Action needed now.

No they're not. They are two different things.

Only by the grace of God.

I get it I just don't think that hysteria is the best way to bring about change.

Your argument would carry a lot more weight if you'd stop and look at this rationally, rather than the whole sackcloth and ashes thing.

 

I was told by Enda that I was unsaved because he didn't like the music I listen to. I really wouldn't worry about it. When people say things like this, it usually says much more about them than it does about you.

 

I wouldn't worry about it either. It just proves that those who accuse you of not being a Christian simply don't believe in salvation by faith alone. To them, it's salvation by being in agreement with their views.

 

Quite simply, because the contention you continually make is inaccurate.
The FCC said that, in this particular case, they did not consider this to be a violation of the law. They did not condone Bono's statements, nor did they make any claim that the rule is to be changed. I challenged you to provide the proof to support your charge, and you have still not provided it.

Let's look at YOUR statement:

That is not true, as I have already demonstrated. That is like saying that, if I say that your dog is not a terrier, then I undoubtedly said that it is a spaniel.

Personally, I think that the most bizarre aspect of this whole discussion is that Paul (a.k.a. Bono) is a self-professed Born-again Christian........

 

No you're not, you're looking at it emotionally. Several people have tried to explain to you why you're wrong, using the very words of the FCC, but you've ignored them, instead preferring to read your own meaning into it.

I don't mock it, I'm just pointing out the folly of this "lone voice in the wilderness" complex you have.

No, I'm suggesting that you use your head.

Again, because he did not violate the rules surrounding the use of the word doesn't not mean that the other rules no longer apply.

 

Dear Mike and Baptist in Richmond,
I am having trouble understanding the fine distinctions you are trying to make.

Yes, it seems that Jailminister incorrectly thought that the rules had been completely changed.
However, the disturbing fact remains that such a word could be used now at all without "breaking the rules". Using the word at all in my opinion should be automatically breaking the rules. And I believe it would have been considered that way even several years ago. I would expect that, soon, there will be other times that it will be used without "breaking the rules".

We should not overreact, but neither should we
overlook and fail to speak out against decay in
society because some other opponents have perhaps misinterpreted a point. In my opinion, the basic point remains that the word was allowed at all. Which allowance is a new thing.

Karen

 

It's not a fine distinction. Under the FCC rules, a fleeting use of the word as an adjective is not punishable. This is most likely because (a) it just "slipped out" or (b) it's a live broadcast and censors did not catch it in time.

The use of the word in a pre-meditated fashion or when referring to the sex act is still very much verboten, no matter how loudly jailminister may cry otherwise.

I agree but like I told jailminister, hysteria isn't the way to go about it.

 

OK.

 

Dear Karen:

The "distinction" I am trying to make is the simple fact that the allegations in the link provided by Jailminister are INACCURATE. That is all: I have not covert agenda.

Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to follow the link provided in the first post, then read the entire FCC document. You will see that the accusations by the website are NOT TRUE. Moreover, I have asked Jailminister to provide the evidence to support this on two seperate occasions, and as of the time of this post, he has failed to do so.

I would not disagree with you. HOWEVER, I am a firm believer in the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees free speech without condition. It can be vulgar, blasphemous, idiotic, religious, hilarious, <insert your own modifier here>. That is the true beauty of our Constitution. I would fight censorship of any kind, regardless if I believed in the validity of the message. If I hear a word I consider to be vulgar, then I TURN THE CHANNEL.
That is the best way to get their attention......

 

<YAWN>
This is not even challenging......

On two seperate occasions I have challenged you to provide the evidence that the FCC ruling gave them "clearance" (to usurp your term) to use the word in question. As of the time I am typing this, you have failed to do so.

Now, for a third time: please provide the evidence in the FCC ruling that gives "clearance" to use the word. Until you do that, every post you generate simply proves who "just [doesn't] want to get it.

By the way, regarding your contumely concerning my Pastor preaching on sin: My Pastor always provides the Scripture to support his teaching. He doesn't simply make some outrageous claim, and expect me to just sit there and take his word for it.

Wait a minute, let me check: NOPE, I am not on the FCC board. I guess that this wasn't my ruling, or my "doing."

 

.............and yet you still have not proven your claims.................

 

Here we go again...........

One more time, this is NOT TRUE. The ruling does not give approval. I have asked you to provide the statements that support this charge. Anybody who has read paragraph 5 knows that this is not an approval to use the word "anytime day or night."

 

You have proven absolutely nothing, and none of your posts support your claims.
Simply stating something in repetition does not lend credence to your point.

I have asked you several times to support the claim you have made several times now, and your response is to either repeat the claim, or maintain that you provided the proof. Neither response provides validity.

The FCC said that in this particular case, they did not feel that the use of the expletive warranted any action. They did not say, directly or otherwise, that they condone the use of the expletive. I have made this point, and I utilized the actual text to support my claim. I challenge you to do the same: PROVE YOUR CONTENTIONS. If the proof is so apparent, then why do you neglect to cite it?

 

Nope. You have just repeated the FCC ruling which does NOT state what you allege it to state. You seem to see only what you want to see instead of what is really there. For instance, you have been responding to “Baptist in Richmond” for a number of posts yet apparently you think you’ve been responding to me – Baptist Believer (a.k.a. “BB”). I do not say this to be insulting, but to make the point that you seem to be a careless reader.

That’s a very harsh allegation against someone who is so concerned about truth that they want to make sure that you are accurately reporting what the FCC actually said, not the AFA alleges it said.

Can’t do it. Those of us who are believers are compelled to stand for truth – even if that means going against a well-intentioned, but false, crusade.

The AFA is promoting falsehood (even if they somehow don’t realize it) because they are misrepresenting what the FCC actually said. They are only reinforcing the popular stereotype that Christians are dull-witted by urging their followers to besiege the FCC with complaints that are based on a complete misunderstanding of the FCC’s decision.

If the AFA tells untruths, I am required to stand against that wickedness. If you are a follower of Jesus, you should have nothing to do with dishonesty and untruth.