The Eulogy Begins

Originally Posted by Ron

I would counter that there has been nothing said here to promote TV as a good medium, nor a wholesome thing to have-not one.

Yet the argument has been about internet (I still don't know if all the UC'S or conservatives have internet even) or any such thing.

Don't you think that if TV was such a good thing it could stand on it's own merit?

Name 1, just 1 succesful TV evangelist that preaches truth, doesn't look like an accident with Mary Kay, and doesn't squander money on themselves?

none of that has anything to do with television itself...

you have yet to provide one actual argument against television, really...

Just because it currently is run by evil men or it is currently populated by people who abuse it or the current televangelists are people who are using tv to make $$$ instead of save souls means NOTHING about how TV could be used to reach people...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

none of that has anything to do with television itself...

you have yet to provide one actual argument against television, really...

Just because it currently is run by evil men or it is currently populated by people who abuse it or the current televangelists are people who are using tv to make $$$ instead of save souls means NOTHING about how TV could be used to reach people...

Actually, he has provided more arguments FOR the use of television than against it!

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Actually, he has provided more arguments FOR the use of television than against it!

I know, but he keeps asking for arguments FOR television being ok, but I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't ok other than some people decided to make it a rule in the mid-1970s...

And, well, there is only one person who I listen to if they make completely arbitrary rules and, well, that's God... Everyone else needs to actually have a reason for what they do and tell me to do...

[tv1a]

Check your definition of doctrine. Doctrine is fact. Acts 2:38 is fact. The Bible didn't make up the anti-tv rule. Man created that rule.

Like with every other post you have reinterpreted facts or misdefined words to fit your agenda.

Originally Posted by Ron

Thank you for the second time around for my sake!
Mega Churches? Are they preaching truth?
Are they any different than the world?
Hey even Catholics go around doing everything that they like because-well
they go to confession & voila they are clean again-but is there any change?

I kinda feel like Br Phil when he said he is all for Progressive means of evangelism-but not at the expense of basic doctrines.

Doctrine---oh yeah that is a legalist term. We don't like that because we may have to change.

[tv1a]

I forgot. Nobody gets the Holy Ghost without a bryl cream prophet mentioning they are going to hell.

You have so little faith in God. Frankly I don't want your phony holy ghost. It is nothing like the Holy GHost poured out in the Book of Acts. You make me sick.
Trivializing a child's Holy Ghost experience is blasphemous. I would expect nothing less from someone who is controlled by a leagalistic spirit. Your legalistic attitude did not come from God.

THe Bible says it is better to hang a millstone around your neck than to offend a little one. There isn't a rock big enough for you to swing from after your Fred Flinstone Holy Ghost comments.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No they didn't. Fred Flintstone Holy Ghost? Yeah right, talk about Mensa, Price has more sense than that.



And this is coming from a man who believes cartoons helps kids get the Holy Ghost. Good grief.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Ron

I would counter that there has been nothing said here to promote TV as a good medium, nor a wholesome thing to have-not one.

Yet the argument has been about internet (I still don't know if all the UC'S or conservatives have internet even) or any such thing.

Don't you think that if TV was such a good thing it could stand on it's own merit?

Name 1, just 1 succesful TV evangelist that preaches truth, doesn't look like an accident with Mary Kay, and doesn't squander money on themselves?

This is another example of using a faulty premise to try to justify the inconsistency in technological standards.

First, if "truth" is defined as that which is preached by the Apostolic movement, then the UPC is definitely the largest sect and the group with the churches that would likely to have the resources to produce a national TV program...

But wait, the UPC forbids this...therefore, what is seen on TV is reduced to all of those who don't have such ludicrous rules...

Sure, if POA or CLC had been given the opportunity to program and preach "truth" on TV, I do believe they would continue to be the Apostolics they are and represent the UPC well on a national scale...just like they do on the internet.

We can't name ONE successful national TV truth preaching preacher because they have been refused the opportunity to do it.

I do know of several non-UPC apostolic churches though that have very successful local programs and they are humble about it and just program their church services in archive JUST LIKE ON THEIR WEBSITES....same digital recording...same technology...exact same program...just one airs on the world wide web and the other airs on the local cable channel.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

I know, but he keeps asking for arguments FOR television being ok, but I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't ok other than some people decided to make it a rule in the mid-1970s...

And, well, there is only one person who I listen to if they make completely arbitrary rules and, well, that's God... Everyone else needs to actually have a reason for what they do and tell me to do...

Well, a blanket statement saying that "TV is ok" I totally disagree with. It cannot be argued, IMO, that full acceptance of TV and it's programming should be embraced as acceptible. TV, in any unregulated form, is NOT acceptible. There are way too many insidious programmings that are pummelled through televisions to completely embrace it. However, the effectiveness of certain venues of TV, i.e. as an advertising and communication medium, cannot be denied. Therefore harnassing the positivie benefits, while "filtering out" and regulating the negative aspects, is something that could be considered, and still not be contradictory to the apostolics traditional position on TV as a whole. We harnass the "advertising, communication, and information" aspects of the internet while attempting to filter out it's damaging and perfidious aspects... why can we not do the same for TV? I would not suggest that people should have unfettered access to programming on TV, and I also would emphasise that TV should not be a primary method of entertainment in the home. I even think the traditional position of just not having one in the home (not through legislation, but by teaching principle and letting people make up their own mind) could be promoted as well... while still harnassing those EXTREMELY effective avenues of communication that are available on it. JMHO...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Well, a blanket statement saying that "TV is ok" I totally disagree with. It cannot be argued, IMO, that full acceptance of TV and it's programming should be embraced as acceptible. TV, in any unregulated form, is NOT acceptible. There are way too many insidious programmings that are pummelled through televisions to completely embrace it. However, the effectiveness of certain venues of TV, i.e. as an advertising and communication medium, cannot be denied. Therefore harnassing the positivie benefits, while "filtering out" and regulating the negative aspects, is something that could be considered, and still not be contradictory to the apostolics traditional position on TV as a whole. We harnass the "advertising, communication, and information" aspects of the internet while attempting to filter out it's damaging and perfidious aspects... why can we not do the same for TV? I would not suggest that people should have unfettered access to programming on TV, and I also would emphasise that TV should not be a primary method of entertainment in the home. I even think the traditional position of just not having one in the home (not through legislation, but by teaching principle and letting people make up their own mind) could be promoted as well... while still harnassing those EXTREMELY effective avenues of communication that are available on it. JMHO...

BUMP!!!

[Praxeas]

I tried to argue along those lines before, but they seem to want to believe TV itself is an evil demonic thing...when it's just a box of electronics. The medium is neutral. It's how it gets used

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I forgot. Nobody gets the Holy Ghost without a bryl cream prophet mentioning they are going to hell.

No, no one gets the Holy Ghost through insane stupidty.

Originally Posted by tv1a

You have so little faith in God.

Oh I have faith in God and His Word, not in stories, if I wanted religious mythology I would look up the Mormons or a Kabbalist Rabbi.

Originally Posted by tv1a

Frankly I don't want your phony holy ghost.

You see this is where you lose your argument and you get frustrated.
You see, I'm not buying your story. I happen to not believe that young people will get the Spirit of Christ by viewing a talking pickle. Sorry.

Originally Posted by tv1a

It is nothing like the Holy GHost poured out in the Book of Acts.

Yep, it's NOT like the HOLY GHOST poured out in anytime. Hey you can believe as you very well please, I just don't accept your story. You want to believe that people can get the Holy Ghost by being prayed through by an talking onion, then that's your trial.

Originally Posted by tv1a

You make me sick.

Grow up.

Originally Posted by tv1a

Trivializing a child's Holy Ghost experience is blasphemous.

Wrong that's not correct, I'm just not agreeing with your story about cartoon vegetables causing children to receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Hey, this is your trial not mine, no need to get angry, mad or sad, I just think it's false.

Originally Posted by tv1a

I would expect nothing less from someone who is controlled by a leagalistic spirit. Your legalistic attitude did not come from God.

Yawn, come off it son, try to accept that someone on this planet does not believe what you're saying. It doesn't mean you're a bad man, or that you're lost, it just means that an individual is not accepting what you posted.
No problem, just go and strengthen your argument if you have one. If you can't then don't cry when I come back at you sarcastically, especially when you are going out of your way to be toxic. I can deal with it, I don't take it personal, but it sad when some one wants to knock heads over un-provable foolishness and I come back with a retort and I get reported and banned. So do me a favor, you want to believe in Veggie Tale Holy Ghost experiences then have at it, just don't expect the rest of the free thinking world to sit at your feet because of it.

Originally Posted by tv1a

THe Bible says it is better to hang a millstone around your neck than to offend a little one.

Offend a little one? Are you a babe in Christ? Are you saying that you're a child? Understand this I'm not telling new converts and their parents that animated celery will cause their kids to repent and receive the Spirit of Christ. That's your deal, so it's your stone to bare, not mine.

Originally Posted by tv1a

There isn't a rock big enough for you to swing from after your Fred Flinstone Holy Ghost comments.

Whatever, Hey, I think the whole thing is sad, so keep us posted to the mighty revival you will be having at your Church when you televise re-runs of Ren and Stimpy.

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com