Can multimedia truly be evil??

ApocryphaNow · Sep 2, 2006

Evangalism isn't about logic. The whole point is to get people to think and (especially) act in exactly the same way. Therefore the creation and liberal use of words such as "good" and "evil" is expedient. There need not be any reasons for declaring something to be either one or the other outside of what the preacher says on Sunday. You submit your will to him.

Robinsegg · Sep 2, 2006

ApocryphaNow said:
Evangalism isn't about logic. The whole point is to get people to think and (especially) act in exactly the same way. Therefore the creation and liberal use of words such as "good" and "evil" is expedient. There need not be any reasons for declaring something to be either one or the other outside of what the preacher says on Sunday. You submit your will to him.

I'll admit there has been some of that over history, and yes, some still exists today. However, the church I attend has lots of discussion in classes, outside the regular worship service, wherein we try to find out what the Bible says, as opposed to what a specific man (outside the Bible) says.

You see, it's not supposed to be (though I admit it sometimes is) about what the preacher says is "good' and "evil", but what God has to say about it. Therefore, what our pastor says on Sunday mornings must be backed up with Scripture and able to stand up to scrutiny using the Bible as a guideline. If it does not, we speak to the pastor for further clarification on the subject (as to what he meant and how he defends it from Scripture). Either he can do that or he cannot, in which case he is expected to recant his earlier statement and possilby help the congregation through a study on the subject.

Rachel

quatona · Sep 2, 2006

Robinsegg said:
BTW, why is it that people don't think anymore?

Compared to when?

KCDAD · Sep 2, 2006

Language is important. If you call someone by a demeaning name, whether it be racially or sexually or intellectually insulting, you will think of that person and others like that person in those terms. That's the problem with rap... women are B's and H's. Men are N's and Dogs.

quatona · Sep 2, 2006

KCDAD said:
Language is important.

Yes, it has a strong impact in many ways.

If you call someone by a demeaning name, whether it be racially or sexually or intellectually insulting, you will think of that person and others like that person in those terms.

Sure, but you will think of that person in the way you personally connate this term (in the given context), and not in the way others (or the majority) do.
What about those people calling their loved ones "bear", "honeybee", "my mousetail" or whatever? Do you think they think of them as bears, honeybees or mousetails?

KCDAD · Sep 2, 2006

quatona said:
Yes, it has a strong impact in many ways.

Sure, but you will think of that person in the way you personally connate this term (in the given context), and not in the way others (or the majority) do.
What about those people calling their loved ones "bear", "honeybee", "my mousetail" or whatever? Do you think they think of them as bears, honeybees or mousetails?

Not necessarily literally, but those names come from someplace, and are definitely de-humanizing and de-individualizing. Mousetail?

TooCurious · Sep 2, 2006

KCDAD said:
Not necessarily literally, but those names come from someplace, and are definitely de-humanizing and de-individualizing. Mousetail?

Wait... so affectionate pet-names are bad now, too?

sc4s2cg · Sep 2, 2006

TooCurious said:
Wait... so affectionate pet-names are bad now, too?

I think he was referencing the expletive words. And I believe he was also hinting at the context of the words, and how the general public percieves them.

G-d bless,
sc

TooCurious · Sep 2, 2006

sc4s2cg said:
I think he was referencing the expletive words. And I believe he was also hinting at the context of the words, and how the general public percieves them.

G-d bless,
sc

Maybe I misread him, but it sounded to me like he was referring to quatona's examples of pet names like "bear," "honeybee," and "mousetail." I could be wrong, though. Perhaps KCDAD could clarify?

DinoDNA · Sep 2, 2006

I think media can be a catalyst for "evil" or violence, or whatever negative influences are attributed to it, but it is hardly a cause of any of them, and if people are taught at a young age to decipher and sort out what to practice or not practice it's a non-issue. Media is more a reflection of a culture and society than it is a dictator of such things.

sc4s2cg · Sep 2, 2006

TooCurious said:
Maybe I misread him, but it sounded to me like he was referring to quatona's examples of pet names like "bear," "honeybee," and "mousetail." I could be wrong, though. Perhaps KCDAD could clarify?

I could be wrong as well. But what got me to think that was, the way he put "Moustail?" at the end. Like he was amused by someone calling their spouse mousetail. But that's just me. Some clarification would be cool.

G-d bless,
sc

Adriac · Sep 2, 2006

kopilo said:
In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. - dalai lama

Yes.

I can only imagine if 75% of Americans were Buddhist...

Spherical Time · Sep 2, 2006

Adriac said:
Yes.

I can only imagine if 75% of Americans were Buddhist...

We'd still have crazy wackos, but I think there would be a better prohibition on violence.

No religion is perfect.

Adriac · Sep 2, 2006

Heh. Yeah, I never said it'd be great— but I betcha something it'd be better.

Spherical Time · Sep 2, 2006

Adriac said:
Heh. Yeah, I never said it'd be great but I betcha something it'd be better.

I'll agree to that.

ThatRobGuy · Sep 3, 2006

Uphill Battle said:
Even beyond the crude humour, and the profanity, south park is a lousy show.

Yes, a lousy show that has won awards and been one of the top rated show in the last 9 years...

Uphill Battle said:
Do you think perhaps the depiction of Jesus as a wrestler, as a clueless game show guest, etc... are really honouring to him? Perhaps that might be a reason why we "fundies" don't watch it, and view it as detrimental?

You have to keep in mind that not everyone is a Christian, nor do they have to be. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are an Atheist and a former Jew....so why would they make their late-night show appeal to Christian beliefs?? They've also depicted Jesus to be a cool guy, with a good sense of humor, who everyone in town truly likes. The fact that they acknowledge that he existed (regular man, son of god, or otherwise) is doing what most atheists wouldn't do. It's not like Christianity is the only belief system they've had some fun with. They've dedicated entire episodes to poking fun at scientology and mormons. They've even done a show where the major figureheads of every religion are actually friends with each other and in a team of heros called the "Super Best Friends".

wanderingone · Sep 3, 2006

miniverchivi said:
Some of you guys are going to laugh at this one.....I heard something yesterday that puzzled me.

For the last couple years my parents have been taking my 15 year old brother to a very conservative baptist church to receive brainwashing. When he got home from church the one week, he was telling me that they told him that watching the show South Park was evil, and also that his favorite band Slipknot was evil as well (I'm guessing because of the profanity). When they tell him these things, I make sure to balance him out with some common sense, and he's a pretty smart kid and can already start seeing through some of their lies.....Plus, he loves watching South Park with me .

Why do fundamentalists think that "bad" words can be harmful to listen to? They're just sounds like any other word. It just seems kind of silly to me.

I don't think tv, movies etc... can be evil, they can easily be garbage. I'm not a fundamentalist, however there are some things I don't entertain having my kids watch. It's not specificially about ratings, language, sex etc.. it's about context, and where my kid is at in terms of recognizing the context. A few curses don't bother me, stringing crude sentences for the sake of providing entertainment value to adolescent boys qualifies (in my opinion) as not worthy of anyone's time.

As for South Park being evil, your parents are doing a far worse thing if they are dragging him off to hear messages saying something is evil and then not following through at home by not allowing him to watch it with you. The mixed message will be they're beliefs are not firm, they can't be trusted and they're hypocrites. If you are watching south park with him without them knowing and you are an adult (not sure how old you are) then you are being immature interfering with their decisions as parents over something that just isn't that important.

Robinsegg · Sep 3, 2006

miniverchivi said:
Yes, a lousy show that has won awards and been one of the top rated show in the last 9 years...

Top rated by whom? Hollywood? Well, there's a bunch of great moral experts! /sarcasm

Rachel

marblehead · Sep 3, 2006

Robinsegg said:
Top rated by whom? Hollywood? Well, there's a bunch of great moral experts! /sarcasm

Rachel

So a show has to be morally acceptable to you for everyone's opinion of it being a good show to count?

flicka · Sep 3, 2006

South Park has moments of genius. There is absolute no doubt about that and anyone who claims otherwise has either never seen it or just likes to make noise.

You don't have to like something for it to be good. But if you try to say it's bad just because you don't approve you only make yourself look foolish.

Can multimedia truly be evil??

Well-Known Member

SuperMod L's

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Kitten with a ball of string

'Cause human tears are older than the rain.

Kitten with a ball of string

Member

'Cause human tears are older than the rain.

Well-Known Member

Reality has a well known Liberal bias.

Well-Known Member

Reality has a well known Liberal bias.

Part of the IT crowd

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

SuperMod L's

Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency