"The Giant Sucking Sound"

Originally Posted by pelathais

BUMP me - sort of...

I just wanted to hear some other impressions: didn't the UPC just remove a ban that had only been in place since the 1970's?

Well, if you have a movement that is 100 years old and you pretend it is 2000 years old...

if something happened 30 years ago, then using the same logic as above, it is really 600 years old.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Well, if you have a movement that is 100 years old and you pretend it is 2000 years old...

if something happened 30 years ago, then using the same logic as above, it is really 600 years old.

You're priceless dude.

But what about from some of the "cons" and "UC's" (who don't have me on ignore)? Isn't this what happened today? A 30 year old ban was repealed?

Originally Posted by Chester Do Wright

I am sure there will be a gain, young man. But the gain that you see coming will surely come from the place that burneth with fire and brimstone. The death rattles are heard clearly. Doctrine will soon be a thing of the past for the UPCI.

Young Man??

WOW...thanks for that..

[Old Paths]

What most conservatives see is not just a lifting of an advertisement ban, but giving uncontrolled access to sin.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Well, if you have a movement that is 100 years old and you pretend it is 2000 years old...

if something happened 30 years ago, then using the same logic as above, it is really 600 years old.

[tv1a]

The LDS have used television effectively for years. If the organization produces advertising, they better offer at least some free Bibles. The ones with Acts 2:38 doctrine in the front. A national television ad itself would not be beneficial without a premium. Call for a free Bible. It has worked for the Mormans for decades.

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Relax.

I didn't take it as a challenge.

Why wouldn't the org. want to make their own ads?

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

What most conservatives see is not just a lifting of an advertisement ban, but giving uncontrolled access to sin.

If you think it gives uncontrolled access to sin now then you never had control! Wouldn't all that good teaching and preaching about not getting involved with sin still hold sway? If it was only the rule holding folks back from sin then they weren't holding back for the right reason anyway.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

What most conservatives see is not just a lifting of an advertisement ban, but giving uncontrolled access to sin.

How so? It seems that you are speaking from a sense of "feeling" and not reason. - Not putting you down, just my perception - I don't see that anything happened today other than that my former pastor wins an argument that he lost 30 years ago.

And frankly, except as a means of controlling total strangers, the res doesn't change anything for those who don't want to use television. JMHO.

Who has been given "uncontrolled access to sin" that didn't already have that access 24 hours ago?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Imagine a pastor that has been totally against the use of TV and a non church going friend tells him that they saw an ad to "visit the United Pentecostal Church near you".

And he knows that his money has help pay for the ad.

SO..... what's the big deal? Just explain to them what happened, that you still believe it's best not to have one in the home, and go on having revival. And thank the "non-church-going friend" for the visit... and invite him to come to your united pentecostal church... again, what's the big deal?

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

SO..... what's the big deal? Just explain to them what happened, that you still believe it's best not to have one in the home, and go on having revival. And thank the "non-church-going friend" for the visit... and invite him to come to your united pentecostal church... again, what's the big deal?

hey , stop that, you;re making too much sense!