US court rejects FCC broadcast decency limit

[nebula]

but I am pretty sure the Lord is far more concerned about how we as believers are living our lives in a fallen world than with how the fallen world is living.

If that were true, the Lord would not be called "the Judge of the Earth."

But truly, are you saying that you do not believe the Holy Spirit is grieved over the condition of fallen man?

I feel as though somehow you are missing this. Are you wanting "convert" the whole country to our way of thinking, from the top down, legislatively? You must know this goes against the teaching of Scripture that clearly tells us what the last days will be like.

In WW 2, we learned that evil thrives when good men do nothing. Are we supposed to abdicate this way of thinking just because it it '"the Last Days"?

You have reasoned yourself into a corner nobody can get out of. In your view, the world must be dark and awful. For those of us not caught up in Hollywood, who control what we see and hear, the world has much good in it. I'm sorry you can't see that.

First you tell me that we should expect dark times as we approach the Last Days. Then you tell me the world is a cheery place. Which is it?

Besides that, isn't this what they call a "red herring" type of argument? Trying to prove a point by shifting the argument?

[TheoMike]

If that were true, the Lord would not be called "the Judge of the Earth."

But truly, are you saying that you do not believe the Holy Spirit is grieved over the condition of fallen man?

In WW 2, we learned that evil thrives when good men do nothing. Are we supposed to abdicate this way of thinking just because it it '"the Last Days"?

First you tell me that we should expect dark times as we approach the Last Days. Then you tell me the world is a cheery place. Which is it?

Besides that, isn't this what they call a "red herring" type of argument? Trying to prove a point by shifting the argument?

Okay, this is seriously cutting into my pool time, but I feel we are making progress.

Yes indeed, the Lord is the Righteous Judge. And He will pass sentence (really, judgment has already been passed) at the end of time. For the moment, His wrath and judgments are being staved off.

Yes the Holy Spirit is grieved over man's fallen condition. But by an act of the will man can change his condition; he does not have to stay in his unregenerate condition. He must do this from the inside out, not from the outside in, like being forced to obey "morality laws." While He may be grieved, God will NOT contravene man's choice or his decisions, no matter how bad they may be. Now it is true He did in the OT on ocassion, but this is a different dispensation.

Your WW 2 analogy is correct but misused. In that context we were talking about Nazi aggression and the willful extermination or enslavement of an entire continent. You cannot be suggesting that immorality in Hollywood even comes close to this. The thing about movies and TV is that NOBODY is forced to watch or listen. It is an option.

Yes, the world, including America is declining and getting worse and worse. Yet at the same time, we are NOT citizens of either realm. The NT teaching is that we are citizens of the Kingdom of God NOW, and as such we can enjoy, in a limited fashion, the benefits of "kingdom living." Things like answered prayer, communion with God, empowerment to resist temptation and so on. Another side benefit of letting go of this world is that, even though times may be dark, for the child of God we can live in joy and hope and expectation. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are able to rise above the mess of society and not be partakers of it, but rather partakers of the Divine Nature, as Paul teaches. I'm talking about an entire attitudinal shift, here, Nebula.

The world is not a cheery place, but you can choose to enjoy God's joy, which is not dependent on where you live. And God will show that you can derive joy and contentment, not from TV or music, but from relationships, from simple things like hiking in the mountains, traveling and so on. Do you see what I am getting at? Sin and evil will always abound, but grace abounds so MUCH more.

Nebula, every one of us has a past we try to outgrow or perhaps in some cases, outrun. The answer is found within you, not from without. You can legislate every commandment in Scripture, but that will not change your heart or anybody else's. A heart is changed when we allow God to heal it, and that is done through His Word and His Spirit and not from sterilizing your environment.

I hope you take my comments in the spirit they were offered.

[Guest shiloh357]

Turn the channel to what? If they should be allowed to use foul language as a matter of freedom, then what channel do we turn that is free of vulgarity?

I don't a just a ton of T.V., but I do watch Discovery, Animal Planet, A&E sometimes, The Office, Lost, and some nights The Daily Show. Of those, the only one that has much in the way of vulgarity is sometimes The Daily Show, but with it, you know what you are going to get up front. There are plenty of options out there.

You are missing my point... If we operate by your principle that tolerance means that someone should be allowed on ANY channel to use smut language, and I, in the name of "tolerance" should just sit back and allow it, then what do I have, assuming I want the right to live as an equal member of the community and watch TV, on the same networks like everyone else?

Again, you are promoting a one-sided view of tolerance, where tolerance is only afforded to the guys who want to use foul language. Their freedom to use vulgarity, according to your liberal approach means that they can operate without limits and that any attempt to limit the degree of vulgarity on NBC or CBS or ABC is a violation of their freedom of speech (which is a rather grotesque interpretation of the first ammendment). Those who don't like vulgarity and would like to enjoy TV without it are supposed to shut up and sit down. When more and more vulgarity is allowed, our choices dwindle.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Some of you are putting forth the same morally relevant argument that a defense attorney would use in disallowing a Pastor on the Jury.

"Because he is a man of the cloth he should not be allowed to partcipate because he is intolerant."

However, doesn't his voice carry the same weight as any other man in the community?

I'm still not clear why we should take back Hollywood but not Politics and the legislation of the law of the land?

Peace,

Dave

[TheoMike]

I'm still not clear why we should take back Hollywood but not Politics and the legislation of the law of the land?

Peace,

Dave

Dave, Hollywood was never ours to take back. Is the fact that this world is NOT the believer's home such a difficult concept to grasp? It is a Biblical one. I'll say it one last time: people's hearts are changed by the Lord working IN them, not by imposing our morality ON them. The only thing a government has an obligation to do is provide a peaceful atmosphere where the gospel may be preached. Even that we know will come to an end as the the end draws nearer.

Where did Jesus ever tell any of His followers to "take back" anything? Jesus spoke of souls, and winning individuals to the Kingdom. Are we as believers so fixated on the media that we have lost sight of our purpose to bear fruit for the Lord? Are we so afraid of the power of the media that we have come to see it as more powerful than the Word of God?

Please understand, I am NOT against believers taking on an activist role and I am not a fatalist. The best thing a believer can do is make sure they're own house is in order by watching what is coming into it. When that happens, then they will be prepared to be used by the Lord to effect a sea change in the lives of their friends and neighbors. There is nothing, no law or legislation, more powerful than a positive witness for Christ. When we are truly doing out jobs, the smut merchants will have nobody to peddle their vile products to.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'll say it one last time: people's hearts are changed by the Lord working IN them, not by imposing our morality ON them.

I don't see that we are trying to impose our moraltiy on them. Rather we seek to maintain an environment that prohibits them from imposing their immorality on us. Laws are meant to prevent criminals from imposing their immoral actions on others. We are not imposing morality on child molester, we are trying to keep pervertss from imposing their immorality on little children.

The same principle can be applied within the context of this discussion as well. They say we cannot leglislate morality, but the truth is that we don't legislate anything BUT morality.

[nebula]

Where are we going?

And why are we in this handbasket?

[rtwo]

You have no idea what it like to be 11 years old and the brunt end of your classmates jollies day in and day out.

That's a fairly broad statement... are you sure about that?

[Marnie]

I'll say it one last time: people's hearts are changed by the Lord working IN them, not by imposing our morality ON them.

I don't see that we are trying to impose our moraltiy on them. Rather we seek to maintain an environment that prohibits them from imposing their immorality on us. Laws are meant to prevent criminals from imposing their immoral actions on others. We are not imposing morality on child molester, we are trying to keep pervertss from imposing their immorality on little children.

The same principle can be applied within the context of this discussion as well. They say we cannot leglislate morality, but the truth is that we don't legislate anything BUT morality.

Is someone forcing you to watch TV?

[Guest shiloh357]

I'll say it one last time: people's hearts are changed by the Lord working IN them, not by imposing our morality ON them.

I don't see that we are trying to impose our moraltiy on them. Rather we seek to maintain an environment that prohibits them from imposing their immorality on us. Laws are meant to prevent criminals from imposing their immoral actions on others. We are not imposing morality on child molester, we are trying to keep pervertss from imposing their immorality on little children.

The same principle can be applied within the context of this discussion as well. They say we cannot leglislate morality, but the truth is that we don't legislate anything BUT morality.

Is someone forcing you to watch TV?

So the anwswer is that I do not get to enjoy the same things everyone else enjoys? Where does that end? I mean, your question highlights the point I was making to forrestkc. If smut is to be allowed on public TV on any channel, in the name of tolerance, why not any public venue? Why should I be forced to continually lose privliges just because of someone else's depravity? Why should I pay the price, especially in a country like the US?

I would also point out that your question doesn't really address the issue I raised.