Apply Now!

Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16

witness23

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Turtle said:
So, knowing that, I can now comment that I find it interesting that you find it sad that Fox refused an ad promoting Christianity, but you would be ambivalent and not sad at all if they refused ads promoting those other religions. Interesting indeed.
Click to expand...

I must apologize for my haste in commenting on your question. I obviously did not thouroughly read and comprehend what you were asking, as you have so eloquently pointed out.

Would it be sad if Fox turned down a commercial from another religion? I wouldn't be sad. Hey, if any of those religions wanted to pay 3 million dollars on a commercial that didn't violate FCC regulations; I, as a company wouldn't have a problem with airing it. Capitalism at its finest, in my opinion.

If you watched the commercial in question that has been turned down by Fox; let's for a moment imagine and replace the John 3:16 message on the players "eye black" with a passage from the Quran. Under the left eye it would read "Quran", and under the right eye it would read "25:63". If the commercial was truly trying to educate and or send a possitive message from the Islamic religion to the viewing audience, I may be disappointed that Fox would not air it. Obvioulsy if you think the Quran and the Islamic religion is truly evil, then I suppose you would have the opposite view than I.

Again, I am secure in my belief in Christianity and Jesus as my Savior, and welcome the education of other religions to others. The more educated you are in any legitamate religion the better off you are, it just may lead some to Christ or it could possibly turn some to an exremist view of a religion, any religion .

Then you have the whole First Amendment issue that could be discussed with this matter.

So, would I be sad? After putting more thought into it, maybe I would be a bit sad that a corporation wouldn't allow any religion to air a commercial during the Super Bowl; especially one that was conveying a positive message to their audience.
 
layoutshooter

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Not sure just how the 1st Amendment applies to the purchase of air time with a non-government business???? :confused: I really don't know if it would come into play. The other networks refuse adds all the time too.
 
greg334

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well there isn't a 1st amendment issue here, Fox, a private company (opposed to NPR a public company) is not allowing it to air.

In all honesty, it is not a big deal.

BUT with that said, I hold that the issue should be with those of the religion who want to broadcast a message that everyone doesn't agree with. It is their problem, not the problem or the public.

I understand the point that the OP is trying to make with the follow up point of education of the people who may or may not accept their form of religion but the limit is the interpretation of the passage that is cited in the ad;

For in this way God loved the world: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life. - Greek trans-literal version.

To a great number of people who follow Jesus, the him is God, not Jesus and this passage has been twisted and used to say that the only way to everlasting or eternal life is to become a follower of Jesus. And like many who do not believe in the Trinity, Jesus is not God, so it is for them heresy to repeat the wrong interpretation.
 
Moot

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
witness23 said:
Natural-born dispatcher? hmmmm.... I'm not a dispatcher, and what exactly does that mean? Is that a bad thing, are dispatchers different than anyone else? Not exactly sure what that has to do with the article and thread at hand.
Click to expand...

It's insider humor specifically for persons involved in the transportation industry. The name of this site is Expeditersonline.com, not Actuariesonline.com.
 
dieseldiva

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
witness23 said:
Then I would respectfully suggest that you do not participate in the thread. Their, fixed.
Click to expand...

...............................................................................

There vs Their vs They’re
by WOODWARD on 20 APRIL 2010
0Share

Which words would make the sentence correct?

They’re/Their/There playing they’re/their/there video games over they’re/their/there.

The answer appears at the end of the post so let’s learn the rules meanwhile.


HOMOPHONES

Words that sound the same but have different meanings (and sometimes spelling) are called homophones. Therefore they’re, their and there are Homophones.

So, what is the difference between they’re, their and there?


THERE

There is the opposite of Here. It means “in that place” not here.

A: Where is my book? – B: It’s over there.
I will look for a hotel to stay when I arrive there.
There is/There are = to show that something exists.

There is a book on the table
There are many countries in Europe.


THEIR

Their is a possessive adjective which is used before a noun. It shows possession, that something belongs to them.

Their house is big.
All of their friends were crazy.
The children put their books in their school bags.


THEY’RE

They’re is a contraction of they are.
e.g. They’re happy = They are happy

They’re is usually before an adjective or a verb ending in ING.

They’re very interested in the project.
I personally think they’re crazy!
They’re singing loudly.


So now you know the difference let’s try the original question:

They’re/Their/There playing they’re/their/there video games over they’re/their/there.

The answer is:

They’re playing their video games over there.
Why?

They’re playing (they’re is used before a verb ending in -ing making it the progressive tense)

Their video games (their is a possessive used before a noun to show possession)

Over there (there because it means not here, in that place)


I hope you found this helpful.
Click to expand...
 
layoutshooter

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Any bets that they still play the game? Any bets that no one even will notice that Fox turned down that add? Any bets that almost no one even cares? Just like no one even cares when ABC, NBC and CBS do not air POSITIVE adds/stories about the NRA, gun owners, hunters etc. One trick ponies are funny.
 
Moot

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
If you are upset that Fox rejected this particular Super Bull ad, simply reject Fox and the Super Bull.
 
dieseldiva

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
witness23 said:
Totally uncalled for and unacceptable, and I expect an apology for the above statement layout.
Click to expand...

.........................................................................................

images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top