So I am at the diner waiting for my food to be cooked, and the television is on. This is after school programming time, and there is a show on ABC "family" about the dad in the family, who is torn between throwing out his "pot" (marijuana), or keeping it, and then he thinks that his daughter switched it out with oregano and stole it. Next there is a scene where all of the dads are hanging around with the kids with a Budweiser in their hands. What a mess.Doesn't Disney own ABC?
Is Christian television truly Christian?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Boanerges, Feb 9, 2006.
Page 5 of 5
-
What show are you referring to? It's hard to make an accurate or discerning determination without knowing what show you're referring to, or what that storyline of the show is. You can't gleen an accurate determination out of x number of minutes one happens to catch.
I'm not trying to start a debate. Just trying to get more info. -
-
If it's the same as what's on here (adjusted for time zones), it's a rerun of the Show "Grounded For Life", which originally aired from 2001 to 2005. The episode in question is one of several in the run of the show that dealt with the dangers and consequences of drug abuse.
Can't tell you more than that. -
-
You can't make an accurate determination, because you only saw a portion. Neither can I.
-
[ February 17, 2006, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: DHK ] -
http://www.skyangel.com/About/MediaArchive.asp?IdS=00219F-7CA8BE0&Id=72
In the article linked above, the Christian satellite company warns consumers that if you have secular TV, then you are supporting channels like MTV and others even if you do not view them. While I agree with their logic, and that channels such as MTV are not good for today's youth, I see a flaw in the overall reasoning. If they carry FOX News, and you subscribe to their package, then isn't a portion of your subscriber fees going to FOX, who airs all sorts of ungodly stuff on their network, not to mention the fact that the owner of FOX (Rupert Murdock) also owns the publishing company that prints the satanic bible. Is anyone following me on this? Maybe I am a little confused. :confused: -
The article you linked to in in regards to SkyAngel's support of "a la carte" programming. Which means, the subscriber would have the freedom to order service by individual channel, rathern than by package only as is the case now. Their logic is correct: One could order only the channels they decide are appropriate for their household. I favor a la carte availability (although, I likely will continue to keep my existing packaged service).
Not likely. Generally, channels offerred do not receive a portion of what you pay in cable fees. How, then, do they make money, you ask. Fox et al would make their money by being able to charge more for their advertising, the price of which is determined by how many households view them. Charging local cable companies for carrying them would reduce the number of households, and reduce potential advrtizing income.
That's a bit extreme, not to mention faulty. The Satanic Bible was published in 1969 by Avon Books (founded in 1941). The Hearst Corporation, which owned Avon, sold Avon to Harper Collins. Zondervan, founded in 1931, was acquired by Harper Collins in 1988. Zondervan did not publish the Satanic Bible. A company which belongs to ZOndervan's parent company did, nearly 20 years prior to being acquired by them. Zondervan's terms of acquisition give it great autonomy in its own publishing endeavours separate from its parent company (as does Avon's agreement). BTW, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation did not acquire Harper Collins until 1989, a year after HC acquired Zondervan. As if that wasn't hard enough to follow.
-
Bottom line, if Murdock owns the company, then he is making money from the sale of the satanic Bible. And if FOX makes its money from advertising only (which I highly doubt) they are still making money due to the platform that it is being aired on which is touted as being Christian.
-
question:
It is said by many that a christian can take what is evil and turn it into good by making it appear godly. Does this whole premise of "christian" TV run along the same line of thinking - that there is no harm done by a company choosing to sell product that is labeled as christian alongside that which is not?
So if Sky Angel promotes itself as "christian" TV, or if Zondervan is labeled a "christian" book company, then if they choose to sell ungodly resources, books, programs, etc, under a different name or company they can just wash their hands of any adverse affect on people? :eek:
Perhaps there should be a sign over the door, or in the front jacket of a book, or one of those warnings before a TV show:
CAVEAT EMPTOR . . .
Page 5 of 5