The Eulogy Begins - Page 34

mfblume · #**331** 10-01-2007, 01:28 PM

Hi Ron,

Peter hollered the Acts 2:38 message in Jerusalem to 3,000 people who got saved that day. Always "one on one"? Where is bible for that?

BobDylan · #**332** 10-01-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

People who love tv will go to absurd lengths to defend and justify it.

People who love internet will go to absurd lenths to defend it and justify it as well, even in light of the overwhelming statisitics that prove the "irredeemablness" of the internet, and the inherent dangers associated with using it.

In the same breath one uses to justify using interent, they have already and unintentionally justified the use of TV... even if they "officially" take a stand against TV, they have justified it with their justification of the internet.

mfblume · #**333** 10-01-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

even if they "officially" take a stand against TV, they have justified it with their justification of the internet.

EXACTLY. Excellent statement! How far does this go until "hypocrisy" enters the fray?

Ron · #**334** 10-01-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter hollered the Acts 2:38 message in Jerusalem to 3,000 people who got saved that day. Always "one on one"?

No, not quite. It wasn't through an idiot box either.

BobDylan · #**335** 10-01-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter hollered the Acts 2:38 message in Jerusalem to 3,000 people who got saved that day. Always "one on one"?

I suggest that the apostles and disciples used the media that was available to them in that day! They used horse and buggy, they used ships and vessels to travel and exchange parchament letters, they were in the marketplaces and places of business, Paul preached on Mars hill, a central location of heathen worship. They used EVERY IMAGINABLE COMMUNICATION MEDIA AND VENUE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

mfblume · #**336** 10-01-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

No, not quite. It wasn't through an idiot box either.

What if TV's WERE in use back then? I think Paul would have used it!

1Co 9:22 KJV ...that I might by all means save some.

#**337** 10-01-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

No, I am not a tv watcher.

It isn't about mind control; it is about encouraging people to make good decisions.

And furthermore, right or wrong, when something has been preached into the conscience of people, you are doing great damage when you try and remove it.

Especially when tv has virtually no redeeming value.

The same cannot be said of the internet.

how do you know??? You admit you don't watch it, ever, but then say it has no redeeming value... how in the world do you think you are in any position to make that kind of statement???

and not one person has said everyone should go out and buy tvs...

Oh yeah, and making rules that are ungodly is wrong, period. Fixing those mistakes is not a bad thing and, even if it is, it is a bad thing on those who made the rules, not those who fixed the error of the people who made the mistake...

If there was a mistake made, we're just fixing the mistake that they made 30 years ago, we're not damaging anyone, we're trying to undo the damage... (that is if there was a mistake made...)

BobDylan · #**338** 10-01-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

I agree with you it works-but only it certain mediums.
An idiot box is great for getting things of the world pushed onto people.
This salvation message was meant for a "one on one" or "personal touch"
not a "reach out and touch your wide screen TV'S and yea let the Lord heal
thee of that sickness!"

We are talking about using the media of television to advertise the local church, or church functions, in an affective way to put us in contact with seekers, so that one on one evangelism can be accomplished... ADVERTISING on tv doesn't preclude one on one evangelism, but it could more effectively facilitate it.

Also, Talmadge French began to receieve revelation from HARVESTIME radio broadcasts. Why could there not be a couple hundres or so more Talmadge French's who could be convinced and receive revelation via a televised edition of "Harvestime"?????

#**339** 10-01-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I was actually going to reply with that but I chose not too.

On a side note. At GNC they have had times where someone registered and then posted porn. We have been lucky so far and vigilant, but it can happen. One thing you don't find on TV is the randomness of individuals. Internet allows communication and interaction which is what has made it a boom for predators and porn peddlers and even terrorists. You can't do that with TV

my site gets like 25 or so spammers signing up every day... Due to board modifications they can't post anything and we delete the accounts ASAP...

but I'd say 15/25 are porn... the other 10 are "free money from home", ringtones, or some other similar advertisement to those 2....

#**340** 10-01-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

12% OF ALL INTERNET WEBSITES ARE PORNOGRAPHIC.

25% OF ALL INTERNET SEARCHES ARE PORNOGRAPHIC.

35% OF ALL INTERNET DOWNLOADS ARE PORNOGRAPHIC.

EVERY SECOND 28,258 INTERNET USERS ARE VIEWING PORNOGRAPHY.

EVERY SECOND $89.00 IS SPENT ON INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY.

EVERY DAY 266 NEW PORN SITES APPEAR ON THE INTERNET.

"SEX" IS THE MOST SEARCHED WORD ON THE INTERNET.

U.S. REVENUE FROM PORN ON THE INTERNET FOR 2006 WAS $2.84 BILLION.

72% OF INTERNET PORN USERS ARE MEN.

70% OF INTERNET PORN USE OCCURS DURING THE 9-5 WORKDAY.

THERE ARE AN ESTIMATED 372,000,000 PORN WEB PAGES, 3% PRODUCED BY THE U.K, 4% PRODUCED BY GERMANY, AND 89% PRODUCED BY THE USA.

With even U.S. preachers saying internet is okay, but TV is not, no wonder the stats exist as they do for the USA. lol

You will not find those stats associated with TV!! Something is upsidedown!

I'm actually kind of surprised at how low those numbers are...