Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Jim

""God TV" - a critique - by a Christian.

David Robertson is a friend of mine (Even if he IS a 'wee free' minister!)
He usually has some sensible things to say and write about.
This article
http://www.christiantoday.com/art...ory.alecs.moral.failure/41462.htm
is no different. I could apply it to a multiplicity of televangelical TV programmes.
Powwow

I agree with him that the flash and bling and big show methods don't save souls. I also don't believe we should hide in our little churches and fear offending others by going out and sharing the gospel where ever we can. We have the apostles examples, they went right to the market places, they went right to the steps of the pagan temples and shared the way of salvation and told the pagans to repent and change their ways. We need more of that.
Ketty



The funniest are the pagans who insist they were Christians and yet spit and snarl, or cry and whine, when told what is the Gospel message, as discrete from what they thought/think it was/is, and who also become 'offended' when it's asked what Christ (the one they purported to know) would think of them actively leading other people away from Him?  

Re the OP, I've not a lot of time for God-TV.  Some of the teaching is good, but sadly, too much of the presentation is about 'give God gimme, gimme, gimme your money.'
bnabernard

pow wow wrote:
I agree with him that the flash and bling and big show methods don't save souls. I also don't believe we should hide in our little churches and fear offending others by going out and sharing the gospel where ever we can. We have the apostles examples, they went right to the market places, they went right to the steps of the pagan temples and shared the way of salvation and told the pagans to repent and change their ways. We need more of that.


So, it didn't work then for them, things are still the same, so wot's plan 'B''?

bernard (hug)
Jim

The whole "God TV" thing leaves me cold.
There's a Christian singer/Songwriter I like - he was the bees knees of the Christian music scene in the late 70's - Garth Hewett.
One of the many thought provoking songs he wrote (It's in his "Road to freedom" album) was "So much better".
Part of the lyrics are
"You see those TV preachers?
Holy get-you-rich quick teachers
like pre-digested TV dinners
offer instant salvation packs for sinners;
"Put your hand on the TV screen"
makes God look like a slot machine.
Is this really what He meant
by a costly, blood-bought covenant?
......

The words seem very aposite here.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:
The whole "God TV" thing leaves me cold.
There's a Christian singer/Songwriter I like - he was the bees knees of the Christian music scene in the late 70's - Garth Hewett.
One of the many thought provoking songs he wrote (It's in his "Road to freedom" album) was "So much better".
Part of the lyrics are
"You see those TV preachers?
Holy get-you-rich quick teachers
like pre-digested TV dinners
offer instant salvation packs for sinners;
"Put your hand on the TV screen"
makes God look like a slot machine.
Is this really what He meant
by a costly, blood-bought covenant?
......

The words seem very aposite here.


Gullibility knows no bounds! Some are just more susceptible than others.
Powwow

Leo, that would be your gullibility to the notion there is no God, yes?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Leo, that would be your gullibility to the notion there is no God, yes?

What's gullible about saying you don't believe in something for which there's no coherent, consistent definition (i.e. one which starts off with all the firmness and rigour of Batchelor's mushy peas and keeps changing depending on how many people you ask), let alone evidence? That's what normal people call rationality.

I don't think you know what the word actually means, do you?
Powwow

Silly Shaker, it was a joke old crow. But if you want it, you got it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gullible

Leo's mind tricked him into dumping God. He was gullible. Ha!

Leo I'm just having fun with Shakster, I know mind games were not being played I'm sure.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Silly Shaker, it was a joke old crow.

Apologies - I'm used to jokes being funny.

Quote:
Leo's mind tricked him into dumping God. He was gullible.


Where's the proof of this? (Don't provide another facile online dictionary definition of a common English word whose meaning I already knew anyway, thanks all the same. Presumably you must have thought that doing this served some sort of purpose, but it didn't).
Powwow

Shaker, good grief, you must not get invited to many parties.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Shaker, good grief, you must not get invited to many parties.


Quite a few. Not the sort of parties where you'd find your sort, though.
MikeRan

I did not realize we had "God TV" in the UK, what channel is it on?
Shaker

580, apparently.
MikeRan

Thanks, might have a gander.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Leo, that would be your gullibility to the notion there is no God, yes?

What's gullible about saying you don't believe in something for which there's no coherent, consistent definition (i.e. one which starts off with all the firmness and rigour of Batchelor's mushy peas and keeps changing depending on how many people you ask),


If I ask ten people about my grandad, and get ten different ideas about what kind of man he was, does that reflect at all on the existence of my grandad?

Of course, the definition of "grandad" would tell you nothing at all about him or his existence.
MikeRan

I tried 580 and cannot get it on my TV system. From what I've read above, seems like I've not missed much :-).
cyberman

MikeRan wrote:
I tried 580 and cannot get it on my TV system. From what I've read above, seems like I've not missed much :-).


Is 580 a Sky thing?
MikeRan

Dunno. Don't have SKY so that maybe why I can't get it.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
If I ask ten people about my grandad, and get ten different ideas about what kind of man he was, does that reflect at all on the existence of my grandad?

Of course, the definition of "grandad" would tell you nothing at all about him or his existence.

A specific male personage verifiable as your grandad (the father of your father) can be definitively demonstrated to exist. Ideas of what he was like/could have been like/should have been like are, let's face it, fatuous, idle opinions, utterly irrelevant in the absence of any firm evidence that there's anybody to have such opinions about.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
A specific male personage verifiable as your grandad (the father of your father) . . .


Oi! What about the father of his mother?  

I'm part of a group who are currently putting up posters asking for new chairmen.  That disbars me from volunteering then.

Ketty, anti-sexism proponent  

As you were . . .
MikeRan

"Chairperson" is the correct term Ketty. You can apply then!
Ketty

MikeRan wrote:
"Chairperson" is the correct term Ketty. You can apply then!


I was tempted to graffiti the 'chairmen wanted' posters.  But I'm a good girl so wouldn't  

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum