Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
Well gee, I don't think it was such an outrageous question, based on the plain reading of what you said.
Do you simply not remember what you said?
You compared the fight to accept radio with the fight to accept other media today. I'm no rocket scientist, but you seemed to clearly imply that radio was a thing "that enticed carnality":
A natural reading of that would seem to imply that you thought that radio should not have been accepted by the church, because it is something that enticed carnality.
...if that's not what you meant, fine. But that's sure how it appeared to me.
------
My own view: there is no media technology that is inherently sinful. It comes down to how the technology is used.
|
TR, I truly apologize, I jumped the gun. After more careful reading on my part, yes, you did ask a good question for clarification and I jumped the gun. My posts make distinctions that are not easily seen unless read carefully and I didn't read your question carefully.
The radio, in its inception, was a major breakthrough for public avenues of publication. Was radio bad back then? For the day, yeah probably. The new music, political propaganda, and hollywood had their chance to influence homes. People can listen to radio while performing their tasks, so they could get a whole days dose without breaks. I have listened to old time radio and some of the shows from 50 years ago that are horrendous by today's standard as far as sex, murder, strange phenomenon.
Compared to today's visual media, radio isn't considered that bad. Radio does stimulate the imagination, though, so, it can be used as a tool, also. Radio bad? Kind of a moot point today. But the spirit to accept everything new and cutting edge...THAT is bad.
'Some folk don't understand that the middle "F" in AFF is the most important ingredient!' -noeticknight
Linear Mode
