Push and Pull: The Game

[Hoovie]

OPC, has made claims on another thread. As I understand it, a "push" media, like TV, is less desireable and less safe for Christians than a "pull" media such as the internet.

My questions:

If one can "pull" the exact same program on the internet that is "pushed" on TV, would it stand to reason, then, that the content should be forbidden? Or do you make the case that C-Span is acceptable on the internet but should be avoided on TV?

If both of the medias have overlapping content, is it then not a question of content rather then conduit?

[scotty]

Silly, under those definitions , "popups" would be "push" media, as well as spam mail. And the content of a popup can be x rated. A typo can lead you to an immoral site. Internet has media for free to any user who can push a button that TV can't show unless it is prepaid......there is no comparison



BTW...love your signature line!!!! Need a t-shirt that says that.

[Harmony]

It is insulting to a new converts inteligence to force them to get rid of their TV but allow them to keep their internet access. I am sure they can't explain the reason they no longer have TV but have Internet Access with any inteligence to their unsaved family......STUPID!!


*****

It cracks me up when I talk with my conservative UPC family members about a story I saw on the news and they make the remark....oh yeah I saw that on MSNBC on the internet. We both saw the same news story. I am the sinner because I watched it on my TV. They are Spiritual and in right standing with God because they watched it on the internet......STUPID!!

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Harmony

It is insulting to a new converts inteligence to force them to get rid of their TV but allow them to keep their internet access. I am sure they can't explain the reason they no longer have TV but have Internet Access with any inteligence to their unsaved family......STUPID!!


*****

It cracks me up when I talk with my conservative UPC family members about a story I saw on the news and they make the remark....oh yeah I saw that on MSNBC on the internet. We both saw the same news story. I am the sinner because I watched it on my TV. They are Spiritual and in right standing with God because they watched it on the internet......STUPID!!

PREACH!!!!!!!!!!

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by scotty

Silly, under those definitions , "popups" would be "push" media, as well as spam mail. And the content of a popup can be x rated. A typo can lead you to an immoral site. Internet has media for free to any user who can push a button that TV can't show unless it is prepaid......there is no comparison



BTW...love your signature line!!!! Need a t-shirt that says that.

He got his sig line from me. But I borrowed it from someone else........

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

OPC, has made claims on another thread.

Called out for a grudge match by a major household appliance . . . . . I'm shaking in my boots . . .

As I understand it, a "push" media, like TV, is less desireable and less safe for Christians than a "pull" media such as the internet.

My questions:

If one can "pull" the exact same program on the internet that is "pushed" on TV, would it stand to reason, then, that the content should be forbidden?

It is indeed the artfully crafted and produced content that should be avoided. The people that write, edit, and produce TV programming have an agenda, and that agenda isn't to make Christians look good. Rather, it's to find any smallest crack in a Christian's defenses and hammer in wedge after wedge. The assault on traditional values and traditional families is both overt and subtle, and a 30 minute show that otherwise is not objectionable can slide in a subtle dig or innuendo when you least expect it. Most of my views on this come from the perspective of shielding children, but if I don't want it in my kids' minds, why would I want it in mine? What is it about my spiritual condition that has me hungering for the veiled insults and crude humor of the world instead of something from God?

If the people responsible for the content of television programming did not believe that the moving visual imagery could influence other people, why would they spend billions of dollars in advertising? If I recall correctly, more money is spent on television advertising in the United States than the GDP of any other country in the world. Somebody smart and in charge of lots of money believes that it is influential.

There is a good deal of data out there that says that moving visual images are more stimulating to the brain, and therefore have the potential to become more influencial or more traumatic. I posted several informative links in the past.

I have a difficult time taking anybody seriously on this topic that hasn't read The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian. I highly recommend you read this book.

Or do you make the case that C-Span is acceptable on the internet but should be avoided on TV?

If something should be avoided on account of content, it should be avoided both places. Broadcast television has the added annoyance of ads, which are frequently even more objectionable than the shows themselves. Pop-ups and spam have not been a problem for me . . . I wonder why?

If both of the medias have overlapping content, is it then not a question of content rather then conduit?

Yes. And this theoretically is a safe decision to leave in the hands of an adult. However, a 3-year-old can turn on a TV and access objectionable content, but would have a much more difficult time finding the same or similar on the internet. I want to protect my children from having insidious seeds of doubt planted in their minds by crafty and sensational ploys created by people thousands of miles away that I would never invite inside my home in person to do the same.

[commonsense]

The above posts express my thoughts also. Many TV shows are available on the internet.


If nothing else, the difference between seeing a show on TV or the internet is cost.


Network TV is free and older model TV's are really cheap these days. But the internet involves a computer and some sort of internet provider and the monthly fees can be expensive.


Therefore if you're UPC and on a budget, you're not allowed to have access to current news, etc.

Further enforces the class status seen in pentecost.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Called out for a grudge match by a major household appliance . . . . . I'm shaking in my boots . . .


It is indeed the artfully crafted and produced content that should be avoided. The people that write, edit, and produce TV programming have an agenda, and that agenda isn't to make Christians look good. Rather, it's to find any smallest crack in a Christian's defenses and hammer in wedge after wedge. The assault on traditional values and traditional families is both overt and subtle, and a 30 minute show that otherwise is not objectionable can slide in a subtle dig or innuendo when you least expect it. Most of my views on this come from the perspective of shielding children, but if I don't want it in my kids' minds, why would I want it in mine? What is it about my spiritual condition that has me hungering for the veiled insults and crude humor of the world instead of something from God?

If the people responsible for the content of television programming did not believe that the moving visual imagery could influence other people, why would they spend billions of dollars in advertising? If I recall correctly, more money is spent on television advertising in the United States than the GDP of any other country in the world. Somebody smart and in charge of lots of money believes that it is influential.

There is a good deal of data out there that says that moving visual images are more stimulating to the brain, and therefore have the potential to become more influencial or more traumatic. I posted several informative links in the past.

I have a difficult time taking anybody seriously on this topic that hasn't read The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian. I highly recommend you read this book.

If something should be avoided on account of content, it should be avoided both places. Broadcast television has the added annoyance of ads, which are frequently even more objectionable than the shows themselves. Pop-ups and spam have not been a problem for me . . . I wonder why?

Yes. And this theoretically is a safe decision to leave in the hands of an adult. However, a 3-year-old can turn on a TV and access objectionable content, but would have a much more difficult time finding the same or similar on the internet. I want to protect my children from having insidious seeds of doubt planted in their minds by crafty and sensational ploys created by people thousands of miles away that I would never invite inside my home in person to do the same.

I agree largely with this post. There is a difference between television and the internet.

I've read excerpts of "The Marketing of Evil" which were pasted on NFCF by a former member. Many of the points the author makes are viable.

Television and other media have had a profound insidious continual negative ungodly effect on the minds and thinking of North Americans but have also affected how those outside N.A. bringing not so welcome changes to their societies and cultures as well.

It used to make me so angry and ashamed to talk to men from other countries and cultures who were of the opinion and attitude that all North American women are like the women represented by the worst Hollywood and television has to offer.

[scotty]

I am still of the belief that each has their own "little gods" to deal with. A friend of mine does not have a TV because he admitted that he would not be a good stewardship of it. He plays online gaming though, on occasion.

I have a TV and watch shows that would be acceptable to anyone , on occasion. I no longer have game cds for my PC because I found myself not to be a good stewardship with them.

If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.

Maybe its not the TV we need to be getting rid of ????

Pretty silly statement huh?...The word "if' in that scripture tells me not everyone would have to pluck their eye out. So why should "everyone" have to conform to the same "rules" as another ?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Called out for a grudge match by a major household appliance . . . . . I'm shaking in my boots . . .


It is indeed the artfully crafted and produced content that should be avoided. The people that write, edit, and produce TV programming have an agenda, and that agenda isn't to make Christians look good. Rather, it's to find any smallest crack in a Christian's defenses and hammer in wedge after wedge. The assault on traditional values and traditional families is both overt and subtle, and a 30 minute show that otherwise is not objectionable can slide in a subtle dig or innuendo when you least expect it. Most of my views on this come from the perspective of shielding children, but if I don't want it in my kids' minds, why would I want it in mine? What is it about my spiritual condition that has me hungering for the veiled insults and crude humor of the world instead of something from God?

If the people responsible for the content of television programming did not believe that the moving visual imagery could influence other people, why would they spend billions of dollars in advertising? If I recall correctly, more money is spent on television advertising in the United States than the GDP of any other country in the world. Somebody smart and in charge of lots of money believes that it is influential.

There is a good deal of data out there that says that moving visual images are more stimulating to the brain, and therefore have the potential to become more influencial or more traumatic. I posted several informative links in the past.

I have a difficult time taking anybody seriously on this topic that hasn't read The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian. I highly recommend you read this book.

If something should be avoided on account of content, it should be avoided both places. Broadcast television has the added annoyance of ads, which are frequently even more objectionable than the shows themselves. Pop-ups and spam have not been a problem for me . . . I wonder why?

Yes. And this theoretically is a safe decision to leave in the hands of an adult. However, a 3-year-old can turn on a TV and access objectionable content, but would have a much more difficult time finding the same or similar on the internet. I want to protect my children from having insidious seeds of doubt planted in their minds by crafty and sensational ploys created by people thousands of miles away that I would never invite inside my home in person to do the same.

OK OPC, No grudge match here... I could say my people were in the presidency and the FBI - not appliances - but that would still "suck"

First off, I will say I am pleasantly sursprised because the bolded part nearly describes my position as well - I have three young daughters. However, they are not allowed any private internet time at all because I fear something worse than network TV may be accessed.

TV v. Internet - I think in less than a decade this will be a moot issue and, given the current use of technology, already is.

1. Avertisements - there is now technology to cut out ALL the ads. It's simply not an issue anymore.

2. Anti-Christ content The assault on traditional values and traditional families is everywhere - perhaps most predominately in your children texbooks!

The same technology which prevents popups and porn in your e-mail is available to block all channels except the channels and shows you explicitly allow.

Sorry I have not read The Marketing of Evil - is this author opposed to moving images only? Or is he against the same evil in other forms?