Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Murphy
I strongly believe that the anti-television folks place their anti-television stance above God Himself... this single, silly superstition against this communications medium is more important to them than all of the things that they have in common with other people of Apostolic faith.
We can talk about push-pull technology and internet filters all day long, but what it really comes down to is a double-standard. Every time you tune to a channel on a television either digital or analog, you are tuning to a specific frequency and you are subject to whatever content the owners of that frequency have placed there. Every time you go to a website, you are routed to a specific IP address on the internet, and are subject ot whatever content the owners have placed there. With websites, there is usually content from multiple IP addresses embedded in the sites, making you also subject to any links placed on a site. Filters as well as parental controls are available for both the internet and television, and those filters are based either on keywords or a black list that is maintained by someone else and subject to someone's else's "discernment" as to what you should and should not be viewing.
You can take college courses on the internet, you can take college courses on television.... you can take defensive driving on the internet, and you can also take defensive driving on cable television. If we bring in the "what about the commercials" argument, then that should apply to radio as well... if we bring in the "moving pictures" argument, then that should encompass video as well. I'm just trying to quickly touch on most of the arguments I have seen trying to justify the anti-television stance.
They have a few people with admittedly excellent vocabulary throwing around enough technical jargon of the differences to keep the non-technical people confused and unable to respond without studying the technology for themselves. The technologies are merging, as most people will admit. These people would rather wait until the merge completes so that they never have to admit they were wrong in making television a point of fellowship or sometimes even a salvational issue. All it EVER was, was a communications medium that could be used for whatever you wish it to be used for, just like any other forms of communication... audio, video, or written, bi-directional or not.
|
Br. Brad.. I do not question your sincerity and I am in no way trying to attack you personally. A majority of the oneness (upci) Apostolics have been against tv for a long time. The Church I attend teaches against tv, hollywood and any entertainment videos. Now that internet is here, is it ok to be entertained by hollywood. Home videos, and videos of news events and things that happen in real life.. are not the same as a story plot written by ungodly men. Being entertained to fulfil your carnal lusts, is, and always will be, wrong. A commercial on tv program which you see, is a lot different then a commercial on the radio, you hear. The difference? Seeing a 3/4 naked woman... and someone describing a 3/4 naked women. The eyes have a whole lot more nerves going to the brain then your ears. Your eyes immeasurably effect your heart and mind, more then your hearing does.
If you ever heard my Bishop teach, and preach, against tv.. you would probably see it differently. If things are not preached.. they generally are not done. I'm not sure why I'm on this forum. 95% of what I read here.. is not my brand of Christianity. I'm I better?... no... just blessed with great, balanced, uncompromising leadership. Just pray for us poor pitiful, narrow eyed fella's in the WPF.. maybe we'll get more spiritual and get a tv. What would be Verbal Beans position. Sorry I rambled a bit... I'm working a double shift (16 hrs).. and I'm a bit tired. No hard feelings. God bless.
TR
Threaded Mode
