Bill Moyers' Warning About Fundamenatlists

Rrhain,Look, I'm sure you and I disagree on a lot of things. And I can assure you that if I shared ALL my true political views, I'd be in trouble, cuz I can't really back all of it up (though some of it I can).But let me ask you a question about one of your comments: This "yanking" that Bush did. How can we tell whether it is based on his true convictions about what is right or wrong or whether he is just putting on a good show for Christians, so they'll trust everything he does.I don't trust him one bit. I think it's all an act!

quote:

---

You don't consider PBS mainstream media? What's not mainstream about PBS, in your opinion?

---

No, I don't consider them mainstram media, and Rrhain gave many reasons why. Remember, PBS is not a corporation with stockholders to please, they are (mostly) publically funded. The pressure to make profits at the expense of journalistic integrity isn't there.

quote:

---

I mean, sure they're very detailed and boring, but what do they say that's some great departure from what the others say?

---

Well, it's actually the details and the willingness to stay with a concept and explain it fully that is a huge departure from the "sensationalistic soundbite and nothing more" sort of programming and reporting done on most other mainstream media.Now, it is true that watching PBS shows often requires a person to have a somewhat longer attention span that watching, say, "Friends", but one is actually full of cool information you didn't know before which may possibly help you shape your worldview, and the other is pure brainless fluff.I find most network shows boring in that they do not answer obvious questions or take any risks and instead follow formulas and resort to fires, explosions, and manufactured, heavy handed drama.I will ALWAYS prefer a well-done show that teaches me something over a crappy show that is just supposed to entertain me.{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-07-2005 11:45 AM

Shraf,
Good to hear from you. Ok, agreed. At least semantically. But I don't get your point; or at least not your purpose in pointing that out.And: Again, agreed. But I don't get your point or purpose for pointing that out. I didn't indicate otherwise; the post #22 that you used to pull a sound bite from wasn't dealing with the "overall" deeds/intents of the Devil. I was discussing (post # 12) religious masquerading being used as the standard for Christianity. Again, semantics can get in the way of a useful discussion here. When you use the word "Christianity", different definitions pop up in the minds of the listeners. I tried to offer some discussion (using specifics) in regard to an example that berberry used. I THOUGHT it was good discussion anyway.But WHOA: Now you made MY point. Don't use an individual or group of religious masqueraders as the standard for Christians or Christianity. There are plenty of so called Christians who don't believe in God. Or believe in God but not his son, whom he sent. Or believe in Jesus, but don't believe he died for our sins or rose from the grave (the Muslims believe in Jesus, but HOW!). True Christians, who are obedient to the word of God, don't get divorced. Simple. If they do, they are disobedient. Simple. To debate that, we would have to start another thread.But to your point, as I read it, of the Devil's efforts not being necessary for men to be evil: True, men don't need him. But he IS the deceiver of the world, and certainly help drive us to sin. Men CHOOSE to rebel against God, and the Devil offers us everything from getaway cars to weapons to fight against God. Man chooses, but the Devil is there to help. Anything good that comes from MAN is just a trace reflection of the GOOD that is left in him from God. Note what happens in Rev. 20:7-8 Certainly, the Devil is a deceiver who will not be able to deceive when he's "Chained". But we probably need to take this to another thread before we're excommunicated by admin. ...but you only mentioned two. Were there more?

TheLiteralist responds to me:

quote:

---

This "yanking" that Bush did. How can we tell whether it is based on his true convictions about what is right or wrong or whether he is just putting on a good show for Christians, so they'll trust everything he does.

---

Does it matter? Either way means he is ethically challenged.I think Bush is quite devout, believes in god, and truly considers himself a Christian. But, and this is not atypical, he picks and chooses those things he wants to believe in when it is convenient for him to believe it and he does not see the contradiction.Just look at his SotU speech. He contradicted himself at every turn and most of the people who are supporting him don't understand why: Compare this to: One cannot hold the first conviction and the second conviction at the same time and still maintain logical consistency. But everybody engages in doublethink at some time or another.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Juhrahnimo writes:

quote:

---

Don't use an individual or group of religious masqueraders as the standard for Christians or Christianity.

---

Logical error: No true Scotsman fallacy.The error is that a person makes a claim that "No Scotsman likes sugar in his porridge." We then bring forth Angus MacDuff who loves sugar in his porridge. The original claimant then states, "Ah, but no true Scotsman likes sugar in his porridge."You do not get to redefine your claim after you have been shown to be wrong. You are not the final arbiter of what a Christian is. That you don't like that some people who disagree with your theological stances calling themselves "Christian" does not make them something other than Christian.Tell us: How do you control this stupendous ability of yours to see into others minds and discover their true beliefs regarding god in general and Jesus in particular? Is it something that you can turn on and off at will or is it always there and you have come to learn to live with the noise? Is it something that can be controlled via proximity or do you hear the cacophony of the entire world at once?

quote:

---

True Christians, who are obedient to the word of God, don't get divorced. Simple.

---

See above. Logical error: No true Scotsman fallacy.The evidence is quite clear and simple: Some "true" Christians do get divorced.After all, even Jesus allowed divorce. There was only one reason to allow divorce, but divorce was allowed.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

And that is why PBS keeps getting picked on by the representatives of its true "stockholders" which is the american public. PBS is like a company forced to run at a loss. We can accept it or try to make it profitable.Being somewhat of an economic conservative I can see why reps would like to pull the plug on it, or alter its function to make it more "privatized" aka go commercial in some form (even if that simply means greater merchandizing).Then again, seeing the effects of commercialism on speech (as well as programming which has been off limits to commercialization), I have come to respect the need for some section of the media to operate beyond commercial reach and influence.Levar Burton gave a great defense (during a PBS funding Congressional review) of both media types and explained why it was necessary to have both, and not simply go with commercialism all the way.Unfortunately he was undercut when a PBS "friendly" congress woman kept refering to him as Geordi LaForge.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Until not too long ago the tradition in US media (particularly tv but also radio and print) was that News was not seen as a profitr center. Great lengths were taken to build a wall between entertainment and revenue generation and reporting or news.The advent of broadband communications beginning with the move to UHF channels and continuing with CATV and then satellite led to a greater demand that all media must be profit driven. Deregulation accelerated the trends and placed even greater demands for profit.Today there is no clear boundary between news and entertainment and for the most part, straight reporting of who, what, where and when has sucumbed to the addition of why. Unfortunately, why is no longer left to the individual.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, Ned..this is not a Christian concept. God helps those who trust Him with all of their heart and lean NOT on their own understanding. God never advocated trashing the planet, either. We are to be good stewards of what we have been entrusted AND we are to love (and help) our neighbors as ourselves.Society will wake up some day perhaps, and all viewpoints will be found wanting. It boils down to one of two things:1) Jesus is the answer.
Or 2) human wisdom needs to unite and find an answer.
One point further: Those who believe the latter COULD embrace the former.

Maybe it's not anyone's fault.What if we are meant to destroy the environment?This message has been edited by DHA, 02-12-2005 15:50 AM

You mean that humanity is predisposed to get worse and worse and is unable to be righteous? Even IF this was true based on the Original Sin theory, we STILL must encourage each other to do our best!
Some believe that religion gets in the way and hampers personal achievement, whereas others such as myself believe that only through Spiritual impartation can we do our best. ADMINPHAT: We are drifting a bit off topic, here!

I think he has in mind this passage from Genesis: Plundering the planet can be interpreted as fulfilling this passage.--Percy

No.The idea is that the reason humans exist is to make the environment much worse to speed up evolution.If you want to know what something is for you just look at what it does. Dstroying things seems to be our special niche.So Bill Moyers is wrong.This message has been edited by DHA, 02-12-2005 22:35 AM

What??
Hypothetically, if we sped up(could speed up) evolution by a factor of a thousand, we would either be:
1) Smart enough not to trash the planet.We would FINALLY get it!2) Dead. As you say, we were mean't to trash the place.3) Safe in the arms of Jesus.And glad to be children with no responsibility! He might make us clean it up, though! Predetermined or predestined? Are you suggesting that we have an original imperfect nature and are destined to fail? Or are you suggesting that we are simply lazy, greedy, and not too bright?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-13-2005 05:07 AMThis message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-13-2005 05:10 AM

You are beginning to see it. The idea is that intellegence evolves from time to time merely as a spur to evolution.

Didn't someone say ". . lean NOT on their own understanding"
This isn't the place to talk about general topics. Aren't
WE really talking about a warning That much SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR.
It's odd and somewhat strange that he would know to mention this
in the first place IMO The fundementalist got the answer for their prayers in the Pres. .. Now they're finding us all in a fine kettle of-fishThis message has been edited by Death_stranger, 04-12-2005 03:05 PM