PDA

View Full Version : Unacceptable News Sources



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14

DCarley
October 10th, 2010, 08:21 PM
Now my personal relationship with Jesus Christ is questioned????? How appropriate. ....

iSong6:3
October 10th, 2010, 08:21 PM
D - What are you so angry about? It is rather odd.

Steve53
October 10th, 2010, 08:23 PM
I understand you think there is sensationalism in some of the stories posated by these orgs. My only question is "Do you think there's no sensationalism in the acceptable sites you OK?" You are misguided at best.

Any true believer in Jesus Christ...who "abides" in Him...who relies on the Bible and the Spirit of God for discernment...can make their own choices and decide for themselves what is true and what is false. I don't want you to do that for me. I access RR becuase I can gather information....from wherever it derives. I can read it and use my God-given discernment afterwards to go forward.

Monitoring and limiting commentaries I can understand. Disallowing quotes from websites that say Elvis is living on the moon I can understand. Restricting news orgs that report and promote violence and criminal behavior I can understand. And limiting sites that are routinely and purposefully untruthful and decpetive I can understand.

But to demand (because you own the site and want it that way) that people not post what are mostly legitmate news items because those stories come from what you consider to be unacceptable websites is not right. I would not imagine too much of what is posted in actually sensationalism and unfactual...although I'm sure some is. (Prove to me the acceptable sites don't do the same)

I wonder what those news orgs would do if they learned that RR had deemed them to be unacceptable? I wonder how much credibility RR would lose if that were reported on their unacceptable website that millions of people read each week? Of course, if it were reported, I guess that would be a true story, huh? Or would that be sensationalism?

We will not rehash what is already well covered in this thread. Please read the thread before responding again.


What you consider censorship is nothing more than expecting invited guests to abide by the house rules when they come by for a visit.

You have joined a private forum and we have rules we expect everyone to abide by. If you don't like our rules you are free to leave. :hat

Steve53
October 10th, 2010, 08:24 PM
Now my personal relationship with Jesus Christ is questioned????? How appropriate. ....

We like to get to know our new members. How better than to ask you to introduce yourself?

DCarley
October 10th, 2010, 08:27 PM
I am one of the calmest persons you will ever meet. I just don't like censoring.....

I apoligize if I sound angry. You mistake my passion for anger.

Actually, I met Jesus when I was 11-12 years old at a church camp. I went on the become a drug addict until 1192 when He brought me out of the deep pit I wa sin and into a broad place. Since that time, He has shown me more and more of Himself and blessed me with His gifts of discernment, serving, and prophecy. IHe is the only Way to heaven and no one can come to the Father except through a personal relationship with Him....accepting as perfect the gift of salvation.

What a great hope we have. And what a great need for thr world to know....

Steve53
October 10th, 2010, 08:29 PM
I am one of the calmest persons you will ever meet. I just don't like censoring.....

I apoligize if I sound angry. You mistake my passion for anger.

...

Again, final time - Private board. Censorship does not apply in this situation. This forum is NOT a free for all.

KissyLoves
October 10th, 2010, 08:29 PM
I understand you think there is sensationalism in some of the stories posated by these orgs. My only question is "Do you think there's no sensationalism in the acceptable sites you OK?" You are misguided at best.

Any true believer in Jesus Christ...who "abides" in Him...who relies on the Bible and the Spirit of God for discernment...can make their own choices and decide for themselves what is true and what is false. I don't want you to do that for me. I access RR becuase I can gather information....from wherever it derives. I can read it and use my God-given discernment afterwards to go forward.

Monitoring and limiting commentaries I can understand. Disallowing quotes from websites that say Elvis is living on the moon I can understand. Restricting news orgs that report and promote violence and criminal behavior I can understand. And limiting sites that are routinely and purposefully untruthful and decpetive I can understand.

But to demand (because you own the site and want it that way) that people not post what are mostly legitmate news items because those stories come from what you consider to be unacceptable websites is not right. I would not imagine too much of what is posted in actually sensationalism and unfactual...although I'm sure some is. (Prove to me the acceptable sites don't do the same)

I wonder what those news orgs would do if they learned that RR had deemed them to be unacceptable? I wonder how much credibility RR would lose if that were reported on their unacceptable website that millions of people read each week? Of course, if it were reported, I guess that would be a true story, huh? Or would that be sensationalism?

Wow. Have you ever owned or operated a website? The mods here are do a wonderful job discerning the Truth from the Unacceptable. You know not everyone who reads here is saved. Some people get saved and learn discernment from guidance they find here. I know that I for one was led to Jesus (after thinking for years that I was saved) by one of the mods here. The shear number of threads and posts which are moderated here is phenomenal - rules are rules and this site has evolved and has the rules they have for good reason, sometimes we know why and sometimes we don't. Either way to be a part, we must abide by the rules. Ya know?


Oh hello... you're new here! :hat

We'd love to get to know you better, why don't you go over to the Welcome forum and introduce yourself.... tell us how you met Jesus?

ETA: You *have* met Jesus....... ????

:hug Yes, please share. Loove, loove, loove to read a testimony of the power of Jesus' blood. :hat

Nightelf
October 10th, 2010, 08:29 PM
Now my personal relationship with Jesus Christ is questioned????? How appropriate. ....

It's just that you have *5* posts so far, and all you've done is come and condemn the way we run the forum. Just wondering if you walk into churches and condemn the way they run things? I think it's a fair question since this is a private Christian site, if you are a Christian or not.... especially since you come judging the way we run things.

iSong6:3
October 10th, 2010, 08:36 PM
I am one of the calmest persons you will ever meet. I just don't like censoring.....

Okay, let's have some of that Spirit-led calm here. :thumb

As for censoring - again - if you would read this thread, you will see that if you find something that, say, WND prints and also find it from a news source that we use, we can use the WND item - but use the okay news source as the cite.


I apoligize if I sound angry. You mistake my passion for anger.

The passion is not a problem, the insults are.


Actually, I met Jesus when I was 11-12 years old at a church camp. I went on the become a drug addict until 1192 when He brought me out of the deep pit I wa sin and into a broad place. Since that time, He has shown me more and more of Himself and blessed me with His gifts of discernment, serving, and prophecy. IHe is the only Way to heaven and no one can come to the Father except through a personal relationship with Him....accepting as perfect the gift of salvation.

What a great hope we have. And what a great need for thr world to know....

Okay, let's remember our testimony and that God be glorified among us in this place.

Robert
October 11th, 2010, 12:01 AM
The problem is FUD, DCarley.

FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doom"; stories just to make people afraid and anxious. Sadly, many so-called news sites will hype stories just to get people going. Prisonplanet and Infowars in particular specialize in FUD, and play upon people's fear. Alex Jones owns both of these sites, and he is well know for his conspiracy views. The stories he posts at his sites are theer to get people to come to his site, as well as to buy his videos and other materials. Not that all sites are like that, but when stories that they parrot can be tracked back to Prisonplanet and Infowars, you start wondering what you can rely on.

The difference between those kinds sites and established MSM's (main stream media) is that while the MSM to some degree does play up a story, it also has to have reliable sources for the story. If you go online and Google a lot of the stories that the sites listed in the "do not use" list have, you can trace them by the date they are posted back to sites that no one would ever trust.

Sadly, a great many out there DO NOT possess discernment, and do not Google anything. When they see a story on a place like RR, they take it at face value and panic. We know the times that we live in, but many who visit RR are not saved and are looking for some kind of answer to what is going on.

As for "wonder what those news orgs would do if they learned that RR had deemed them to be unacceptable"; we are not here to please them or anyone else. Our responsibility, and thus our "fear" is to the Lord, not a man-run news agency, be it an MSM or not. It sounds to me like "I'm gonna tell on you for not liking them!!!"

So?

Last I checked, WND didn't die on the cross for me; Jesus Christ did.

"I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! " (Luke 12:4-5, NASB)

So, I'm sorry you feel the way that you do about this, but it is not censorship; it's STEWARDSHIP. A good steward takes care of what he is entrusted with, and that is why this list is in place.