-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Eight more companies -- including Wal-Mart -- reportedly pull Glenn Beck ads
- Thread starter Robert Snow
- Start date
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm sorry to hear that. I enjoyed listening to Glenn Beck. However, the president did speak inappropiately with that Police/Professor incident and you can see how one may be lead to that conclusion. However, it doesn't do anything to lessen the volitility of the issue.
Robert Snow
New Member
I really didn't think much about it. I understand why the SBC would do such a thing and I support their right to support or not support any cause they deem fit.
I know that these advertisers do what they think will increase their profits. Evidently, they have received enough flack that they felt this move was necessary. I didn't contact anyone because I'm not a big fan of boycotts.
Do you support these advertisers rights to spend their money where they think it will do them the most good?
And I support the right of consumers to support or boycott any advertiser they see fit.
ray Marshall
New Member
I have never seen Wal-mart spocering Glen Beck's program and if so, then Glen Beck must be a burr under somebody,s saddle.
Marcia
Active Member
What gets me the most about Glenn Beck is how so many Christians think he is a Christian when he is a Mormon. He was even interviewed by Pat Robertson as though he is a Christian.
I think his comment was out of line. I really don't care one way or the other whether companies pull their ads from his show - if they want to, fine.
I think his comment was out of line. I really don't care one way or the other whether companies pull their ads from his show - if they want to, fine.
BigBossman
Active Member
While I like Beck & agree with most of the things he comments on, he's not what I view as a conservative. He is a bit of a loose cannon, & that's what I like about him. However, he has stated before that he is a Libertarian. I agree with Libertarians in the fact they believe that government is too intrusive in our everyday lives.
Libertarians typically believe in small government, but to the point where there is too little government. They believe that abortion should be legal & that drugs should also be legalized. They also seem to have a liberal stance on moral issues. That's what I don't like about that party.
Libertarians typically believe in small government, but to the point where there is too little government. They believe that abortion should be legal & that drugs should also be legalized. They also seem to have a liberal stance on moral issues. That's what I don't like about that party.
windcatcher
New Member
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Truely...... I did not know this.
I thought morallity was more like an individual and community mores issue with the libertarians..... where as individuals, they each may have different and strong convictions...... but where they all agreed that it was up to the communities and states to define law and acceptible behavior and codify what is chargeable offense. At least the few libertarians I know are strongly anti-abortion and antigovernemt funding of abortions..... but think any action on the federal level is decidedly unconstitutional, therefore unlawful..... and any matter regarding or restricting choice is up to the people of each state to determine and set limits or extend tolerance or conditions of allowance and regulation...... And that each person is responsible for his/her own provisions. ................This, I thought...... is considerably different from either legislating morality at the federal level OR yeilding nation wide tolerance, if not endorsement...... when there are strong areas and regions of considerable oppposition and disagreement with the federallies on moral and decency issues.
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes...Judges 17:6
I know you like to judge him. But by his own words he was a Christian before he was a Mormon. I don't know his heart, whether he is saved or not, but I prefer to leave judgment to a righteous God, of which I am not. I know he claims Christ as his savior. Not Joe Smith.
Marcia
Active Member
I am not judging him; I'm judging his faith by the Bible. He openly gives the story of his conversion to the Mormon faith. All Mormons claim that Jesus is their Savior, but their Jesus is not the biblical Jesus! The Mormon Jesus is the offspring of God and his wife, and is the brother of Satan, another offspring of God and his wife. The Mormon Jesus only died to make it possible to go to the highest heaven (exaltation) because you have to do works. The Mormon Jesus is not part of the Trinity, because Mormons deny the Trinity.
Their God and Jesus are counterfeits. The Mormon Jesus is a false Jesus.
windcatcher
New Member
I respect you, Marcia..... but I have trouble understanding just what does religion have to do in this thread and in this discussion?
I'm not impressed one way or the other by Glen Beck's religion.... and it serves no more purpose than as if I didn't know what he believed..... How many commentators and newsmen and journalist might publish or give the news or their opinion ....... without a word regarding what they believe.
But, if we are discussing the value of life regardless of age.... and those in agreement are a muslim, an agnostic, an atheist, a RC, a Protestant, a Mormon, and a christian scientist.... (Who is taking a poll of their differences?) it is not their religion that I agree with ....... but their position on the value of human life. I might suspect the sincerity of some if their religion is revealed (based upon my knowledge of their religion or sect and my presuming upon these individuals the characteristics which I attribute as typical to their religion).
But...... without someone bringing up Glenn Beck's religion, I don't see its relevance in the discussion of this thread.
What does have meaning to me is how 'right on' is the target of his facts and discussion and how much is spin and hype.
(This is silly of me...... I don't have cable, don't watch t.v..... and here I appear to be defending Glenn Beck... and I don't even listen to him. :BangHead
(This is silly of me...... I don't have cable, don't watch t.v..... and here I appear to be defending Glenn Beck... and I don't even listen to him. :BangHead
Which really brings up a good point; sometimes you can be too close to a problem to see the whole picture. It takes a disinterested party to see the fallacy of either/both side(s) of the argument.
You nailed it here, seeing as how you are unfamiliar with GB, but just following the facts with no emotional attachment.:thumbsup: