Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Arndt talks about television Message-ID: <398@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 11:02:34 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.398 Posted: Mon Jan 28 11:02:34 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 07:25:20 EST References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Strongarm Collection Agency: WE HAVE NO SLOGAN Lines: 78 Xref: watmath net.religion:5389 net.flame:8104 > Food for thought. Could I ask you, Christian or not, to look over this > article and formulate WHY you agree/disagree with some/all of the authors > points? Since you asked (Christian or not) ... > From: TELEVISION AND THEOLOGY, by George C. Conklin and Linda W. McFadden > Central to Christian faith is the belief that the ultimate reality of the > universe is God, who created the world and all it contains. As creature, > humankind is _i_n_t_e_n_d_e_d to live in relationship with all Creation and with the > Creator. Why do I disagree? The bold unwarranted wishful thinking assumption presented here provides enough reason to disagree. > Created in an act of divine love, we are stewards of our lives and of the > Creation, _i_n_t_e_n_d_e_d to live in relationship and dialogue with the Creator. More of the same. > In turning away from the Creator, we cut ourselves off ... > In this cut-off-ness, we experience anxiety and rootlessness, the sense that > we have no 'home' in the Creation and that we have no essential worth. Interesting explanation of anxiety and cutoff-ness, based (unfortunately) on the aforementioned (very shaky) assumptions. With this in mind, with the entire extract so rife with conclusions based on the same vacuous assumptions, one can only conclude that the overall thrust of the whole text has little bearing on the realities of the real world (except for those people who choose to accept the assumptions for whatever reason). My question for Ken is this: you ask for opinions on this, from Christian and non-Christian alike. Do you assume that non-Christians (and more especially the non-religious) make those same assumptions that you have accepted? The thrust of almost all of your net output has implied that you believe that others make those same assumptions, taking their validity at face value. Given their arbitrariness and their basis in wishful thinking, I must ask why you think others would do the same. > The question "What must I do to be saved?" finds its way into television in > several formulations: > How can I obtain love? > How can I be valued? > How can I matter to others? > What must I do in order to be acceptable? > Television's answers also are manifold. News programs suggest WHO is > important and WHAT makes a person important or interesting. The emphasis on > economic or political power, physical or intellectual prowess, or behavior > which departs from cultural norms tends to reinforce in us the idea that > power, prowess or eccentricity make us interesting. Dramatic and adventure > programs provide role models of noteworthy behaviors which are portrayed as > obtaining the attention of others. Advertisements demonstrate countless > things which we may add to ourselves in order to be valued, loved and secure. > Television suggests that salvation from our longing for love and security lies > in things performed, worn, used, applied, driven, learned or experienced. All that's been shown is that television MAY have replaced the Bible (for some people) as the source/authority for answering the questions listed above. I would assume that, given the bias of the authors (and the quoter), the implication is that it would be better if the Bible was used for this purpose instead of television. To which I answer: why use either? Those who assume that these are questions with direct and discrete specific answers which can be obtained by accessing some authority (like Jeff Sargent seems to desire) are doomed to failure. These are questions that are answered through living and learning, not by reading a book or staring at a tube. > The message of success, power and affluence proclaimed by television is a > secular gospel in direct competition with the Christian gospel. Television > promises an easeful 'good life', a paradise on earth which is always just > beyond our grasp. Its false promises are a seductive lure away from the way > of eternal life. The assumption here, that a certain 'other' method of achieving the 'good life' is a "better" way of accomplishing these goals (transcendence, good life), is just as faulty as the assumption that television (or anything else) could perform that "trick". -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr