at all.

Technology is not the sin. Content is the sin.
Technology is not the sin. Rebelliousness is the sin.

How many of these WPF preachers are hardliners against TV, yet the attend places such as Disney World/Land, Universal Studios, or other such Amusement Parks sponsored by "Hollywood".

Hypocritical?

In my humble, the UPC stance against TV/Internet/Sports is totally miss understood (by those inside and out).

Speaking of internet, wish I could design a Router with Wifi that will use a specific DNS server, then sell it to all UPC/WPF people. I could make a killing!

[aegsm76]

I understand your point. The word "disapprove" doesn't connotate that a person cannot be in fellowship and have a TV in their home. I can disapprove of a lot of things my son does, but that doesn't mean I don't accept him. I see your point on the pastoral level. If you are in leadership and your pastor says you need to get rid of the cable to be in leadership, then you should do it.


Now the WPF is much harder..

No DVDS in your home at all.

Where do you find that the WPF does not allow DVD's?
I am involved with both the UPC and WPF and have never heard this.
THanks.

[onefaith2]

Where do you find that the WPF does not allow DVD's?
I am involved with both the UPC and WPF and have never heard this.
THanks.

When the WPF was initially formed before the new website, I check it out because so many of my mentors are there. They mentioned no hollywood DVD's and other mediums. I should have placed emphasis on hollywood movie dvds because they use DVD for their services, some do.

but their articles of faith or revised say clearly that no mediums of hollywood style movies are allowed


The believer abstains from purveyors of all such, including, but not limited to, prurient print material, unclean musical acts and songs, and musical productions (I Corinthians 15:33), Hollywood-style movies, and television, worldly sports, improper internet content, and all other forms and mediums of such (Deuteronomy 7:26).(WPF articles of faith)

That statement is quite different than We admonish all of our people to abstain from these activities in the interest of spiritual progress. (from UPC)

One connotates a believer will always abstain, the other connotes we admonish our people (believers) to abstain.

Do you see the difference there?

[NorCal]

When the WPF was initially formed before the new website, I check it out because so many of my mentors are there. They mentioned no hollywood DVD's and other mediums. I should have placed emphasis on hollywood movie dvds because they use DVD for their services, some do.

but their articles of faith or revised say clearly that no mediums of hollywood style movies are allowed


The believer abstains from purveyors of all such, including, but not limited to, prurient print material, unclean musical acts and songs, and musical productions (I Corinthians 15:33), Hollywood-style movies, and television, worldly sports, improper internet content, and all other forms and mediums of such (Deuteronomy 7:26).(WPF articles of faith)

That statement is quite different than We admonish all of our people to abstain from these activities in the interest of spiritual progress. (from UPC)

One connotates a believer will always abstain, the other connotes we admonish our people (believers) to abstain.

Do you see the difference there?

Question is, is that what they preach though? I guess they have to cover Ultra-Con to Utra-liberal in their own organization.

[onefaith2]

Question is, is that what they preach though? I guess they have to cover Ultra-Con to Utra-liberal in their own organization.

I only know my mentors from JCM. I think most of them hold up to it pretty much, although sports is followed, at least in the newspaper. (maybe internet )

[NorCal]

I only know my mentors from JCM. I think most of them hold up to it pretty much, although sports is followed, at least in the newspaper. (maybe internet )

Well I am from NorCal, you know Morton, Wilson, etc. I think Morton would be the Ultra-Con and Wilson the Ultra-Lib

[Scott Hutchinson]

All forms of media are neither good nor evil in themselves.
The usage of a form of media can be wholesome or wicked.
We live in a media infested world,Christians need to wise in their usage of media.
How can one form of media be corrupt and another not be.

If person can't control their usage of a form of media,then they shouldn't use it.
It seems to me it is what is in a person's heart and what do they desire to indulge in ?

[MissBrattified]

I don't consider them to be the same; the internet is MUCH worse, as far as the content it contains and the accessibility factor.

Furthermore, I've never known of a marriage to break up over someone watching TV; I've known of several because of the internet--online affairs, addiction to pornography and chat rooms, namely.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Why do some use The Internet and then condemn someone to hell who has a TV ?

[Scott Hutchinson]

How does someone know their Pastor isn't watching porn online ?

[onefaith2]

I don't consider them to be the same; the internet is MUCH worse, as far as the content it contains and the accessibility factor.

Furthermore, I've never known of a marriage to break up over someone watching TV; I've known of several because of the internet--online affairs, addiction to pornography and chat rooms, namely.

Actually I have known families to fragment because the husband watched too much TV. They lose their intimate connection.

As far as internet being worse, thats debatable. With HBO, Cinemax, and new digital cable's porn rent a flick service on demand; cable is the same as far as content in my opinion.

However the argument is that internet is a pick your own poison rather than turn to a channel and let them pick your poison; if thats makes any sense. The UPC is consistent as they do encourage filters on the internet.

[onefaith2]

How does someone know their Pastor isn't watching porn online ?

They don't, unless the wife knows and exposes it because the pastor doesn't want to recant. How does one know a pastor commits physical adultery? Same deal. Pastors, like saints, need some sort of accountability in my opinion.

[NorCal]

They don't, unless the wife knows and exposes it because the pastor doesn't want to recant. How does one know a pastor commits physical adultery? Same deal. Pastors, like saints, need some sort of accountability in my opinion.

Very correct! The UPC/WPF is big enough to provide a service to filter their consistence's internet and a marginal cost. A DNS Filtering server could be provided at a nominal cost.

[RandyWayne]

Very correct! The UPC/WPF is big enough to provide a service to filter their consistence's internet and a marginal cost. A DNS Filtering server could be provided at a nominal cost.

You can't get much cheaper then OpenDNS when it comes to a cheap filtering solution, the problem is is that it is WAY too easy to override. Anyone with admin rites can go to the control panel, and then into networking and switch their DNS settings to "automatic" which usually means using their own ISP's.

[onefaith2]

Very correct! The UPC/WPF is big enough to provide a service to filter their consistence's internet and a marginal cost. A DNS Filtering server could be provided at a nominal cost.

I'm not sure I advocate that sort of accountability at the org level which could be corrupted or have bias reviews if multiple people have access. I'm thinking more on a personal level.

[onefaith2]

You can't get much cheaper then OpenDNS when it comes to a cheap filtering solution, the problem is is that it is WAY too easy to override. Anyone with admin rites can go to the control panel, and then into networking and switch their DNS settings to "automatic" which usually means using their own ISP's.

maybe I should check out openDNS

[notofworks]

Wouldn't that only be if he held a UPC license?



No, absolutely not. The Articles of Faith say, "Furthermore, because of these evils being on television, we disapprove of our people.......". That's from memory so I may be off a word or two, but that's the gist.

I see anyone that's in the UPC as hypocritical if they own a TV, regardless of how they justify it.

[notofworks]

I understand your point. The word "disapprove" doesn't connotate that a person cannot be in fellowship and have a TV in their home. I can disapprove of a lot of things my son does, but that doesn't mean I don't accept him. I see your point on the pastoral level. If you are in leadership and your pastor says you need to get rid of the cable to be in leadership, then you should do it.


Now the WPF is much harder..

No DVDS in your home at all.


Sounds like Eternal Security to me. God disapproves of us robbing banks continually but if we do, He still accepts us?:)

[onefaith2]

Sounds like Eternal Security to me. God disapproves of us robbing banks continually but if we do, He still accepts us?:)

WHen you find that the manual equates TV with stealing, let me know

[onefaith2]

No, absolutely not. The Articles of Faith say, "Furthermore, because of these evils being on television, we disapprove of our people.......". That's from memory so I may be off a word or two, but that's the gist.

I see anyone that's in the UPC as hypocritical if they own a TV, regardless of how they justify it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion ;) The Manual carries the connotation of cable TV, even know that is NOT what is stated as they approve of DVDs and video. You have to have a TV typically or some monitor to view them.

[mfblume]

Just try to change the articles of faith. Good luck. :)

[onefaith2]

Just try to change the articles of faith. Good luck. :)

No alot of people don't try to change or are not patient enough for change, they jump ship.

[notofworks]

When I was in the UPC, I didn't own a TV. I followed the rules. My wife didn't wear makeup...even the cheating clear lip gloss malarkey....didn't cut her hair. When we decided to not follow those guidelines, as well as make doctrinal adjustments, we did the honest, honorable thing and left.

As one who practices certain liberties, I have ZERO affection for those within the system who also practice certain liberties while being fully aware it's something that's disapproved of.

Those that have NO INTENTION of obeying the oath they sign should stop lying and either go along with the rules or have the guts to leave.

[notofworks]

WHen you find that the manual equates TV with stealing, let me know


It already does. It calls certain things "worldly". The bible says that things that are "worldly", they're against God. That's every bit as bad as stealing.

[notofworks]

Here it is:

"We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make- up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music.

Furthermore because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”

“Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church International has taken a positive stand against television as an instrument of Satan to defile the church with worldliness through the viewing of movies and other programs which are contrary to holiness and separation unto the Lord, be it therefore resolved that the use of video be strictly limited to those areas in which motion picture cameras and projectors are traditionally permitted to be used; namely, in taking of pictures of families, friends and church activities, and the viewing of education, religious, or inspirational films which are consistent with wholesome Christian principles.”

“Be it further resolved that we restate our strong opposition to the viewing of all worldly motion pictures and video films as are being shown commercially in theaters and on television for entertainment purposes for the ungodly masses, and the use of them in any form for God’s people.”



Anyone in the UPC who participates in these activities, who rents movies to watch or goes to the theatre, who buys Andy Griffith DVDs at Wal-mart, is living a lie.

[onefaith2]

It already does. It calls certain things "worldly". The bible says that things that are "worldly", they're against God. That's every bit as bad as stealing.

absurdity. Golf is worldly and so is horseshoes. Both of them were created by the world. They are talking about worldly content, not the medium itself. How could one possibly with any education condemn TV on one hand and allow church video on the other. They are condemning the content and that is why they disapprove. Its isn't the medium they are disapproving in.

[TGBTG]

Those that have NO INTENTION of obeying the oath they sign should stop lying and either go along with the rules or have the guts to leave.

People sign an oath to remain members of the UPC?

[onefaith2]

Here it is:

"We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make- up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music.

Furthermore because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”

“Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church International has taken a positive stand against television as an instrument of Satan to defile the church with worldliness through the viewing of movies and other programs which are contrary to holiness and separation unto the Lord, be it therefore resolved that the use of video be strictly limited to those areas in which motion picture cameras and projectors are traditionally permitted to be used; namely, in taking of pictures of families, friends and church activities, and the viewing of education, religious, or inspirational films which are consistent with wholesome Christian principles.”

“Be it further resolved that we restate our strong opposition to the viewing of all worldly motion pictures and video films as are being shown commercially in theaters and on television for entertainment purposes for the ungodly masses, and the use of them in any form for God’s people.”



Anyone in the UPC who participates in these activities, who rents movies to watch or goes to the theatre, who buys Andy Griffith DVDs at Wal-mart, is living a lie.

So one cannot rent inspirational films or educational programming or religious programming? Your interpretation of the manual is flawed in my opinion. Going to the theatre, sure spelled out. Having some form of monitor is required to view inspirational films, etc.

[onefaith2]

People sign an oath to remain members of the UPC?

No the ministers do that they agree with the articles of faith.

[notofworks]

absurdity. Golf is worldly and so is horseshoes. Both of them were created by the world. They are talking about worldly content, not the medium itself. How could one possibly with any education condemn TV on one hand and allow church video on the other. They are condemning the content and that is why they disapprove. Its isn't the medium they are disapproving in.



NO, IT'S NOT ABSURD!!! Golf and horseshoes ARE NOT LISTED as prohibited activities in YOUR Articles of Faith. Sounds like you're trying to justify your breaking of the rules.

[onefaith2]

NO, IT'S NOT ABSURD!!! Golf and horseshoes ARE NOT LISTED as prohibited activities in YOUR Articles of Faith. Sounds like you're trying to justify your breaking of the rules.

Are golf and sports not sporting events? You said the Bible says anthing worldly is sin. Tell me how a monitor is worldly. That is not what they are talking about sir. IF you read carefully they say its ok for restricted access for inspirational films, etc. I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm pointing out the facts. I don't hold a license with the UPC.

[notofworks]

So one cannot rent inspirational films or educational programming or religious programming? Your interpretation of the manual is flawed in my opinion. Going to the theatre, sure spelled out. Having some form of monitor is required to view inspirational films, etc.


I didn't say that and only if you intend to completely fabricate my position could you possibly write that. Your rules say you CAN rent inspirational films, educational stuff, that go along with their guidelines.

Look, YOUR church system says that TV is an instrument of Satan. Do you really want to own something that YOUR system calls an "Instrument of Satan"?

[onefaith2]

I didn't say that and only if you intend to completely fabricate my position could you possibly write that. Your rules say you CAN rent inspirational films, educational stuff, that go along with their guidelines.

Look, YOUR church system says that TV is an instrument of Satan. Do you really want to own something that YOUR system calls an "Instrument of Satan"?

Do you deny Satan uses that instrument? Satan also uses scripture to twist it. Does that mean you no longer own a Bible? You said most assuredly that a person having a TV in their home is against the rules and lying since they sign the document. I expressed they couldn't possibly watch inspirational films in their homes without one at the time of this writing, Now whether its rigged not to pick up channels or just a monitor is not spelled out in the manual. They don't tell you how you are supposed to watch the limited, restricted stuff; they just say you can.

Furthermore now one doesn't even have to own a TV to watch these things today. My point is the UPCI doesn't ban someone from owning a TV for the purpose of limited use, at least not in this wording.


You did mention renting movies

Anyone in the UPC who participates in these activities, who rents movies to watch

And I did mention you can rent inspirational films.

[notofworks]

Are golf and sports not sporting events? You said the Bible says anthing worldly is sin. Tell me how a monitor is worldly. That is not what they are talking about sir. IF you read carefully they say its ok for restricted access for inspirational films, etc. I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm pointing out the facts. I don't hold a license with the UPC.


It doesn't matter how I interpret these things, it only matters what YOUR SYSTEM SAYS....and THEY call certain things worldly, then name it, and they call it out with absolute specificity. If you willingly participate in those things, you appear to be a complete hypocrite.

[notofworks]

Do you deny Satan uses that instrument? Satan also uses scripture to twist it. Does that mean you no longer own a Bible?



What a moronic argument. Looks like I've touched a nerve with you. You're a rule-breaker and trying to justify it.

It doesn't matter how I view TV!!!! It doesn't matter if I think Satan uses it or not. IT ONLY MATTERS what YOUR religious system says about it. End of story.

[TGBTG]

No the ministers do that they agree with the articles of faith.

So I'm guessing NOW specifically has the ministers in mind. I tend to agree with NOW on this matter though. If a minister signs an oath of compliance to the articles of faith and then goes home does otherwise, that's not a good example to his flock. That would be hypocritical.

Just sayin'

[onefaith2]

So I'm guessing NOW specifically has the ministers in mind. I tend to agree with NOW on this matter though. If a minister signs an oath of compliance to the articles of faith and then goes home does otherwise, that's not a good example to his flock. That would be hypocritical.

Just sayin'

If the manual said what NOW is claiming yes but he fails to see that the manual leaves the door open for limited viewing.

[RandyWayne]

If the manual said what NOW is claiming yes but he fails to see that the manual leaves the door open for limited viewing.

Your right, it actually does, in a loophole sort of way. This just says that writers of the original statement didn't think what they were writing completely through.

[onefaith2]

It doesn't matter how I interpret these things, it only matters what YOUR SYSTEM SAYS....and THEY call certain things worldly, then name it, and they call it out with absolute specificity. If you willingly participate in those things, you appear to be a complete hypocrite.

Name calling? Your saying that I'm going against the manual when I'm pointing out to you its possible to have a TV for the limited viewing that they list and you fail to recognize that. Furthermore I don't sign this statement my friend so therefore you have no moral reasoning for calling me anything.

[MissBrattified]

Actually I have known families to fragment because the husband watched too much TV. They lose their intimate connection.

As far as internet being worse, thats debatable. With HBO, Cinemax, and new digital cable's porn rent a flick service on demand; cable is the same as far as content in my opinion.

However the argument is that internet is a pick your own poison rather than turn to a channel and let them pick your poison; if thats makes any sense. The UPC is consistent as they do encourage filters on the internet.

They are? Why don't they just encourage filters on TV, then? :toofunny Did you know that cable companies will put filters in place to block out certain channels? We had that done before we had satellite--the cable company filtered out MTV, BET, Comedy Central and several others at my request. Satellite is even EASIER to filter, since I can go into the settings and block any channels that we don't watch. The kids can't even see the titles of the missing channels.

PPV comes with all kinds of stuff on a satellite package--I'll concede that. But you can block it from the parental controls menu very easily. 100% blocked. Zero accessibility except for the person who knows the password. (In our house, I'm the only one who knows it.) PLUS, you can't watch bad stuff on PPV without it showing up on your bill for your spouse to see, so the accountability factor is already built in. IOW, our kids don't channel surf and come across titles of inappropriate shows. I have it set up to where our TV is 100% safe for them. I'm WAY more concerned about what they can access online, because I have yet to use a filter that is 100% foolproof, and/or difficult to get past. Maybe for 5 year olds--but not for teenagers.

We don't have HBO, Showtime, etc. We rent movies from PPV, Amazon on Demand, Blockbuster online, or watch instant play on Netflix. Going to a video store is completely unnecessary, because we can either watch movies instantly via the INTERNET, or we can order them via PPV on our TV.

[onefaith2]

Your right, it actually does, in a loophole sort of way. This just says that writers of the original statement didn't think what they were writing completely through.

exactly which is why I think they need to update it. Now if you could help me show NOW this so he doesn't continue to belief falsely I'm a hypocrite, that'd be helpful. (since I'm not licensed in the UPC anyway)

[Praxeas]

Good argument from a non UPC stance. There are many logical arguments for not having a cable/satellite TV in my opinion. (one of them is my wallet).

On a moral issue I think the heart is in the bolded of your post. The same content is on both and while the internet has it readily accessible, you pick and choose whether you indulge in poison or flowers. The UPC is consistent in that it strongly advises filters for the internet. They are not necessarily completely hypocritical on it.
You pick and choose with TV to. I don't watch commercials very often and even if I did, commercials? Really? I saw a commercial the other day abut toilet paper...,man that made me feel really guilty and want to run out and fornicate.

While on the other hand there are thousands and thousands of porn sites anyone can visit on the internet...commercial free!

The statistics are truly staggering. According to compiled numbers from respected news and research organizations, every second $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography. Every second 28,258 internet users are viewing pornography. In that same second 372 internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines. Every 39 minutes a new pornographic video is being created in the U.S.

It’s big business. The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined. 2006 Worldwide Pornography Revenues ballooned to $97.06 billion. 2006 & 2005 U.S. Pornography Industry Revenue Statistics, 2006 Top Adult Search Requests, 2006 Search Engine Request Trends are some of the other statistics revealed here.


The amount of pornography on the internet can be difficult to fathom. A total of 4.2 million websites contain pornography. That is 12 percent of the total number of websites. There are 100,000 websites that offer pornography and 1 in 7 youths report being solicited for sex on the internet.


Some incredible statistics here
http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html

[onefaith2]

They are? Why don't they just encourage filters on TV, then? :toofunny

Good question for the board. I think the reply would be, why open up the door for anything else that isn't necessary?

[onefaith2]

You pick and choose with TV to. I don't watch commercials very often and even if I did, commercials? Really? I saw a commercial the other day abut toilet paper...,man that made me feel really guilty and want to run out and fornicate.

While on the other hand there are thousands and thousands of porn sites anyone can visit on the internet...commercial free!

The statistics are truly staggering. According to compiled numbers from respected news and research organizations, every second $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography. Every second 28,258 internet users are viewing pornography. In that same second 372 internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines. Every 39 minutes a new pornographic video is being created in the U.S.

It’s big business. The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined. 2006 Worldwide Pornography Revenues ballooned to $97.06 billion. 2006 & 2005 U.S. Pornography Industry Revenue Statistics, 2006 Top Adult Search Requests, 2006 Search Engine Request Trends are some of the other statistics revealed here.


The amount of pornography on the internet can be difficult to fathom. A total of 4.2 million websites contain pornography. That is 12 percent of the total number of websites. There are 100,000 websites that offer pornography and 1 in 7 youths report being solicited for sex on the internet.


Some incredible statistics here
http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html

And this changes how? Have you done a study on TV porn also? Does that change the fact that TV itself spoon feeds you while you flip through channels to try and find something good to watch.

[Praxeas]

My thought is, your blatant disobedience to what the guidelines of your organization demand, isn't pleasing to God. If you have Charter cable TV while the Article of Faith clearly state that it's "Disapproved of", you should do the honorable thing and get rid of it, or be honest with yourself and leave the UPC.
Unless you are a licensed minister the only thing you are disobedient to is if you have a pastor that says "You better not, or else" type of preaching.

The AOF says "we disapprove of"...big deal. I acknowledge someone in the UPC disapproves of. The UPC does not, as an org, have the power to forbid anyone other than licensed minsters to do anything

[Praxeas]

My thought is, your blatant disobedience to what the guidelines of your organization demand, isn't pleasing to God. If you have Charter cable TV while the Article of Faith clearly state that it's "Disapproved of", you should do the honorable thing and get rid of it, or be honest with yourself and leave the UPC.
BTW why can't you guys just discuss the topic without turning it into a finger pointing contest where you judge these guys. Somedays I think you liberals are worse than the UCs

[MissBrattified]

Good question for the board. I think the reply would be, why open up the door for anything else that isn't necessary?

Because it's a laughably moot point--that's why. EVERYTHING you can get on TV, you can get on the internet, PLUS a million times more.

And I've never come across bestiality on the TV, btw--not even in the PPV titles. I accidentally found it online while googling pictures of horses for my daughter sketch. I also made the mistake of googling something about mud one time. :uhoh That was a shocker. I'm sure I'm not the only one who could give examples of surprising things I've found online. Things I would NEVER come across by surfing the channels on my TV.

[onefaith2]

Because it's a laughably moot point--that's why. EVERYTHING you can get on TV, you can get on the internet, PLUS a million times more.

And I've never come across bestiality on the TV, btw--not even in the PPV titles. I accidentally found it online while googling pictures of horses for my daughter sketch. I also made the mistake of googling something about mud one time. :uhoh That was a shocker. I'm sure I'm not the only one who could give examples of surprising things I've found online. Things I would NEVER come across by surfing the channels on my TV.

So do you think they should give free reign with TV and ban internet? There are so many more good things online than TV. Do you deny this? It pretty much depends on the channels you are watching, and the trip you take through the channels to get there. Are you one that has a tv that never surfs channels?

[Praxeas]

And this changes how? Have you done a study on TV porn also? Does that change the fact that TV itself spoon feeds you while you flip through channels to try and find something good to watch.
There are only so many channels on a TV.

That TV can broadcast porn just proves my point. The Internet is not any better but in fact worse (see above)

Around here, in order to get porn on TV you have to had ordered it. We have no stations that broadcast anything rated R or above

TV does not have email where you can get unsolicited porn links

TV can't be hacked by a virus so you get redirected to porn

TV (cable and Sat) have active channel listings so you can see what is on without channel flipping to find something good

Not having porn channels on TV helps in the channel flipping.

With TV you can have a set of favorites and just flip those

I have to wonder about the individual mind that get's spoon fed something by viewing a couple seconds (enough time to see if one wants to watch it).


In my opinion, Internet is worse.

[RandyWayne]

Because it's a laughably moot point--that's why. EVERYTHING you can get on TV, you can get on the internet, PLUS a million times more.

And I've never come across bestiality on the TV, btw--not even in the PPV titles. I accidentally found it online while googling pictures of horses for my daughter sketch. I also made the mistake of googling something about mud one time. :uhoh That was a shocker. I'm sure I'm not the only one who could give examples of surprising things I've found online. Things I would NEVER come across by surfing the channels on my TV.

Except the ban on television is one of the foundations, aka an ancient landmark, of the church during the past couple of decades. Standards, like taxes, once implemented are very difficult to change, much less eliminate. A ban on the internet was never put in place in the first place so there isn't a huge cry for it to be enacted.

[MissBrattified]

So do you think they should give free reign with TV and ban internet? There are so many more good things online than TV. Do you deny this? It pretty much depends on the channels you are watching, and the trip you take through the channels to get there. Are you one that has a tv that never surfs channels?

I absolutely surf channels. However, when we ordered satellite, I blocked any channels that we deemed unacceptable from the get-go, so any channels left are safe for surfing. You aren't going to accidentally come across naked people or bloody horror flicks on our TV--even at 3 a.m.

I know a lot of other parents who do this--non-Apostolic/non-Christian parents. It seems to be only the church people who watch TV without boundaries, and then complain about everything they are "spoon-fed." :heeheehee

The internet offers communication and research capabilities that TV doesn't; it's different; not necessarily better. We have several channels on our TV that could be considered educational, so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm quite happy for my son to sit down and watch MythBusters, for example. Sure, he may try to blow up a water heater afterwards, but for a future astronaut, the kind of information is indispensable. :)

As far as our kids channel-surfing--they've never been allowed to do that. They've always had a list of acceptable channels and acceptable shows and that's all they're allowed to watch.

[RandyWayne]

There are only so many channels on a TV.

That TV can broadcast porn just proves my point. The Internet is not any better but in fact worse (see above)

Around here, in order to get porn on TV you have to had ordered it. We have no stations that broadcast anything rated R or above

TV does not have email where you can get unsolicited porn links

TV can't be hacked by a virus so you get redirected to porn

TV (cable and Sat) have active channel listings so you can see what is on without channel flipping to find something good

Not having porn channels on TV helps in the channel flipping.

With TV you can have a set of favorites and just flip those

I have to wonder about the individual mind that get's spoon fed something by viewing a couple seconds (enough time to see if one wants to watch it).


In my opinion, Internet is worse.

It just hasn't happened yet my good friend, it just hasn't happened yet.

Of course both are converging (television and internet) to such a degree that it seems silly now to spend so much time and energy in terms of preaching to one while virtually ignoring the other -other then a bit of lip service to "get a filter". They are both becoming the exact same thing using the exact same technology.

[Praxeas]

So do you think they should give free reign with TV and ban internet? There are so many more good things online than TV. Do you deny this? It pretty much depends on the channels you are watching, and the trip you take through the channels to get there. Are you one that has a tv that never surfs channels?

What does "give free reign" mean? People are going to watch TV anyways if they want.

As long as I can remember, my first pastor was pretty strict, yet many members owned TVs anyways. They usually hid them in their bedrooms in case some snoop came over.

So all they ever heard was "get rid of your TVs"..nobody ever taught them how to think critically....how to be discerning about what to watch or not watch.

You can't "give" free reign. You can't give anything other than good principles to live by and tools to help everyone be responsible and discerning.

[RandyWayne]

..... I'm quite happy for my son to sit down and watch MythBusters, for example. Sure, he may try to blow up a water heater afterwards, but for a future astronaut, the kind of information is indispensable. :)

As far as our kids channel-surfing--they've never been allowed to do that. They've always had a list of acceptable channels and acceptable shows and that's all they're allowed to watch.

That is my favorite episode! I still cannot believe how high that thing launched and straight up!

[onefaith2]

I absolutely surf channels. However, when we ordered satellite, I blocked any channels that we deemed unacceptable from the get-go, so any channels left are safe for surfing. You aren't going to accidentally come across naked people or bloody horror flicks on our TV--even at 3 a.m.

I know a lot of other parents who do this--non-Apostolic/non-Christian parents. It seems to be only the church people who watch TV without boundaries, and then complain about everything they are "spoon-fed." :heeheehee

The internet offers communication and research capabilities that TV doesn't; it's different; not necessarily better. We have several channels on our TV that could be considered educational, so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm quite happy for my son to sit down and watch MythBusters, for example. Sure, he may try to blow up a water heater afterwards, but for a future astronaut, the kind of information is indispensable. :)

As far as our kids channel-surfing--they've never been allowed to do that. They've always had a list of acceptable channels and acceptable shows and that's all they're allowed to watch.

Thats fine and I agree with that stance. But for the usage of TV, one has to restrict to limited religious, educational, and family programming in order to align with the UPC articles of faith if they should sign that document. That usually dicredits cable itself because you typically couldn't get that only. Now things are changing with digital cable it seems. That may lead to the change of stance but I dunno.

[notofworks]

So I'm guessing NOW specifically has the ministers in mind. I tend to agree with NOW on this matter though. If a minister signs an oath of compliance to the articles of faith and then goes home does otherwise, that's not a good example to his flock. That would be hypocritical.

Just sayin'


In that context, yes, ministers. BUT....the Articles of Faith make the same, clear, concise, and specific demands of "Its people". If attenders of a UPC church own or watch a TV, they are doing something that their religious system calls, "Satanic." I'd say that's a VERY clear condemnation.

[MissBrattified]

Thats fine and I agree with that stance. But for the usage of TV, one has to restrict to limited religious, educational, and family programming in order to align with the UPC articles of faith if they should sign that document. That usually dicredits cable itself because you typically couldn't get that only. Now things are changing with digital cable it seems. That may lead to the change of stance but I dunno.

Well, I didn't sign the AOF, but I live by my principles anyway. :rolleyes2

I thought licensed ministers couldn't have TV at all, except for use as a monitor? Did I miss something in this discussion? Are you saying that the UPCI now allows a TV is if the channels are limited to religious, educational and family-friendly programming?

[notofworks]

If the manual said what NOW is claiming yes but he fails to see that the manual leaves the door open for limited viewing.


Not of TV it doesn't. And the Articles of Faith say EXACTLY what I "claim" it says. I quoted it. You're deceptively making it sound like I'm doctoring what it says. I copied it and pasted it, Dude. You can't get out of it.

[Pressing-On]

I absolutely surf channels. However, when we ordered satellite, I blocked any channels that we deemed unacceptable from the get-go, so any channels left are safe for surfing. You aren't going to accidentally come across naked people or bloody horror flicks on our TV--even at 3 a.m.

I didn't find that to be true. I had a lot of channels blocked and ratings set to nothing over PG, however, one morning I was surfing what I did have open and ran across a movie with naked people sitting in lawn chairs! Shocking! The movie was rated G! I called the company and they said they couldn't do anything about it because whatever movie is sent to them, it holds a rating that they can't change on their end.

One thing I don't like about Netflix is that you can set the ratings to block out anything PG-13 and above, including the "R" rated movies. The only problem with that is that it also blocks the "N/R" as well. That covers a lot of rated G and documentaries, so you have to leave the "R" open. Netflix told me they can't do anything about it.

I've had less trouble with my Internet than I ever have had with the television. :girlytantrum

[MissBrattified]

That is my favorite episode! I still cannot believe how high that thing launched and straight up!

Me, too. We've watched it multiple times. Jeffrey LOVES it. Scary. :blink

[onefaith2]

What does "give free reign" mean? People are going to watch TV anyways if they want.

As long as I can remember, my first pastor was pretty strict, yet many members owned TVs anyways. They usually hid them in their bedrooms in case some snoop came over.

So all they ever heard was "get rid of your TVs"..nobody ever taught them how to think critically....how to be discerning about what to watch or not watch.

You can't "give" free reign. You can't give anything other than good principles to live by and tools to help everyone be responsible and discerning.

Thats exactly right

[onefaith2]

Not of TV it doesn't. And the Articles of Faith say EXACTLY what I "claim" it says. I quoted it. You're deceptively making it sound like I'm doctoring what it says. I copied it and pasted it, Dude. You can't get out of it.

I pasted it too and it says you can use video for religious viewing. You can't get away from that. The Manual refers to cable.satellite TV when it says TV. Otherwise it contradicts itself by saying in the next paragraph you can view videos. Again I'm not getting in or out of it. Are you consistently ignoring I'm not licensed?

[notofworks]

It doesn't matter how I interpret these things, it only matters what YOUR SYSTEM SAYS....and THEY call certain things worldly, then name it, and they call it out with absolute specificity. If you willingly participate in those things, you appear to be a complete hypocrite.

Name calling? Your saying that I'm going against the manual when I'm pointing out to you its possible to have a TV for the limited viewing that they list and you fail to recognize that. Furthermore I don't sign this statement my friend so therefore you have no moral reasoning for calling me anything.



Where did I name-call? Are you THAT desperate to watch your TV that you need to misrepresent me so you can watch it?

I don't care whether you sign the oath or not. If you attend a UPC church and watch TV, you're doing something YOUR system calls "Satanic." You can't wiggle out of that.

[notofworks]

Unless you are a licensed minister the only thing you are disobedient to is if you have a pastor that says "You better not, or else" type of preaching.

The AOF says "we disapprove of"...big deal. I acknowledge someone in the UPC disapproves of. The UPC does not, as an org, have the power to forbid anyone other than licensed minsters to do anything


That's just not true. The Articles of Faith say, "Our people." THAT'S YOU...(if you attend a UPC church). It calls TV "Satanic." That's quite a bit stronger than "disapprove."

[Michael Phelps]

Good argument from a non UPC stance. There are many logical arguments for not having a cable/satellite TV in my opinion. (one of them is my wallet).

On a moral issue I think the heart is in the bolded of your post. The same content is on both and while the internet has it readily accessible, you pick and choose whether you indulge in poison or flowers. The UPC is consistent in that it strongly advises filters for the internet. They are not necessarily completely hypocritical on it.

There are filters for cable too. You can lock certain channels. There is some great stuff on TV, very educational.

And, you can use your DVR and then skip the commercials when you watch it.

[notofworks]

BTW why can't you guys just discuss the topic without turning it into a finger pointing contest where you judge these guys. Somedays I think you liberals are worse than the UCs


Just trying to keep you honest. If you're a UPCer and you watch TV, you're being dishonest.

[onefaith2]

Well, I didn't sign the AOF, but I live by my principles anyway. :rolleyes2

I thought licensed ministers couldn't have TV at all, except for use as a monitor? Did I miss something in this discussion? Are you saying that the UPCI now allows a TV is if the channels are limited to religious, educational and family-friendly programming?

No I'm saying that the UPC leaves the door open for TVs without the ability to pick up cable channels or satellite to view restricted videos. UPC is not banning the medium of video, only the content of public programming.

[notofworks]

I pasted it too and it says you can use video for religious viewing. You can't get away from that. The Manual refers to cable.satellite TV when it says TV. Otherwise it contradicts itself by saying in the next paragraph you can view videos. Again I'm not getting in or out of it. Are you consistently ignoring I'm not licensed?


And I noted that!!! Can you at least TRY to tell the truth????


Second bold: WHAT??????? That's ridiculous!!!!! Back in the day, we bought a TV, had THE TUBE REMOVED, and posted the receipt on the back of the "Monitor" in case anyone had a question. You know what we were??? HONEST!

[onefaith2]

That's just not true. The Articles of Faith say, "Our people." THAT'S YOU...(if you attend a UPC church). It calls TV "Satanic." That's quite a bit stronger than "disapprove."

Forget it prax, NOW is not willing to see it. All he is doing is saying we appear to be hypocrites, yadda, yadda. I've offered counterarguments to what he is saying and he just won't have it.

NOW do you think people ought to interpret the manual the way you did when you were in?

[MissBrattified]

I didn't find that to be true. I had a lot of channels blocked and ratings set to nothing over PG, however, one morning I was surfing what I did have open and ran across a movie with naked people sitting in lawn chairs! Shocking! The movie was rated G! I called the company and they said they couldn't do anything about it because whatever movie is sent to them, it holds a rating that they can't change on their end.

I didn't only block by ratings--you're right--that doesn't work 100%. I went into our settings and blocked entire channels and all adult PPV channels as well. For instance, I blocked an entire channel because late at night they had they GGW commercials, which are completely inappropriate in and of themselves in spite of the stupid black bars. I can't remember what channel it was...seems like it was something innocuous like FX or something.

One thing I don't like about Netflix is that you can set the ratings to block out anything PG-13 and above, including the "R" rated movies. The only problem with that is that it also blocks the "N/R" as well. That covers a lot of rated G and documentaries, so you have to leave the "R" open. Netflix told me they can't do anything about it.

Yes, I found that out, too. We fixed that for the kids by only letting them browse what I've added to the instant queue. Hannah's an exception; I can trust her to only watch PG-13 or lower. NR or UR--they always have to ask permission for the reasons stated above. I get them mixed up--I think NR is usually fine, while UR is usually really awful. I have to look up reviews to figure out.

I don't have all that much trouble with the internet--I just worry about what my kids can access if they decide they want to. Even with filters in place, that stuff is pretty easy to get around if you have even a little bit of know-how.

[onefaith2]

And I noted that!!! Can you at least TRY to tell the truth????


Second bold: WHAT??????? That's ridiculous!!!!! Back in the day, we bought a TV, had THE TUBE REMOVED, and posted the receipt on the back of the "Monitor" in case anyone had a question. You know what we were??? HONEST!

Now I'm a hypocrite and a liar? The names keep coming. Please post where I misrepresented you.

If you are saying a person can use a TV (with its channel receiver removed) for limited viewing than why are you arguing with me?

[MissBrattified]

Just trying to keep you honest. If you're a UPCer and you watch TV, you're being dishonest.

A UPCer as in any person who attends a UPC church? :blink

[MissBrattified]

Now I'm a hypocrite and a liar? The names keep coming. Please post where I misrepresented you.

If you are saying a person can use a TV for limited viewing than why are you arguing with me?

onefaith, when you say "limited viewing", do you mean including religious or educational CHANNELS being sent to your TV by *spit* Hollywood *spit*? OR do you mean videos that you rent or purchase and watch on the TV via a VCR or DVD player, essentially using it as a monitor?

[onefaith2]

onefaith, when you say "limited viewing", do you mean including religious or educational CHANNELS being sent to your TV by *spit* Hollywood *spit*? OR do you mean videos that you rent or purchase and watch on the TV via a VCR or DVD player, essentially using it as a monitor?

the second option

[onefaith2]

A UPCer as in any person who attends a UPC church? :blink

yeh i really don't follow the reasoning either. The ministers are signing a statement that they disapprove of people having it yet if a saint chooses to have one, they are somehow lying?

[Pressing-On]

I didn't only block by ratings--you're right--that doesn't work 100%. I went into our settings and blocked entire channels and all adult PPV channels as well. For instance, I blocked an entire channel because late at night they had they GGW commercials, which are completely inappropriate in and of themselves in spite of the stupid black bars. I can't remember what channel it was...seems like it was something innocuous like FX or something.
We don't have satellite anymore because it's just too much repetition (I'll refrain from what I hated about the decorating shows). I remember, one year later, reading the schedule in the paper at my FIL's house - same rotating stuff. Not paying for that.

Yes, I found that out, too. We fixed that for the kids by only letting them browse what I've added to the instant queue. Hannah's an exception; I can trust her to only watch PG-13 or lower. NR or UR--they always have to ask permission for the reasons stated above. I get them mixed up--I think NR is usually fine, while UR is usually really awful. I have to look up reviews to figure out.
Yea, that's the only way to do it, let them only view what's in queue. But, still, I hate that. I want it to work my way! :foottap

Have you seen Larkrise to Candleford? You and your girls would love it! So quaint, charming and silly! My husband hates it! LOL! After viewing, I purchased the seasons at Amazon. The fourth season is just coming out. I back ordered it and got the e-mail today that it's been shipped!!! Can't wait to see how it ended!!!!!!!


I don't have all that much trouble with the internet--I just worry about what my kids can access if they decide they want to. Even with filters in place, that stuff is pretty easy to get around if you have even a little bit of know-how.

Yea, you are right. It is easy if you want to see anything. Glad my children are grown and gone. :heeheehee

[MissBrattified]

Have you seen Larkrise to Candleford? You and your girls would love it! So quaint, charming and silly! My husband hates it! LOL! After viewing, I purchased the seasons at Amazon. The fourth season is just coming out. I back ordered it and got the e-mail today that it's been shipped!!! Can't wait to see how it ended!!!!!!!

No, we haven't seen it. I added it to our queue--we love stuff like that. My girls were completely charmed by Pride and Prejudice (the 2005 version). Sarah occasionally says, "Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy" out of the blue. :heeheehee

[onefaith2]

To clarify so I'm not called a hypocrite or liar.

THe AOF is binding on ministers to agree to the articles of faith if they are licensed.

These articles do not disallow for people to choose for themselves at their own peril.

When I say the articles allow TV for limited viewing, I mean for vcr, DVDs, or something that isn't cable/satellite broadcasting where essentially the TV is a monitor.

My apologies to NOW for any statements misleading or causing him to develop such an opinion about me.

[aegsm76]

When the WPF was initially formed before the new website, I check it out because so many of my mentors are there. They mentioned no hollywood DVD's and other mediums. I should have placed emphasis on hollywood movie dvds because they use DVD for their services, some do.

but their articles of faith or revised say clearly that no mediums of hollywood style movies are allowed


The believer abstains from purveyors of all such, including, but not limited to, prurient print material, unclean musical acts and songs, and musical productions (I Corinthians 15:33), Hollywood-style movies, and television, worldly sports, improper internet content, and all other forms and mediums of such (Deuteronomy 7:26).(WPF articles of faith)

That statement is quite different than We admonish all of our people to abstain from these activities in the interest of spiritual progress. (from UPC)

One connotates a believer will always abstain, the other connotes we admonish our people (believers) to abstain.

Do you see the difference there?

I will guarantee you that they do not preach against all DVD's, as many of those in leadership have some form of DVD's in their home.
To wit, the every present Veggie Tales dvd's.
They do preach against "ungodly" DVD's.

[onefaith2]

I will guarantee you that they do not preach against all DVD's, as many of those in leadership have some form of DVD's in their home.
To wit, the every present Veggie Tales dvd's.
They do preach against "ungodly" DVD's.

Hey I believe you. I just posted what they put on their articles of faith. The way its worded the believer abstains from anything hollywood created.

For instance the UPC AOF state limited usage for educational, religious, and family purposes. Perhaps the WPF will add that too.

[Pressing-On]

No, we haven't seen it. I added it to our queue--we love stuff like that. My girls were completely charmed by Pride and Prejudice (the 2005 version). Sarah occasionally says, "Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy" out of the blue. :heeheehee
LOL!

Let me know how you like it. I don't know when they will carry Season Four. Pretty lengthy - Season One is 582 minutes, Season two is 719, Season three is 720 and Season Four is 720. LOL!

If you haven't seen Emma with Romola Garai, it's my favorite. I like it better than the others. Although the one with Kate Beckinsale is great too! Costuming, scenery, script - it's great! The one with Gwyneth Paltrow is my third choice, although it is also very done well.

If it is a British movie - I probably own it. :D

[Pressing-On]

To clarify so I'm not called a hypocrite or liar.

THe AOF is binding on ministers to agree to the articles of faith if they are licensed.

These articles do not disallow for people to choose for themselves at their own peril.

When I say the articles allow TV for limited viewing, I mean for vcr, DVDs, or something that isn't cable/satellite broadcasting where essentially the TV is a monitor.

My apologies to NOW for any statements misleading or causing him to develop such an opinion about me.

Right. And I've heard it preached, "I'm not going to preach against television, but I'm certainly not going to encourage you to go out and buy one either." :heeheehee

[Praxeas]

That's just not true. The Articles of Faith say, "Our people." THAT'S YOU...(if you attend a UPC church). It calls TV "Satanic." That's quite a bit stronger than "disapprove."
The AOF says "WE (the UPC officially) disapprove"

It does not say "we forbid" meaning you have to obey to be a member

Saying "I disapprove" is a personal statement of how someone feels

Saying "I forbid" is a lot stronger.

[Praxeas]

Just trying to keep you honest. If you're a UPCer and you watch TV, you're being dishonest.
You'd only be dishonest if you lied about something or was deceitful about something. Your accusation is false

[unitedpraise10]

My thought is, your blatant disobedience to what the guidelines of your organization demand, isn't pleasing to God. If you have Charter cable TV while the Article of Faith clearly state that it's "Disapproved of", you should do the honorable thing and get rid of it, or be honest with yourself and leave the UPC.

Every church is different!! At my church, we don't follow that guideline! The pastor sets the guidelines for his congregation....not the manual!

[unitedpraise10]

Wouldn't that only be if he held a UPC license?

lol...yes! I'm a music minister. UPCI doesn't have music minister licences! Furthermore, I will clarify that I'm not a big TV person. I rarely turn it on. I will admit that I record American Idol every week. Sometimes I don't even watch it. I simply do not have time for it!

[MissBrattified]

You'd only be dishonest if you lied about something or was deceitful about something. Your accusation is false

I can see how it applies to ministers licensed through the UPCI, but not anyone else. I've never signed any sort of agreement stating that I wouldn't own or watch TV, I haven't verbally agreed to anything like that, my pastor allows us to make our own decisions regarding TV, and we don't hide it. I'm not sure how that could add up to deceit on our part. :huh

[jfrog]

I can see how it applies to ministers licensed through the UPCI, but not anyone else. I've never signed any sort of agreement stating that I wouldn't own or watch TV, I haven't verbally agreed to anything like that, my pastor allows us to make our own decisions regarding TV, and we don't hide it. I'm not sure how that could add up to deceit on our part. :huh

Don't UPC preachers agree to preach against TV's by signing that thing?

[unitedpraise10]

No, absolutely not. The Articles of Faith say, "Furthermore, because of these evils being on television, we disapprove of our people.......". That's from memory so I may be off a word or two, but that's the gist.

I see anyone that's in the UPC as hypocritical if they own a TV, regardless of how they justify it.

Judgmental spirit right there! You better watch out! Question: If you think having a television is hypocritical, why do you have an internet connection?

[jfrog]

Judgmental spirit right there! You better watch out! Question: If you think having a television is hypocritical, why do you have an internet connection?

LOL! NOW has no problem with owning a TV or having internet...

[MissBrattified]

Don't UPC preachers agree to preach against TV's by signing that thing?

The [Minister's] affirmation statement says:

"I __________________, do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the Fundamental Doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set forth in said Articles of Faith and I pledge to practice, preach and teach the same."

The relevant part of the "Holiness" section is:

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."



First of all, I would say there's a difference between preaching, teaching & practicing and "enforcement", and secondly, this is still not an agreement that a member of a UPCI church is required to sign. If the pastor signs, that's on him. Not on the congregant. Not unless it's passed along.

The believing and embracing part is problematic.

[unitedpraise10]

It already does. It calls certain things "worldly". The bible says that things that are "worldly", they're against God. That's every bit as bad as stealing.

Do you have technology in your church....examples being, a projector and screen for worship, a sound system, piano, drums, etc. All of those are worldly!! You can't really use that excuse. There is nothing wrong with television...as long as you don't cross the line!

[unitedpraise10]

People sign an oath to remain members of the UPC?

Yeah, I've been a member for 22 yrs, and I've never signed anything. Not true....!!

[unitedpraise10]

It doesn't matter how I interpret these things, it only matters what YOUR SYSTEM SAYS....and THEY call certain things worldly, then name it, and they call it out with absolute specificity. If you willingly participate in those things, you appear to be a complete hypocrite.

Someone once explained it to me as personal conviction! Also, if a pastor is ok with it, his word trumps the manual.

[Pressing-On]

Someone once explained it to me as personal conviction! Also, if a pastor is ok with it, his word trumps the manual.
That's how I view it.

:thumbsup

[unitedpraise10]

Unless you are a licensed minister the only thing you are disobedient to is if you have a pastor that says "You better not, or else" type of preaching.

The AOF says "we disapprove of"...big deal. I acknowledge someone in the UPC disapproves of. The UPC does not, as an org, have the power to forbid anyone other than licensed minsters to do anything

Exactly!

[unitedpraise10]

I'll say it again! If a pastor is ok with it, his word trumps the manual!!! LOL

[jfrog]

I'll say it again! If a pastor is ok with it, his word trumps the manual!!! LOL

Actually that should make you wonder how he could be UPC if he is okay with his members owning a TV. I mean he has to sign a statement that he will preach and teach against TV...

[NotforSale]

Funny, I remember a preacher who was dead set against TV, and then he would go home and play violent Video games and get online.

The whole issue of TV in the UPCI is a joke. I saw this coming years ago when the Internet hit Apostolic homes in the 90's. Media is available in so many different forms today, and there is no way you can stand against just one, and in the end, look intelligent.

[BeenThinkin]

So, two wrongs do make a right? :heeheehee

Timmy, if two wrongs don't make a right, ...... how many does it take to make a right? :heeheehee

Been Thinkin

[Pressing-On]

The [Minister's] affirmation statement says:

"I __________________, do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the Fundamental Doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set forth in said Articles of Faith and I pledge to practice, preach and teach the same."

The believing and embracing part is problematic.
I don't have a problem with the believing and embracing part. It would still hold true if we discussed and came to a better understanding. So, where ever we are, at any point in history, you could say that. I believe many see changes coming and know it's best to give it time. For instance, DS's article in the Herald refuting the HMH doctrine. He does believe the passage means "uncut", but until a group is sure about that, I don't hold it against them to embrace it. Although, they would be very surprised at the large percentage of women who don't believe it. Who discuss it privately and never tell the leadership. Or maybe they aren't surprised. LOL!

The relevant part of the "Holiness" section is:

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."
I take the bold as working these things out with our local constituency and in our own personal lives. For instance, we pulled out of Little League when we got to Pony League because the coaches were not Christians and exhibited bad behaviour. Anything else on the list is subjective to place and situation. The only item which doesn't have any wiggle room is the "uncut hair". Make-up is subjective. Some define that as mascara, but not base. LOL!


First of all, I would say there's a difference between preaching, teaching & practicing and "enforcement", and secondly, this is still not an agreement that a member of a UPCI church is required to sign. If the pastor signs, that's on him. Not on the congregant. Not unless it's passed along.

:thumbsup

[jfrog]

Timmy, if two wrongs don't make a right, ...... how many does it take to make a right? :heeheehee

Been Thinkin

2 lefts do though ;)

[notofworks]

Now I'm a hypocrite and a liar? The names keep coming. Please post where I misrepresented you.

If you are saying a person can use a TV (with its channel receiver removed) for limited viewing than why are you arguing with me?


I've already pointed out where you did. Go read it.

[notofworks]

A UPCer as in any person who attends a UPC church? :blink


That would seem to be the case.

[notofworks]

yeh i really don't follow the reasoning either. The ministers are signing a statement that they disapprove of people having it yet if a saint chooses to have one, they are somehow lying?


No, they're not lying and never said they were. Read carefully. Heck, just read.

By the Articles of Faith, even the "Saints" are prohibited from watching TV. Yes, that's right, prohibited. Television is called "Satanic". Surely you're not saying there's a loophole there, are you? Are you trying to tell me that the United Pentecostal Church offers a loophole for its people to participate in a Satanic activity? If so, they're in far worse shape than I thought.

[notofworks]

The AOF says "WE (the UPC officially) disapprove"

It does not say "we forbid" meaning you have to obey to be a member

Saying "I disapprove" is a personal statement of how someone feels

Saying "I forbid" is a lot stronger.



Absolutely goofy. Beyond goofy. The United Pentecostal Church calls television an "Instrument of Satan." You're actually trying to tell me that the United Pentecostal Church is NOT forbidding people to participate in a "Satanic activity"???? Really??? Do the legalists need it spelled out for them THAT specifically? You know, I think I just answered my question.....hahahaha...OF COURSE legalists need it spelled out for them!! They look for every single loophole!!

Just listen to yourself....."Yes, my religious system calls TV an Instrument of Satan, BUT HEY!!!! They didn't forbid me to own one!!!"

Good grief. That's sad.

[notofworks]

Every church is different!! At my church, we don't follow that guideline! The pastor sets the guidelines for his congregation....not the manual!


Then your church should leave the UPC. Period, end of story. YOUR religious culture has labeled TV an Instrument of Satan. You're telling me that your church approves of Satanic activities? Evidently, they do.

[aegsm76]

Funny, I remember a preacher who was dead set against TV, and then he would go home and play violent Video games and get online.

The whole issue of TV in the UPCI is a joke. I saw this coming years ago when the Internet hit Apostolic homes in the 90's. Media is available in so many different forms today, and there is no way you can stand against just one, and in the end, look intelligent.

NOW - why is it that the way you word things just ticks me off? :):).
I think it is because you state your opinions as fact.
I believe that you can look intelligent and maintain a stance against setting anything evil before your eyes.
Whether it's on TV, on your computer, or in your hands as print.

[notofworks]

Don't UPC preachers agree to preach against TV's by signing that thing?



Yes, they ABSOLUTELY DO!!!! It's one of the major reasons I wouldn't sign mine.

[notofworks]

Judgmental spirit right there! You better watch out! Question: If you think having a television is hypocritical, why do you have an internet connection?



I'm fine with the internet and I'm fine with TV. I have a TV, it's on in front of me right now. But unlike you, I don't belong to a religious system that TOTALLY condemns it.

[notofworks]

The [Minister's] affirmation statement says:

"I __________________, do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the Fundamental Doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set forth in said Articles of Faith and I pledge to practice, preach and teach the same."

The relevant part of the "Holiness" section is:

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."



First of all, I would say there's a difference between preaching, teaching & practicing and "enforcement", and secondly, this is still not an agreement that a member of a UPCI church is required to sign. If the pastor signs, that's on him. Not on the congregant. Not unless it's passed along.

The believing and embracing part is problematic.



I've said this a million times...my fingers are getting sore. The Articles of Faith INCLUDE the congregant. It does. There's just simply no way around that. There just isn't.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I know a lot of other parents who do this--non-Apostolic/non-Christian parents. It seems to be only the church people who watch TV without boundaries, and then complain about everything they are "spoon-fed." :heeheehee




Exactly.

The arguments against tv just make my head spin. The notion that you can control what you see on the internet (you have to go looking for it) but can't control what's on the tv is just..... uh.... crazy.

Our tv came with a remote control. It has an off switch. It also has a 'change the channel' switch.

People act like there is only one channel on tv, and the tv has no off switch. That you're forced to just sit there and absorb whatever comes on like a zombie.

We have a tv now (after a lifetime of not having one) and we use it in the EXACT same way we use dvds and the internet. Most of the time it seems to be used for my daughter to watch I Love Lucy dvds. We watch mainstream tv very little. But when we do, we pick and choose what we watch. If it's offensive, we change the channel or turn it off altogether (novel concept apparently).

One of the arguing points is commercials - I used to use this one myself a lot - but that has also become a moot point. If you have a dvr you can zoom right past commercials. If you watch Hulu (like thousands of Apostolics do) you're seeing the exact same commercials that are on tv. A lot of people use commercial time to channel surf. Many turn the volume off during commercials. And much to my surprise, most commercials are not offensive.

The whole tv issue has just become, as Randy Wayne said, a landmark issue. It's the word itself that sets everyone on edge, not the technology or the content. It's really time to just let it go. Unless you're going to be completely consistent (like a lot of AMFers) and ban all similar technologies, including the internet. (Although I don't for the life of me see how that's going to hold up long term with so many work and school projects depending on the internet).

[BeenThinkin]

2 lefts do though ;)

jfrog, now why would you say something like that? Two lefts? Your not "lefty" are you? :girlytantrum :foottap

BT

[notofworks]

Someone once explained it to me as personal conviction! Also, if a pastor is ok with it, his word trumps the manual.

That's how I view it.

:thumbsup


Sorry but that's nowhere in the same galaxy of how it really is. The pastor's word "trumps the manual"???? Seriously?? When they sign A SWORN OATH on a regular basis that they will PRACTICE, PREACH, AND TEACH, the things that are contained in the manual????? Wow!!! I guess I should have stayed in the UPC in 1993!! Evidently, there's a exemption for total hypocrisy.

[notofworks]

I'll say it again! If a pastor is ok with it, his word trumps the manual!!! LOL


Moronic. "Praise the Lord folks! Tonight my subject is, Satanism is ok!"

[unitedpraise10]

Sorry but that's nowhere in the same galaxy of how it really is. The pastor's word "trumps the manual"???? Seriously?? When they sign A SWORN OATH on a regular basis that they will PRACTICE, PREACH, AND TEACH, the things that are contained in the manual????? Wow!!! I guess I should have stayed in the UPC in 1993!! Evidently, there's a exemption for total hypocrisy.

Believe me buddy!! A lot has changed since 1993. You obviously don't have you information straight!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Have you seen Larkrise to Candleford? You and your girls would love it! So quaint, charming and silly! My husband hates it! LOL! After viewing, I purchased the seasons at Amazon. The fourth season is just coming out. I back ordered it and got the e-mail today that it's been shipped!!! Can't wait to see how it ended!!!!!!!



That one is winging its way to me today, too! Love it!

[unitedpraise10]

Believe me buddy!! A lot has changed since 1993. You obviously don't have you information straight!

I've grown up in the UPCI, and I will admit....we have become very lax. I guess you could say that we aren't as strict as we once were.

[*AQuietPlace*]

LOL!

Let me know how you like it. I don't know when they will carry Season Four. Pretty lengthy - Season One is 582 minutes, Season two is 719, Season three is 720 and Season Four is 720. LOL!

If you haven't seen Emma with Romola Garai, it's my favorite. I like it better than the others. Although the one with Kate Beckinsale is great too! Costuming, scenery, script - it's great! The one with Gwyneth Paltrow is my third choice, although it is also very done well.

If it is a British movie - I probably own it. :D
Have you seen 'Wives and Daughters'? 'Cranford'?

[jfrog]

I've grown up in the UPCI, and I will admit....we have become very lax. I guess you could say that we aren't as strict as we once were.

:thumbsup That's great. Now if only yall's oaths or should I say your UPC leader's and pastor's oaths could be taken seriously!

[NotforSale]

NOW - why is it that the way you word things just ticks me off? :):).
I think it is because you state your opinions as fact.
I believe that you can look intelligent and maintain a stance against setting anything evil before your eyes.
Whether it's on TV, on your computer, or in your hands as print.

Then get rid of you computer, as the EVIL that is online is far worse than TV. I can prove this beyond the shadow of ANY doubt, and as a FACT! I can also prove that Video Games are far more addictive and dangerous than TV.

Then you might say, you choose to not look at the EVIL on the Internet, and so, people say they will not look at EVIL on TV.

The banishment of TV is over. How long will people hold onto this Sacred Cow? ;)

[unitedpraise10]

:thumbsup That's great. Now if only yall's oaths or should I say your leader's and pastor's oaths could be taken seriously!

I was told from a reliable source (an employee of WEC), that the UPCI manual will change with the next few years. Many things will be omitted. I live and attend church in the St. Louis area!

[jfrog]

I was told from a reliable source (an employee of WEC), that the UPCI manual will change with the next few years. Many things will be omitted. I live and attend church in the St. Louis area!

Nevermind... I had my terms confused. What is the WEC?

[aegsm76]

Then get rid of you computer, as the EVIL that is online is far worse than TV. I can prove this beyond the shadow of ANY doubt, and as a FACT! I can also prove that Video Games are far more addictive and dangerous than TV.

Then you might say, you choose to not look at the EVIL on the Internet, and so, people say they will not look at EVIL on TV.

The banishment of TV is over. How long will people hold onto this Sacred Cow? ;)

What are you, the salesmen for Zenith?
Sorry if have the company wrong, but I don't know who makes tv's!!
You keep your tv and I'll keep my four year old who can read the Bible and has been able to since he was three.
Let me tell you TV can be one of the biggest wasters or time there is.
So can the internet, video games and anything else you let take control of you.
Why are you so determined to lobby for the liberation of TV?
:foottap:foottap

[Pressing-On]

Have you seen 'Wives and Daughters'? 'Cranford'?

Yes, I own them also! :thumbsup My sister recommended Cranford. I called her and said, "Good Lord, these people are nosy!" :toofunny

Have you seen Little Dorrit (Claire Foy)? Keep in mind it's Charles Dickens, so it will be a little dark.

Bleak House (Anna Maxwell Martin)? Really liked it, also a Charles Dickens. Haven't purchased it yet.

North & South is good. Purchased that.

Middlemarch - liked it.

Have about 30 good Christmas movies that I like. I guess I won't list them. LOL!

Yuck for The Buccaneers and the The Mayor of Casterbridge. :thumbsdown

I keep editing this post. LOL! I have every Oliver Twist that has been made. I love Oliver!

[*AQuietPlace*]

You keep your tv and I'll keep my four year old who can read the Bible and has been able to since he was three.


I'm sure you're not insinuating that those of us who have tvs don't have children who can read the Bible. :D

I don't think that anyone is lobbying for the liberation of tv, it's just that in this age the double-standard has become frustrating. People will absolutely CONDEMN people for having television, and then go watch American Idol on their computers. That gets really irritating.

Every argument that's used in favor of the internet and movies on dvd can be applied to television. Use it wisely. Change the channel. Turn it off. Don't watch junk. USE WISDOM. Why is television excluded from these guidelines?

[NotforSale]

What are you, the salesmen for Zenith?
Sorry if have the company wrong, but I don't know who makes tv's!!
You keep your tv and I'll keep my four year old who can read the Bible and has been able to since he was three.
Let me tell you TV can be one of the biggest wasters or time there is.
So can the internet, video games and anything else you let take control of you.
Why are you so determined to lobby for the liberation of TV?
:foottap:foottap

You know what's funny, you presume many things. I haven't had a TV in my home for over 30 years!:foottap

BTW, my grandkids are older than your children and I raised my children with NO TV.

But today is a different World. If you are Online and allow Video Games, you will confuse your children when they are older if you are against TV.

Hey Dad, let's play a Video Game!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-E1RcRvny8

[aegsm76]

You know what's funny, you presume many things. I haven't had a TV in my home for over 30 years!:foottap

BTW, my grandkids are older than your children and I raised my children with NO TV.

But today is a different World. If you are Online and allow Video Games, you will confuse your children when they are older if you are against TV.

Hey Dad, let's play a Video Game!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-E1RcRvny8

You presume some things also. :):):)
#1 son is 23; #2 son is 22; #3 son is 4...
My #1 and #2 sons are not confused at all about my stance on media.
They also choose to not have a tv.

[Phoenix]

That is my favorite episode! I still cannot believe how high that thing launched and straight up!

I enjoyed that episode too. :) But my favorite would be the duct taped car.

[NotforSale]

You presume some things also. :):):)
#1 son is 23; #2 son is 22; #3 son is 4...
My #1 and #2 sons are not confused at all about my stance on media.
They also choose to not have a tv.

And if they are Online like you, they are hypocrites like you. You can't stand against TV and be Online. You are the reason there is so much confusion in Faith today.

Either get off the Internet and banish the Video Games, or your testimony is a fake. Or, you can be real and stop your ridiculous agenda against Television.

I still don’t want a TV, but I don’t care if people do. If a person wants a Television, that’s their business, not mine.

[Pressing-On]

Interesting tidbit about Netflix. Our son downloaded my account info on a thumbdrive to use on his X-box when he was over here. He took the X-box home, and my account works at his house. We didn't know it would do that. Now we are all accountable to each other because we can see what each other is viewing. I like checking up on him. :D LOL!

[Praxeas]

Absolutely goofy. Beyond goofy. The United Pentecostal Church calls television an "Instrument of Satan." You're actually trying to tell me that the United Pentecostal Church is NOT forbidding people to participate in a "Satanic activity"???? Really??? Do the legalists need it spelled out for them THAT specifically? You know, I think I just answered my question.....hahahaha...OF COURSE legalists need it spelled out for them!! They look for every single loophole!!

Just listen to yourself....."Yes, my religious system calls TV an Instrument of Satan, BUT HEY!!!! They didn't forbid me to own one!!!"

Good grief. That's sad.
Wow. You really don't have a clue what the difference is do you?

Disapprove
to have an unfavorable opinion; express (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/express) disapproval (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disapproval) (usually followed by of ).

Forbid
1.to command (a person) not to do something, have something, etc., or not to enter some place: to forbid him entry to the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) house (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/house).
2.to prohibit (something); make a rule or law against: to forbid the use of lipstick; to forbid smoking.

BTW I never claimed anything as "my religious system". I never once said I agreed with the UPC on everything it teaches or any other religious system. I am not a licensed minister of the UPCI. I never have been

They can't forbid me to do anything. Im not a member of the UPC. I attend a local UPC. There is no requirement for attendance that mandates not owning a TV

Now how am I a legalist?

Legalist don't look for loopholes.

I suggest you don't have a clue what the word means.

A Legalist is someone that seeks salvation by good works

Further more
strict adherence, or the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.

If that is the case then first of all the AOF "we disapprove" is not a law but an opinion and even if it were a law it seems there are many here that don't hold to the letter of that law but the spirit and are not legalists.

[NotforSale]

Interesting tidbit about Netflix. Our son downloaded my account info on a thumbdrive to use on his X-box when we was over here. He took the X-box home, and my account works at his house. We didn't know it would do that. Now we are all accountable to each other because we can see what each other is viewing. I like checking up on him. :D LOL!

You're a stinker!!! :lol

[unitedpraise10]

Nevermind... I had my terms confused. What is the WEC?

World Evangelism Center (UPCI Headquarters) in St. Louis.

[Praxeas]

Then your church should leave the UPC. Period, end of story. YOUR religious culture has labeled TV an Instrument of Satan. You're telling me that your church approves of Satanic activities? Evidently, they do.
If He is a part of that culture then clearly not everyone OF that culture agrees it's wrong to have a TV set.

Do you agree with everything that is American culture or every thing the US government has said or decreed?

You know what I find really amazing? Not only do you ULs express such vile contempt for the UPC and those that are conservatives, but those who are interested in changing the group from the inside out you have even more contempt for.

[Pressing-On]

You're a stinker!!! :lol

LOL! I'm serious! We didn't know it would work at his house! LOL! AND I'M PAYING FOR IT!! :toofunny

[aegsm76]

And if they are Online like you, they are hypocrites like you. You can't stand against TV and be Online. You are the reason there is so much confusion in Faith today.

Either get off the Internet and banish the Video Games, or your testimony is a fake. Or, you can be real and stop your ridiculous agenda against Television.

I still don’t want a TV, but I don’t care if people do. If a person wants a Television, that’s their business, not mine.

Nice.
Do not pass go, go straight to the personal attack and name calling.
Let's talk about hypocrisy.
Are you the guy that does not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?

[Michael Phelps]

Someone once explained it to me as personal conviction! Also, if a pastor is ok with it, his word trumps the manual.

So, a pastor's word trumps the manual? My understanding is that the pastor agrees with the manual, otherwise he wouldn't hold a license....

[unitedpraise10]

So, a pastor's word trumps the manual? My understanding is that the pastor agrees with the manual, otherwise he wouldn't hold a license....

You are right, but he agrees on behalf of himself...not his congregation! In todays day and time a pastor isn't going to say "No TV, No Christmas Tree, No amusement parks, No sports venues, etc", unless of course they are WPF, in fear of loosing his entire congregation. Lets face it, people are just not going to be told what they can and can't do anymore. We need to remember that we live in the 21st century folks. It's not 1950 anymore, nor is it 1980 or 1996. It's 2011. This is something we cannot fix or reverse. Television is in the church, and we just need to adapt. Believe it or not, television can be used to edify the body and to glorify God! :nod

[NotforSale]

Nice.
Do not pass go, go straight to the personal attack and name calling.
Let's talk about hypocrisy.
Are you the guy that does not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Typical politician. The old "Change the Subject" trick! The facts always scare folks like you. Stop deviating from the topic of this Thread. Bottom line is, you are a hypocrite if you are on the Internet and cry wolf against TV.

Again, and I'll say AGAIN, I sent you a PM on the subject of Scripture, but all on AFF, I got NO RESPONSE! A gave you a thorough answer and admitted my struggles with our current Bible, but you just ignore everything I said.

[Pressing-On]

You are right, but he agrees on behalf of himself...not his congregation! In todays day and time a pastor isn't going to say "No TV, No Christmas Tree, No amusement parks, No sports venues, etc", unless of course they are WPF, in fear of loosing his entire congregation. Lets face it, people are just not going to be told what they can and can't do anymore. We need to remember that we live in the 21st century folks. It's not 1950 anymore, nor is it 1980 or 1996. It's 2011. This is something we cannot fix or reverse. Television is in the church, and we just need to adapt. Believe it or not, television can be used to edify the body and to glorify God! :nod

I view that as agreeing with most of the statement, especially, the plan of salvation. I don't think you have to agree with all of it to sign it. It's the same as a Congressman putting his vote on a bill, IMO.. He signs it for the greater good of the bill. The plan of salvation trumps the "tv" or "uncut hair" issue for me.

I'm not likely to attend a church that preaches an AOG message - "Holy Ghost is not necessary, but it's nice for empowerment." Romans 8:9 tells me that is not true.

[Praxeas]

You know what is really precious? These people that left the UPC who say they have no axes to grind, no stones to throw lol....yeah right

and the moaning and griping about how you were treated?

I suppose that's your justification. I was treated bad so Im gonna treat every other "UPCer" bad

[jfrog]

I view that as agreeing with most of the statement, especially, the plan of salvation. I don't think you have to agree with all of it to sign it. It's the same as a Congressman putting his vote on a bill, IMO.. He signs it for the greater good of the bill. The plan of salvation trumps the "tv" or "uncut hair" issue for me.

I'm not likely to attend a church that preaches an AOG message - "Holy Ghost is not necessary, but it's nice for empowerment." Romans 8:9 tells me that is not true.

WOW!

[Pressing-On]

You know what is really precious? These people that left the UPC who say they have no axes to grind, no stones to throw lol....yeah right

and the moaning and griping about how you were treated?

I suppose that's your justification. I was treated bad so Im gonna treat every other "UPCer" bad

:thumbsup

It's makes me want to be Conservative. :D

[aegsm76]

Typical politician. The old "Change the Subject" trick! The facts always scare folks like you. Stop deviating from the topic of this Thread. Bottom line is, you are a hypocrite if you are on the Internet and cry wolf against TV.

Again, and I'll say AGAIN, I sent you a PM on the subject of Scripture, but all on AFF, I got NO RESPONSE! A gave you a thorough answer and admitted my struggles with our current Bible, but you just ignore everything I said.

I think you are the one who started the personal attacks.
I thought we were having a discussion regarding tv.
And learning a little about each other in the process.
You are the one who started shouting hypocrite.
And calling my sons hypocrites.
Ridiculous.
Now, I've got a busy evening ahead.
Later.

[Pressing-On]

WOW!
A cult is when you, blindly, agree with everything, don't you think? :D

[jfrog]

You know what is really precious? These people that left the UPC who say they have no axes to grind, no stones to throw lol....yeah right

and the moaning and griping about how you were treated?

I suppose that's your justification. I was treated bad so Im gonna treat every other "UPCer" bad

;) do you have an axe to grind against ex UPCers because seems to me you are grinding an axe against them. I mean judging from how you judge that they have axes to grind then its only a fair judgement to say you have an axe to grind against them too. :happydance

[NotforSale]

I think you are the one who started the personal attacks.
I thought we were having a discussion regarding tv.
And learning a little about each other in the process.
You are the one who started shouting hypocrite.
And calling my sons hypocrites.
Ridiculous.
Now, I've got a busy evening ahead.
Later.

Later, Bro! Have a good night! I'm outta here, too! :thumbsup

[jfrog]

A cult is when you, blindly, agree with everything, don't you think? :D

Signing your name to something saying you believe it and will teach it and then not teaching it and re-signing your name to it every two years sounds more cultish to me than just not signing the thing... :happydance

[*AQuietPlace*]

I view that as agreeing with most of the statement, especially, the plan of salvation. I don't think you have to agree with all of it to sign it. It's the same as a Congressman putting his vote on a bill, IMO.. He signs it for the greater good of the bill. The plan of salvation trumps the "tv" or "uncut hair" issue for me.


Not at ALL the same thing. The Congressman is agreeing to pass a bill, even if he doesn't agree with all of it.

The whole point of the Affirmation statement is: I Agree.

My mind is BLOWN AWAY by all of the preachers who sign that and don't abide by it. I'm sorry, but I don't have respect for anyone who does that.

If I sign that I AGREE with something, I'm going to AGREE with every single bit of it, or I'm not going to sign it. To do otherwise is lying.

[notofworks]

Believe me buddy!! A lot has changed since 1993. You obviously don't have you information straight!


Hogwash. The things I'm talking about haven't changed one bit. Not one single word of either the affirmation statement (sworn oath) or that particular section of the Articles of Faith has been change......BUDDY.

[Pressing-On]

Signing your name to something saying you believe it and will teach it and then not teaching it and re-signing your name to it every two years sounds more cultish to me than just not signing the thing... :happydance

Do you believe and agree with every rule a place of employment puts on you? Do you agree with every rule someone has at their private home? Do you think that every person in any organization believes and agrees with everything their church teaches?

When I was a Catholic the women got tired of wearing the veil on their heads. They ended up relaxing the rule because people stopped cooperating. Same thing, IMO.

You want us to change, but you want us to also comply. Which do you really want?

[notofworks]

:thumbsup That's great. Now if only yall's oaths or should I say your UPC leader's and pastor's oaths could be taken seriously!


That's exactly right, jfrog. They SWEAR ON AN OATH that they'll do certain things and guess what......they break their sworn oaths. Something is terribly wrong with that. The slithering I'm seeing, trying to justify such horrific disobedience and breaking of covenants is one of the most awful things I've read on AFF.

[notofworks]

I was told from a reliable source (an employee of WEC), that the UPCI manual will change with the next few years. Many things will be omitted. I live and attend church in the St. Louis area!


That's fantastic!!! When it does, go have all the liberty you want and I'll cheer you on. Until then??? OBEY!!!

[*AQuietPlace*]

I could probably attend a church where I didn't agree with every guideline. But if I was required to sign a paper stating that I agreed with every guideline, and I didn't agree..... nope. Not happening.

[unitedpraise10]

Hogwash. The things I'm talking about haven't changed one bit. Not one single word of either the affirmation statement (sworn oath) or that particular section of the Articles of Faith has been change......BUDDY.

The words haven't changed, but the church has changed! BUDDY! :smack

[notofworks]

Wow. You really don't have a clue what the difference is do you?

Disapprove
to have an unfavorable opinion; express (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/express) disapproval (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disapproval) (usually followed by of ).

Forbid
1.to command (a person) not to do something, have something, etc., or not to enter some place: to forbid him entry to the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) house (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/house).
2.to prohibit (something); make a rule or law against: to forbid the use of lipstick; to forbid smoking.

BTW I never claimed anything as "my religious system". I never once said I agreed with the UPC on everything it teaches or any other religious system. I am not a licensed minister of the UPCI. I never have been

They can't forbid me to do anything. Im not a member of the UPC. I attend a local UPC. There is no requirement for attendance that mandates not owning a TV

Now how am I a legalist?

Legalist don't look for loopholes.

I suggest you don't have a clue what the word means.

A Legalist is someone that seeks salvation by good works

Further more
strict adherence, or the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.

If that is the case then first of all the AOF "we disapprove" is not a law but an opinion and even if it were a law it seems there are many here that don't hold to the letter of that law but the spirit and are not legalists.


"We disapprove of OUR PEOPLE.....".

That's you, Prax!!


Thank you for your completely irrelevant definition. Here's one for you:

sa·tan·ic   
[suh-tan-ik, sey-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of Satan.
2.
characteristic of or befitting Satan; extremely wicked; devillike; diabolical.


That's what YOUR religious system calls your television.

[Pressing-On]

Not at ALL the same thing. The Congressman is agreeing to pass a bill, even if he doesn't agree with all of it.
And that is any different than the AS? I don't think it is.


The whole point of the Affirmation statement is: I Agree.

My mind is BLOWN AWAY by all of the preachers who sign that and don't abide by it. I'm sorry, but I don't have respect for anyone who does that.

If I sign that I AGREE with something, I'm going to AGREE with every single bit of it, or I'm not going to sign it. To do otherwise is lying.
Then I hope when you get a job, you agree with EVERY rule because you won't get a paycheck. I obeyed my teachers because I would get expelled, not because I agreed with them. When my sister tells us to take off our shoes when we come to her home, I think it's stupid, but I comply.

It's only complicated because people want it to be. We have been in change for some time now. I believe people sign it because they believe the plan of salvation and not because they believe everything else. So, who is going to jump ship over something like that? I'm not. Acts 2:38 is something God showed me. It's exactly how we preach it. Nothing else is as important to me.

And I was more traumatized by what the world demanded of me, than I have ever been by the church. I know that's not everyone's story, but it is mine.

[unitedpraise10]

That's fantastic!!! When it does, go have all the liberty you want and I'll cheer you on. Until then??? OBEY!!!

I will OBEY!!! my pastor and the bible sunny boy....not a manual! :smack

[jfrog]

Do you believe and agree with every rule a place of employment puts on you? Do you agree with every rule someone has at their private home? Do you think that every person in any organization believes and agrees with everything their church teaches?

When I was a Catholic the women got tired of wearing the veil on their heads. They ended up relaxing the rule because people stopped cooperating. Same thing, IMO.

You want us to change, but you want us to also comply. Which do you really want?

I like your last question PO! I want to see change and I'm willing to be lenient in judging those who are for change. However, as long as they continue to look the other way then there won't be any real change except hypocrisy. So yes I will be lenient and won't be too harsh toward them for being for change, however at the same time I want to see those men who look the other way also be a voice for changing things so they don't have to look the other way. My only problem is I don't see them voicing any ,support for changing things only for looking the other way.

[notofworks]

So, a pastor's word trumps the manual? My understanding is that the pastor agrees with the manual, otherwise he wouldn't hold a license....



100% correct, Michael. I've walked a very hard, lonely road because I couldn't sign my name to something I didn't believe in....lost everything because I wouldn't sign it.

I'm sure there are areas of the manual that everyone disagrees with. But one is still required to walk in unity. No one is allowed to clearly disobey what is ordered, ESPECIALLY if they've sworn an oath not to.

[Pressing-On]

Later, Bro! Have a good night! I'm outta here, too! :thumbsup

Me too! It's only going to go down hill from here. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

I like your last question PO! I want to see change and I'm willing to be lenient in judging those who are for change. However, as long as they continue to look the other way then there won't be any real change except hypocrisy. So yes I will be lenient and won't be too harsh toward them for looking the other way, however at the same time I want to see those men who look the other way also be a voice for changing things so they don't have to look the other way. My only problem is I don't see them voicing any concern for changing things only for looking the other way.

I don't think you actually know what people talk about in private, with our leadership, and we sure aren't going to tell a bunch of people here. IMO, it's an in-house issue. Same as my own personal household. It's no one's business no matter how much they say it is. :D

[unitedpraise10]

100% correct, Michael. I've walked a very hard, lonely road because I couldn't sign my name to something I didn't believe in....lost everything because I wouldn't sign it.

I'm sure there are areas of the manual that everyone disagrees with. But one is still required to walk in unity. No one is allowed to clearly disobey what is ordered, ESPECIALLY if they've sworn an oath not to.

Well, it's been happening for many years now then. I've never known a time without television, so all of this seems very weird to me.

[notofworks]

I could probably attend a church where I didn't agree with every guideline. But if I was required to sign a paper stating that I agreed with every guideline, and I didn't agree..... nope. Not happening.


There you go. That's EXACTLY it. I had a General Official tell me on the phone when I explained why I couldn't sign the oath, "I suppose I wish I had the integrity to do what you're doing."

[notofworks]

The words haven't changed, but the church has changed! BUDDY! :smack



And in this I totally agree. It is not acceptable to live a lie, be a phony, and practice complete dishonesty. Yes, the church has changed.

BUDDY.

[Praxeas]

"We disapprove of OUR PEOPLE.....".

That's you, Prax!!


Thank you for your completely irrelevant definition. Here's one for you:

sa·tan·ic   
[suh-tan-ik, sey-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of Satan.
2.
characteristic of or befitting Satan; extremely wicked; devillike; diabolical.


That's what YOUR religious system calls your television.
NOW somehow thinks that by ignoring what I posted and using large letters the definition of "disapprove" will somehow change.

It's not a command and whatever the UPC officially says about TV is irrelevant as long as there is no attendance requirement.

In fact that is impossible. UPC churches are autonomous. The UPC can't make or force attendance requirements on each church.

Therefore your false accusation about dishonesty is just that, your false accusation.

You're true colors are showing NOW

[notofworks]

I will OBEY!!! my pastor and the bible sunny boy....not a manual! :smack



Fantastic. Then be a man, an honest one, and leave the UPC.

[jfrog]

And that is any different than the AS? I don't think it is.


Then I hope when you get a job, you agree with EVERY rule because you won't get a paycheck. I obeyed my teachers because I would get expelled, not because I agreed with them. When my sister tells us to take off our shoes when we come to her home, I think it's stupid, but I comply.

It's only complicated because people want it to be. We have been in change for some time now. I believe people sign it because they believe the plan of salvation and not because they believe everything else. So, who is going to jump ship over something like that? I'm not. Acts 2:38 is something God showed me. It's exactly how we preach it. Nothing else is as important to me.

And I was more traumatized by what the world demanded of me, than I have ever been by the church. I know that's not everyone's story, but it is mine.

PO, if Obama signed something that said he would do this and that you would be all over him for being a hypocrite if he didn't do exactly what he signed he would do. In fact you would probably be arguing that he's too much of a liar to be president for doing such a thing.

[unitedpraise10]

And in this I totally agree. It is not acceptable to live a lie, be a phony, and practice complete dishonesty. Yes, the church has changed.

BUDDY.

We finally agree on something...haha! YES!

Yes the church has changed, hence why the manual will be changed very soon! We adjust, we adapt, because we can!

[unitedpraise10]

Fantastic. Then be a man, an honest one, and leave the UPC.

NEVER! I'm happy!

[Pressing-On]

PO, if Obama signed something that said he would do this and that you would be all over him for being a hypocrite if he didn't do exactly what he signed he would do. In fact you would probably be arguing that he's too much of a liar to be president for doing such a thing.

Like I said, for the greater good of what you agree with, you will sign the bill. It doesn't make you a liar. I didn't think he was a liar when he said he would close Gitmo. I knew he couldn't do it and would find out that he couldn't.

So, again, you want us to change and then you want us to comply. You can't have both. And you can't turn a ship around in one day, one year and sometimes not even 10, but you stay in the ship - especially - if God tells you to stay in the ship. :thumbsup

[Praxeas]

NOW your posts make me wonder about the "oh you're just bitter" stuff UCs say about people like you. You really do come off appearing like someone that is just bitter and full of spite. Maybe that is the reason your church treated you a certain way when you left....all the fiery darts you throw at them, I can see why they tried to avoid you now :-/

I used to try to sympathize with you, but I have many friends that left the UPC and they never ever come off as vitriolic like you.

You took what was a topic about TV and Internet and made it about other board members morality.

[jfrog]

We finally agree on something...haha! YES!

Yes the church has changed, hence why the manual will be changed very soon! We adjust, we adapt, because we can!

From all I am hearing you are arguing there's nothing wrong between your pastors actions and that statement he signs so why even care if the statement is changed?

[Pressing-On]

NEVER! I'm happy!

LOL! Been through some rough times, like everyone else, but I'm not leaving unless God opens another door. :thumbsup

[*AQuietPlace*]

And that is any different than the AS? I don't think it is.


It's COMPLETELY different. It's not placing your signature to the words.... I AGREE.



Then I hope when you get a job, you agree with EVERY rule because you won't get a paycheck. I obeyed my teachers because I would get expelled, not because I agreed with them. When my sister tells us to take off our shoes when we come to her home, I think it's stupid, but I comply.

It's only complicated because people want it to be. We have been in change for some time now. I believe people sign it because they believe the plan of salvation and not because they believe everything else. So, who is going to jump ship over something like that? I'm not. Acts 2:38 is something God showed me. It's exactly how we preach it. Nothing else is as important to me.

And I was more traumatized by what the world demanded of me, than I have ever been by the church. I know that's not everyone's story, but it is mine.


I have a job. I do have to agree to certain rules. And IF I BREAK THAT AGREEMENT I'll get fired!! That's the point! I don't sign that I'll agree to something and then just not do it and think it's no big deal!

I'm not talking about attending a UPC church and not agreeing with everything that's taught. I'm talking about SIGNING A PAPER that states that I DO agree. Completely different thing.

[unitedpraise10]

LOL! Been through some rough times, like everyone else, but I'm not leaving unless God opens another door. :thumbsup

Agreed!

[jfrog]

It's COMPLETELY different. It's not placing your signature to the words.... I AGREE.




I have a job. I do have to agree to certain rules. And IF I BREAK THAT AGREEMENT I'll get fired!! That's the point! I don't sign that I'll agree to something and then just not do it and think it's no big deal!

I'm not talking about attending a UPC church and not agreeing with everything that's taught. I'm talking about SIGNING A PAPER that states that I DO agree. Completely different thing.

Especially since many pastors don't teach the things they sign they will teach so of course their congregation can never come in complete line with the UPC ideal of holiness. So it's not really the congregations fault if they are ignorant as to what the UPC's stance is. However, once they find it out I'm not seeing how they can continue with a church affiliated with such an organization.

[notofworks]

Well, it's been happening for many years now then. I've never known a time without television, so all of this seems very weird to me.



In all seriousness, UP10, (and I'll admit to amplified hyperbole here to create a bit of a fuss), I think it's wrong. It's wrong for someone to sign an absolute oath on their personal word of honesty and integrity knowing full well they have zero intention of obeying what they SWORE to do. I am far from perfect and am highly flawed, but I just can't sign a sworn statement knowing I'll never do what I'm swearing to do. Barry Bonds is currently facing serious prison time for doing exactly that.

[jfrog]

Like I said, for the greater good of what you agree with, you will sign the bill. It doesn't make you a liar. I didn't think he was a liar when he said he would close Gitmo. I knew he couldn't do it and would find out that he couldn't.

So, again, you want us to change and then you want us to comply. You can't have both. And you can't turn a ship around in one day, one year and sometimes not even 10, but you stay in the ship - especially - if God tells you to stay in the ship. :thumbsup

I'm all for understanding that change takes time. I'm not for understanding there being almost no outcry from within UPC circles for the affirmation statement to be changed. Maybe I'm just not in the loop though? I mean I could respect a man that signed it and fought for change from the inside. I might not agree with his approach but I could respect that. But to sign it and just turn a blind eye to what you signed... that's what gets me.

[notofworks]

NOW somehow thinks that by ignoring what I posted and using large letters the definition of "disapprove" will somehow change.

It's not a command and whatever the UPC officially says about TV is irrelevant as long as there is no attendance requirement.

In fact that is impossible. UPC churches are autonomous. The UPC can't make or force attendance requirements on each church.

Therefore your false accusation about dishonesty is just that, your false accusation.

You're true colors are showing NOW


You're darn right, I am. The television that sits in your living room is called "An Instrument of Satan" by the religious system in which you participate. Spin it however you like, it is what it is. Slither and weasel all you want, you can't change it.

[jfrog]

I'm all for understanding that change takes time. I'm not for understanding there being almost no outcry from within UPC circles for the affirmation statement to be changed. Maybe I'm just not in the loop though? I mean I could respect a man that signed it and fought for change from the inside. I might not agree with his approach but I could respect that. But to sign it and just turn a blind eye to what you signed... that's what gets me.

In fact I think this whole thread proves one thing: that UPCers who don't view TV as wrong have no problem in belonging to the UPC even if the affirmation statement is never changed. From what I have been hearing that is the crux of their arguments. They don't really care if the thing is ever changed because they and their pastors can just keep turning a blind eye to it even if it remains. If I got the wrong impression then someone please correct me!

[Pressing-On]

It's COMPLETELY different. It's not placing your signature to the words.... I AGREE.
It's the same. And, yes, it is placing your signature to the words, I agree. That is why the public gets so furious at the politicians. They don't understand that they could lose what was necessary if they didn't sign it. Then they work on another bill to refine the one they signed, hoping, eventually, they get all of what they want.


I have a job. I do have to agree to certain rules. And IF I BREAK THAT AGREEMENT I'll get fired!! That's the point! I don't sign that I'll agree to something and then just not do it and think it's no big deal!
Probably some of that isn't all that important to disagree with, so you agree. I had one sales job that I had to sign to be in the office every morning. I didn't agree with it, but I signed it because it was a good paying job.


I'm not talking about attending a UPC church and not agreeing with everything that's taught. I'm talking about SIGNING A PAPER that states that I DO agree. Completely different thing.
But, they do agree with some of the AS. It would be stupid to not sign it when you believe the doctrine of salvation, love the praise and worship, etc. Then we'd have to hang with people who think speaking in tongues isn't the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost or Romans tells you that you are saved by faith alone. Not jumping ship for that. :D

And, I'm not going to argue about this anymore today. I want to have a relaxing evening. Have a good one!!! :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

I'm all for understanding that change takes time. I'm not for understanding there being almost no outcry from within UPC circles for the affirmation statement to be changed. Maybe I'm just not in the loop though? I mean I could respect a man that signed it and fought for change from the inside. I might not agree with his approach but I could respect that. But to sign it and just turn a blind eye to what you signed... that's what gets me.
Again, you don't know what people talk about behind closed doors. Who thinks it's wise to be a swashbuckler? I sure don't.

And if people are saying they have moved on - well, that seems to be a lie. Just sayin'.... :D

Later, gater!

[Pressing-On]

In fact I think this whole thread proves one thing: that UPCers who don't view TV as wrong have no problem in belonging to the UPC even if the affirmation statement is never changed. From what I have been hearing that is the crux of their arguments. They don't really care if the thing is ever changed because they and their pastors can just keep turning a blind eye to it even if it remains. If I got the wrong impression then someone please correct me!

Catholic stopped wearing head veils before they changed the rule on the books. Just sayin'.... :D

[Praxeas]

You're darn right, I am. The television that sits in your living room is called "An Instrument of Satan" by the religious system in which you participate. Spin it however you like, it is what it is. Slither and weasel all you want, you can't change it.
1) Thanks for admitting to your nasty attitude, the very one you claim the church you left has. Seems the only thing that changed is location and doctrine

2) I don't own TV.

3) that they called it an instrument of satan does not mean I can't have one.You still confuse the difference between an opinion and a rule

Are you going to answer the question about whether you agree with every rule and opinion of the American culture or government?

[jfrog]

Again, you don't know what people talk about behind closed doors. Who thinks it's wise to be a swashbuckler? I sure don't.

And if people are saying they have moved on - well, that seems to be a lie. Just sayin'.... :D

Later, gater!

You're right I don't know what's talked about behind closed doors. But what I am saying is that I find it strange that there is no public push within the UPC to change the affirmation statement.

[jfrog]

Catholic stopped wearing head veils before they changed the rule on the books. Just sayin'.... :D

I totally agree. Many practices change in practice before they change on books. I don't have a problem with this. What I do find strange is when everyone just turns a blind eye to what is on the books. There should at least be some kind of opposition to what is on the books. Maybe the turning a blind eye is opposition... but that kind of opposition never gets the books changed.

[Praxeas]

I'm all for understanding that change takes time. I'm not for understanding there being almost no outcry from within UPC circles for the affirmation statement to be changed. Maybe I'm just not in the loop though? I mean I could respect a man that signed it and fought for change from the inside. I might not agree with his approach but I could respect that. But to sign it and just turn a blind eye to what you signed... that's what gets me.
How says they turn a blind eye? You admit change takes time. It's not helped by people like NOW and their vitriolic condemnations of everyone that attends a UPC nor their criticisms of people still in the Org.

But just to give an example, there was a resolution that changed the UPC by laws allowing ministers of local congregations to appear on TV or put their services on TV. I would say that is a step.

Many years ago the UPC also voted in the use of Video. They are slow changes and yes perhaps too slow, but they are changes.

Many have left because of the changes. Others have left for lack of changes and both groups have stones to throw. Makes me wonder.....

[notofworks]

NOW your posts make me wonder about the "oh you're just bitter" stuff UCs say about people like you. You really do come off appearing like someone that is just bitter and full of spite. Maybe that is the reason your church treated you a certain way when you left....all the fiery darts you throw at them, I can see why they tried to avoid you now :-/

I used to try to sympathize with you, but I have many friends that left the UPC and they never ever come off as vitriolic like you.

You took what was a topic about TV and Internet and made it about other board members morality.


I really don't give a hoot if you think I'm bitter and spiteful. I'm calling for honesty and integrity and if you need to return that as spiteful, bitter, vitriolic, blah, blah, blah......"My" church treated me just fine and I've thrown no darts at them so you don't even know what you're talking about.....nothing unusual there.:lol




So guess what, everyone......if you promote honesty and integrity within a religious movement, and call for people to honor sworn oaths they sign, it means you're bitter, spiteful, and vitriolic! :ursofunny

[jfrog]

I really don't give a hoot if you think I'm bitter and spiteful. I'm calling for honesty and integrity and if you need to return that as spiteful, bitter, vitriolic, blah, blah, blah......"My" church treated me just fine and I've thrown no darts at them so you don't even know what you're talking about.....nothing unusual there.:lol




So guess what, everyone......if you promote honesty and integrity within a religious movement, and call for people to honor sworn oaths they sign, it means you're bitter, spiteful, and vitriolic! :ursofunny

NOW, would you be as against people signing the thing if those people pushed to get the thing changed from the inside?

[notofworks]

1) Thanks for admitting to your nasty attitude, the very one you claim the church you left has. Seems the only thing that changed is location and doctrine

2) I don't own TV.

3) that they called it an instrument of satan does not mean I can't have one.You still confuse the difference between an opinion and a rule

Are you going to answer the question about whether you agree with every rule and opinion of the American culture or government?


Where are you getting this stuff from??? Do you have me confused with someone else? I haven't left any church. Looks like you've been watching too much TV.:heeheehee

Good, I'm glad you don't own a TV. Just don't ever watch one in the hotel room.

Point #3 is hilarious. "I was told by my church organization that television is an instrument of Satan, but they don't mind if I watch it." That may be the most contradictory thing I've ever heard in my life.

Your question....it has nothing to do with the subject matter. The American Culture is not my spiritual authority and is not anything that I have aligned myself with for any spiritual direction or guidance.

[Praxeas]

I really don't give a hoot if you think I'm bitter and spiteful. I'm calling for honesty and integrity and if you need to return that as spiteful, bitter, vitriolic, blah, blah, blah......"My" church treated me just fine and I've thrown no darts at them so you don't even know what you're talking about.....nothing unusual there.:lol




So guess what, everyone......if you promote honesty and integrity within a religious movement, and call for people to honor sworn oaths they sign, it means you're bitter, spiteful, and vitriolic! :ursofunny
NOW, I didn't say what I said because I thought you gave a hoot. It's clear by now you do not.

So you never said your former church that you left treated you bad after you left?

[Praxeas]

Where are you getting this stuff from??? Do you have me confused with someone else? I haven't left any church. Looks like you've been watching too much TV.:heeheehee

Good, I'm glad you don't own a TV. Just don't ever watch one in the hotel room.

Point #3 is hilarious. "I was told by my church organization that television is an instrument of Satan, but they don't mind if I watch it." That may be the most contradictory thing I've ever heard in my life.
You never left the UPC? I must have you confused with someone else then

I never said they don't mind. In fact I said the opposite. I said that is their opinion

Once again NOW is showing he has lost his grasp of the English language

an OPINION is not a rule

[notofworks]

NOW, would you be as against people signing the thing if those people pushed to get the thing changed from the inside?


Oh, I absolutely think it SHOULD be changed and people within the system SHOULD fight for change. But while they're fighting for change, they should do exactly what they sign an oath to do. If a licensed minister owns a TV while swearing he won't, he actually DOES have a problem with TV! UP10 is right in his comparison of the internet and TV. But until the wording is changed it's an outright lie to sign having no intention of obeying.

[notofworks]

NOW, I didn't say what I said because I thought you gave a hoot. It's clear by now you do not.

So you never said your former church that you left treated you bad after you left?



Nope, not at all. The local church did everything possible to take care of me. And it's not my "former church." We're still cranking along just fine. There have been lots of obstacles, still have great challenges, but I'm still there.

[jfrog]

Oh, I absolutely think it SHOULD be changed and people within the system SHOULD fight for change. But while they're fighting for change, they should do exactly what they sign an oath to do. If a licensed minister owns a TV while swearing he won't, he actually DOES have a problem with TV! UP10 is right in his comparison of the internet and TV. But until the wording is changed it's an outright lie to sign having no intention of obeying.

Well... there wouldn't be anyone left within the system to fight for that change IF they actually practiced the affirmation statement. It's not just about them not having a TV. Isn't it also about them believing and preaching and teaching against TV? If someone didn't believe TV was wrong or wouldn't preach that it was wrong then it appears that person shouldn't sign the affirmation statement... which would leave only those who do believe and preach TV is wrong to sign it. Thus, no inside change would happen. So maybe ya can be a little more lenient on the belief and preaching against aspects of the affirmation statement?

[notofworks]

You never left the UPC? I must have you confused with someone else then

I never said they don't mind. In fact I said the opposite. I said that is their opinion

Once again NOW is showing he has lost his grasp of the English language

an OPINION is not a rule


Yes, Prax, I left the UPC. I think that's pretty clear. But I never left the local church. Still there.

OPINION????? hahahahahahahahha

"Furthermore because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”

“Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church International has taken a positive stand against television as an instrument of Satan to defile the church with worldliness through the viewing of movies........"

THAT'S AN OPINION???? :ursofunny

You should do standup comedy. You're funny.

[Praxeas]

Nope, not at all. The local church did everything possible to take care of me. And it's not my "former church." We're still cranking along just fine. There have been lots of obstacles, still have great challenges, but I'm still there.
So you still attend a UPC?

[Praxeas]

Yes, Prax, I left the UPC. I think that's pretty clear. But I never left the local church. Still there.

OPINION????? hahahahahahahahha

"Furthermore because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”

“Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church International has taken a positive stand against television as an instrument of Satan to defile the church with worldliness through the viewing of movies........"

THAT'S AN OPINION???? :ursofunny

You should do standup comedy. You're funny.
Wow..yeah in fact that IS an opinion. :snapout

[notofworks]

Well... there wouldn't be anyone left within the system to fight for that change IF they actually practiced the affirmation statement. It's not just about them not having a TV. Isn't it also about them believing and preaching and teaching against TV? If someone didn't believe TV was wrong or wouldn't preach that it was wrong then it appears that person shouldn't sign the affirmation statement... which would leave only those who do believe and preach TV is wrong to sign it. Thus, no inside change would happen. So maybe ya can be a little more lenient on the belief and preaching against aspects of the affirmation statement?


Yes, that's true. And it's that clause that caused me to send back my oath unsigned (they sent me a license anyway, which I returned). I didn't own one, wasn't going to get one, but I could not swear to preach and teach against it. For one thing, I was an assistant at the time and it wasn't my place. Secondly, I wouldn't preached against something that I didn't have a problem with.

Many argued, in fact, Paul Price here in the Western District, said the oath was nothing more than what we had already agreed to. But that's not true. The requirement to "Preach and teach" against certain specific things was never a part of being licensed or fellowshipped.

That one sentence was a devastating change for MANY people.

[notofworks]

So you still attend a UPC?


No, of course not. Outside of funerals, I haven't been to a UPC church service since 1993.

[Phoenix]

So you still attend a UPC?

I'm gathering that he's the pastor and his church left the UPC, but he remains in the same church as pastor.

[notofworks]

I'm gathering that he's the pastor and his church left the UPC, but he remains in the same church as pastor.



Yes, but don't give it away just yet! Prax is struggling with that and I wanna see how long it takes him to figure it out.:heeheehee

[unitedpraise10]

I'm gathering that he's the pastor and his church left the UPC, but he remains in the same church as pastor.

That's what I'm thinking too!

Also, I never thought that this thread would end up being this long! LOL:nahnah

[Praxeas]

No, of course not. Outside of funerals, I haven't been to a UPC church service since 1993.
Right, so you left the UPC and were scorned by those in the UPC right? And is is why you try to return the favor to anyone else that still attends a UPC?

[notofworks]

NOW your posts make me wonder about the "oh you're just bitter" stuff UCs say about people like you. You really do come off appearing like someone that is just bitter and full of spite. Maybe that is the reason your church treated you a certain way when you left....all the fiery darts you throw at them, I can see why they tried to avoid you now :-/

I used to try to sympathize with you, but I have many friends that left the UPC and they never ever come off as vitriolic like you.

You took what was a topic about TV and Internet and made it about other board members morality.


I forgot to mention.....thank you for giving me the proper credit for turning a snoozer of a thread into the hot topic of the day!:toofunnyJust admit it, I'm good for business! And I'll guarantee you there are ultra-cons out there cheering me on, on this one!:D

[unitedpraise10]

@notofworks....what state are you in?

[notofworks]

That's what I'm thinking too!

Also, I never thought that this thread would end up being this long! LOL

Don't be taking the credit. I'm the one that made it interesting!:lol

[unitedpraise10]

Don't be taking the credit. I'm the one that made it interesting!:lol

LOL...agreed! I started it though...haha

[Praxeas]

I forgot to mention.....thank you for giving me the proper credit for turning a snoozer of a thread into the hot topic of the day!:toofunnyJust admit it, I'm good for business! And I'll guarantee you there are ultra-cons out there cheering me on, on this one!:D
Like I said, change of doctrine, not attitude.

That is what makes UCs and LCs what they are

[notofworks]

Right, so you left the UPC and were scorned by those in the UPC right? And is is why you try to return the favor to anyone else that still attends a UPC?

First sentence, correct. Second sentence, incorrect. I'm simply calling on those who swear to do something, to actually do it. Secondly, I'm pointing out the fact that every attender is called out in the Articles of Faith. There actually ARE legal contradictions within the denomination of the UPC. It's called a fellowship of ministers, but isn't operated that way at all. And while true that there is a difference between an affilated church and a non-affiliated church, the term "Our People" is inclusive of all who are members of both categories of churches.

So while an attender may say, "But I'm not UPC", it's very clear that the organization itself doesn't agree by the terminologies they use in their directives.

[notofworks]

LOL...agreed! I started it though...haha


You know, I knew when I posted what I did, it would start a fight. I thought about starting my own thread but then realized that I didn't need the credit that badly. But actually, maybe I did since I'm grabbing the credit now!:lol

[notofworks]

Like I said, change of doctrine, not attitude.

That is what makes UCs and LCs what they are



What's an "LC"?

[Praxeas]

First sentence, correct. Second sentence, incorrect. I'm simply calling on those who swear to do something, to actually do it. Secondly, I'm pointing out the fact that every attender is called out in the Articles of Faith. There actually ARE legal contradictions within the denomination of the UPC. It's called a fellowship of ministers, but isn't operated that way at all. And while true that there is a difference between an affilated church and a non-affiliated church, the term "Our People" is inclusive of all who are members of both categories of churches.

So while an attender may say, "But I'm not UPC", it's very clear that the organization itself doesn't agree by the terminologies they use in their directives.
And the term "Disapprove" is not a rule. UPC churches are autonomous. They do not have to have membership requirements. People that attend UPCs do not have to swear oaths unless a pastor requires it.

"We disapprove" is nothing more than "we disapprove"

It is not an attendance requirement

[Praxeas]

What's an "LC"?
haha


I meant UL

Uber Liberal

[notofworks]

And the term "Disapprove" is not a rule. UPC churches are autonomous. They do not have to have membership requirements. People that attend UPCs do not have to swear oaths unless a pastor requires it.

"We disapprove" is nothing more than "we disapprove"

It is not an attendance requirement



I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it.

Now, can you understand that if a religious system says, "We disapprove of our people watching TV because it is an instrument of Satan", that final statements makes it significantly weightier than a simple disapproval. Surely that's obvious.

If they say, "We disapprove because we don't feel like it's the best thing for you", clearly, that's one thing. But it's quite another to say, "We disapprove of you doing satanic things." That's a completely different animal.

[notofworks]

haha


I meant UL

Uber Liberal



Oh, ok. I'm not a liberal. I'm a right-wing conservative whacko......to my atheist neighbor.

[Hoovie]

Who cares about TV? Not I. Old technology for the most part. Any pointed reference to TV in UPC manuals will simply die - just like a lot of other "laws".

Sometimes rules do stay on the books far beyond their intended usefulness...

In Purdy, Mo. dancing is strictly prohibited by law.

Other laws appear to be contradictory. In Columbia, MO. clotheslines are banned, but clothes may be draped over a fence.

So what? Yawn.

[RandyWayne]

Who cares about TV? Not I. Old technology for the most part. Any pointed reference to TV in UPC manuals will simply die - just like a lot of other "laws".

Sometimes rules do stay on the books far beyond their intended usefulness...

In Purdy, Mo. dancing is strictly prohibited by law.

Other laws appear to be contradictory. In Columbia, MO. clotheslines are banned, but clothes may be draped over a fence.

So what? Yawn.

And apparently Iowa or state which borders it have a law stating you cannot bath your donkey in the bathtub on a Sunday.

The "no TV" clause will/is soon becoming similar to a law banning 8-Track tapes. But it will forever be defended by some because it represents the Old Paths.

[Hoovie]

And apparently Iowa or state which borders it have a law stating you cannot bath your donkey in the bathtub on a Sunday.

The "no TV" clause will/is soon becoming similar to a law banning 8-Track tapes. But it will forever be defended by some because it represents the Old Paths.

Correct. And really its not to say it's a wonderful idea to bath your donkey in one's bathtub... it's just that there seems to be other, better ways to to wash a donkey. Of course, someone is going to say BUT it IS a bad idea to bathe a donkey in a bathtub on Sun.!! To which I then concede. LOL!:highfive

[Pressing-On]

Correct. And really its not to say it's a wonderful idea to bath your donkey in one's bathtub... it's just that their seem to be other better ways to to wash a donkey. Of course, someone is going to say BUT it IS a bad idea to bathe a donkey in a bathtub on Sun.!! To which I then concede. LOL!:highfive

Wouldn't it depend on if the donkey might be a "who"? :heeheehee

[RandyWayne]

Correct. And really its not to say it's a wonderful idea to bath your donkey in one's bathtub... it's just that their seem to be other better ways to to wash a donkey. Of course, someone is going to say BUT it IS a bad idea to bathe a donkey in a bathtub on Sun.!! To which I then concede. LOL!:highfive

Their logic is of course flawless.

[CC1]

If I am willing to spend a few bucks per month I can watch on my computer via the internet pretty much anything I can watch on TV.

A lot of the networks make the last few episodes aired of tv series available online for free and then there are services for a fee where you can get most of the others that don't. All legal and above board.

Not to mentione Netflix streams movies over the internet you can watch in lieu of renting DVD's.

[notofworks]

Who cares about TV? Not I. Old technology for the most part. Any pointed reference to TV in UPC manuals will simply die - just like a lot of other "laws".

Sometimes rules do stay on the books far beyond their intended usefulness...

In Purdy, Mo. dancing is strictly prohibited by law.

Other laws appear to be contradictory. In Columbia, MO. clotheslines are banned, but clothes may be draped over a fence.

So what? Yawn.



THAT'S your excuse for TV??......"Dancing is prohibited in Purdy, Missouri"???? Hoovie, for the sake of defendants everywhere, do NOT become a lawyer.

[MissBrattified]

now - I agree that the Minister's Affirmation is worded in such a way as to make the signer confess that he believes and embraces the statement on "Holiness", and also agrees to preach, teach and practice the same. Anyone who doesn't believe, embrace, preach, teach and practice what is contained in the AoF and AS is breaking their word. I don't like it, and there are a lot of people that I admire who I wish would be strong enough to stand up for what they truly believe. I've been raised in this culture, and I understand how hard it is to throw caution to the wind and go against the current. A lot of GOOD men sign the AS every year, and they don't deserve the vitriol that you've posted on this thread.

However, I will say again: The fact that my pastor signs it does NOT bind me in any sort of contract. Period. The fact that I attend a UPC church doesn't bind me to it, either, because the church membership agreement I signed didn't contain ANYTHING that I found objectionable, and if it had, I wouldn't have signed. Unless I commit to something, and unless I agree to something, I quite simply haven't agreed or committed to that *something*, and I'm no more a liar and a hypocrite than you are.

[Hoovie]

THAT'S your excuse for TV??......"Dancing is prohibited in Purdy, Missouri"???? Hoovie, for the sake of defendants everywhere, do NOT become a lawyer.


You lost me. Who was/is or needs to excuse TV?

To me it's entirely a moot point.

[Praxeas]

I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it.

Now, can you understand that if a religious system says, "We disapprove of our people watching TV because it is an instrument of Satan", that final statements makes it significantly weightier than a simple disapproval. Surely that's obvious.

If they say, "We disapprove because we don't feel like it's the best thing for you", clearly, that's one thing. But it's quite another to say, "We disapprove of you doing satanic things." That's a completely different animal.
That is a statement of THEIR view. It is not a statement telling those that attend UPCs what they are forbidden to do.

You keep focusing on "Our People" and not on "We"..this is THEIR statement of what THEY believe.

They can say "Liberal Donkey's talk more than Conservative ones", but that is not a rule

That is a statement of what someone's opinion is

WHY they disapprove does not make it a requirement for attendance in the local assembly

[Praxeas]

Oh, ok. I'm not a liberal. I'm a right-wing conservative whacko......to my atheist neighbor.
Well you got the act down right, now all you need is the doctrines

[notofworks]

now - I agree that the Minister's Affirmation is worded in such a way as to make the signer confess that he believes and embraces the statement on "Holiness", and also agrees to preach, teach and practice the same. Anyone who doesn't believe, embrace, preach, teach and practice what is contained in the AoF and AS is breaking their word. I don't like it, and there are a lot of people that I admire who I wish would be strong enough to stand up for what they truly believe. I've been raised in this culture, and I understand how hard it is to throw caution to the wind and go against the current. A lot of GOOD men sign the AS every year, and they don't deserve the vitriol that you've posted on this thread.

However, I will say again: The fact that my pastor signs it does NOT bind me in any sort of contract. Period. The fact that I attend a UPC church doesn't bind me to it, either, because the church membership agreement I signed didn't contain ANYTHING that I found objectionable, and if it had, I wouldn't have signed. Unless I commit to something, and unless I agree to something, I quite simply haven't agreed or committed to that *something*, and I'm no more a liar and a hypocrite than you are.


Like I said to Prax......"I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it, I got it."

But you cannot avoid the fact that if you own a television, you are doing something that the religious system with which you are aligned calls your TV activities, "Satanic" and DIRECTLY addresses YOU, personally, when it makes such a direct condemnation of YOU and your activities. There just isn't any way in this world around that.

Don't gripe at me, call your district superintendent and bark at him. Oh wow!!! In fact, isn't it the holiness right-wingers from your state that started all this oath stuff in the first place?:lol

[notofworks]

You lost me. Who was/is or needs to excuse TV?

To me it's entirely a moot point.


You're lost? You're in luck! Jesus came to seek and to save those which are lost!:heeheehee

[notofworks]

That is a statement of THEIR view. It is not a statement telling those that attend UPCs what they are forbidden to do.

You keep focusing on "Our People" and not on "We"..this is THEIR statement of what THEY believe.

They can say "Liberal Donkey's talk more than Conservative ones", but that is not a rule

That is a statement of what someone's opinion is

WHY they disapprove does not make it a requirement for attendance in the local assembly



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Whew, that was exhausting. So it's just "Their view" and they're not "forbidding" TV. Riiiiigggghhhht. You must wanna watch TV awful badly.

"Brothers and sisters, welcome to the 2011 United Pentecostal Church International General Conference. My name is David Bernard and as your General Superintendent, I would like to tell you that owning a television is Satanic. This is no way, however, means that you can't have one. May God richly bless you as you participate in Satanism!"

"Furthermore, we believe there to be One God, and anyone who believes otherwise is in false doctrine. However, you are free to believe in two, or three, or what the heck, just believe in hundreds like the Hindus do if you want. After all, it's just our opinion. Let's all lift our hands and praise the Lord, and the rest of you are welcome to join us and lift your hands and praise all of the Lords that may be out there."

[Praxeas]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Whew, that was exhausting. So it's just "Their view" and they're not "forbidding" TV. Riiiiigggghhhht. You must wanna watch TV awful badly.

"Brothers and sisters, welcome to the 2011 United Pentecostal Church International General Conference. My name is David Bernard and as your General Superintendent, I would like to tell you that owning a television is Satanic. This is no way, however, means that you can't have one. May God richly bless you as you participate in Satanism!"

"Furthermore, we believe there to be One God, and anyone who believes otherwise is in false doctrine. However, you are free to believe in two, or three, or what the heck, just believe in hundreds like the Hindus do if you want. After all, it's just our opinion. Let's all lift our hands and praise the Lord, and the rest of you are welcome to join us and lift your hands and praise all of the Lords that may be out there."
I seriously doubt you are that obtuse.

That the UPC organization officially says "TV is satanic" is their opinion. Further I never said that the UPC says "but you can do it anyways"....I don't need an organizations permission either..

BTW it does not say TV is satanic

Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.

[DoubtingThomas]

I seriously doubt you are that obtuse.

That the UPC organization officially says "TV is satanic" is their opinion. Further I never said that the UPC says "but you can do it anyways"....I don't need an organizations permission either..

BTW it does not say TV is satanic

Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.
Maybe NotofWorks is referring to the clear statements against television and video being called an instrument of Satan in this position paper in the manual?:

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/position/video.html

Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church International has taken a positive stand against television as an instrument of Satan to defile the church with worldliness through the viewing of movies and other programs which are contrary to holiness and separation unto the Lord,

The prohibition of Hollywood and television content of video receivers (NetFlix included) found in this position paper is directed to all of the constituency surely reflects an intended ban, not just mere disapproval - does it not?

Shall we also take the statement "we admonish all our people to refrain from all these practices" in the Holiness article to mean "we just think it's a good idea" for women to not cut your hair, not wear makeup and dress modestly, also, and not prohibitions - just organizational opinions and brainstorming but not fiat?

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and Godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music.

Just opinions? Never was a rule or standard of fellowship? Apostolic Identity is merely an ideal?

[jfrog]

Maybe NotofWorks is referring to the clear statements against television and video being called an instrument of Satan in this position paper in the manual?:

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/position/video.html



The prohibition of Hollywood and television content of video receivers (NetFlix included) found in this position paper is directed to all of the constituency surely reflects an intended ban, not just mere disapproval - does it not?

Shall we also take the statement "we admonish all our people to refrain from all these practices" in the Holiness article to mean "we just think it's a good idea" for women to not cut your hair, not wear makeup and dress modestly, also, and not prohibitions - just organizational opinions and brainstorming but not fiat?



Just opinions? Never was a rule? Apostolic Identity is just an ideal?

:thumbsup Actually there is a little more to your bolded phrase that I want to add. It actually says, "We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."

So I say that if you really believe in Jesus then you will want to spiritually progress and since not having a TV is in the interest of spiritual progress (at least if you can believe the org) then if you really believe in Jesus you won't keep a TV. So the way I see it is, either a UPCer can fall in line and not have a TV or they can try to explain how they can trust the UPC in matters of spiritual progress when you can't trust them about TV's.

[jfrog]

:thumbsup Actually there is a little more to your bolded phrase that I want to add. It actually says, "We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."

So I say that if you really believe in Jesus then you will want to spiritually progress and since not having a TV is in the interest of spiritual progress (at least if you can believe the org) then if you really believe in Jesus you won't keep a TV. So the way I see it is, either a UPCer can fall in line and not have a TV or they can try to explain how they can trust the UPC in matters of spiritual progress when you can't trust them about TV's.

Also, this line from that position paper is quite revealing: "Be it further resolved that we restate our strong opposition to the viewing of all worldly motion pictures and video films as are being shown commercially in theatres and on television for entertainment purposes for the ungodly masses, and the use of them in any form for God's people."

So why don't they say we ban people that come to UPC and UPC led churches from being members of those churches if they don't abide by the above rule? Well, they don't say that because they don't have the authority to say it. So what does it mean for UPC and UPC led churches for the UPC to STRONGLY OPPOSE church members from having a TV? Can ministers belong to the UPC and not oppose TV? The affirmation statement made that impossible or should have. So while a local minister may not make no TV a requirement for church membership he should still strongly oppose his members having a TV. If he doesn't, then upon learning that their pastor should be strongly opposed to TV for church members and isn't, then his church members should ask him about this apparent hypocrisy so that he might resolve it by either removing from the org or by beginning to strongly oppose TV for them. So if you are a member of a UPC church under such a pastor that isn't strongly opposed to TV for you then I think it is your duty (now that you have learned he should be opposed to TV) to ask him the hard questions about TV and his membership to the UPC.