View the latest news and breaking news today for U.S., world, weather, entertainment, politics and health.

Who Really Cares?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who Really Cares?

    Recently there have been rumors flying about whether or not Adele was approached to play during the half-time show at the Super Bowl, and the other reports that are saying she has refused. Historically, this little show has been a kind of up tempo show that keep people's excitement level up while the talking heads of various sports news organizations discuss things we all really don't care about. So, even considering Adele for that venue is not really that great an idea since most of her music does not exactly fit.

    I have always of the opinion that they should get Weird Al to do it, but apparently the powers that be at the NFL front office seem to think they know what everyone wants to see, thus the fact that we saw Cold Play at the last one.

  • #2
    Weird Al lol That would be something to see.
    Comment>

    • #3
      See? This is what I am saying. Every half-time show so far has been the same old thing. A bunch of artists "singing" truncated versions of their hits for about 10 minutes and they are done.

      And by singing I mean lip synching to their canned version of their songs.
      Comment>

      • #4
        I don't watch football, does that make me a bad person? :eek:

        Seriously, my daughter's church, an Assembly of God church cancelled church service Sunday to accommodate a football game. They'd rather watch this garbage (half time show) than go to church and worship God. The half time show from what I read is full of Satanic messages and pro LGBT agendas. Just not something I'd watch. Look at the music awards, and the Satanic shows they produce. I'm not really interested in anyone that performs at those kind of events, or sits there through it just so they can receive an award.

        God bless,
        William
        Comment>

        • #5
          We started attending our current church in March of 2011, which was a little over a month after the Super Bowl that year. Something we noticed which kind of took me aback was how congregants were criticizing this very thing, not coming to the evening service because they wanted to watch the game. They weren't actually naming any names, but apparently it was a hot topic for them that year, as no one has really mentioned it since.

          Yeah, this is probably the only reason I would ever consider suggesting holding worship services on Saturday (the seventh day of the week), but then I know no one in our denomination would ever go for it for obvious reasons.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Knotical View Post

            Yeah, this is probably the only reason I would ever consider suggesting holding worship services on Saturday (the seventh day of the week), but then I know no one in our denomination would ever go for it for obvious reasons.
            This was actually what my daughter's church suggested as the reason for moving church service in order to accommodate the Super Bowl. I asked her what she thought about it. I'm sure you're aware, imagine the message received by someone young from the church's actions. She said, they are getting with "the times". I would expect any church that holds to the regulative principle to reject such practices. And, hasn't anyone ever heard of a recording device in order to see a televised event at some other time?

            Quite frankly, if it was my church that cancelled service in order to cater to those that want to watch the football game, I'd find another church to attend that Sunday, and it would be a permanent move.

            God bless,
            William
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by William View Post

              This was actually what my daughter's church suggested as the reason for moving church service in order to accommodate the Super Bowl. I asked her what she thought about it. I'm sure you're aware, imagine the message received by someone young from the church's actions. She said, they are getting with "the times". I would expect any church that holds to the regulative principle to reject such practices. And, hasn't anyone ever heard of a recording device in order to see a televised event at some other time?

              Quite frankly, if it was my church that cancelled service in order to cater to those that want to watch the football game, I'd find another church to attend that Sunday, and it would be a permanent move.

              God bless,
              William
              Absolutely. Any church that is going to do something to "get with the times." has become apostate in my opinion and deserves to be dissolved, or at the very least have the leadership that would allow such a move to be replaced.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Knotical View Post

                Absolutely. Any church that is going to do something to "get with the times." has become apostate in my opinion and deserves to be dissolved, or at the very least have the leadership that would allow such a move to be replaced.
                I have to ask, but you put in this sentence and your signature says Presbyterian. The Presbyterian are notorious for "getting with the times" and the PCUSA are the ones that just recently voted to allow openly gay clergy, a decision which lead many Presbyterians to leave the denomination. Just curious on where the difference lies?

                As for the football thing, I am a huge football fan. My family has season tickets and during football season, football is pretty much the only thing played on the TV. With that being said, church is still more important than football and I never miss Sunday service or my Thursday night Bible Study. Instead, I DVR the games (or order NFL Rewind) and watch them at other times of the week (Sunday after church for example). I feel that moving church services around football games is an accommodation that leads down a bad road. To me, this is basically saying that the church acknowledges that football is more important than church and are willing to move the times around for those people. Just further proof of how far from God this nation has gone, and how many "Sunday Christians" there are out there.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by EntropiaAddict View Post

                  I have to ask, but you put in this sentence and your signature says Presbyterian. The Presbyterian are notorious for "getting with the times" and the PCUSA are the ones that just recently voted to allow openly gay clergy, a decision which lead many Presbyterians to leave the denomination. Just curious on where the difference lies?

                  As for the football thing, I am a huge football fan. My family has season tickets and during football season, football is pretty much the only thing played on the TV. With that being said, church is still more important than football and I never miss Sunday service or my Thursday night Bible Study. Instead, I DVR the games (or order NFL Rewind) and watch them at other times of the week (Sunday after church for example). I feel that moving church services around football games is an accommodation that leads down a bad road. To me, this is basically saying that the church acknowledges that football is more important than church and are willing to move the times around for those people. Just further proof of how far from God this nation has gone, and how many "Sunday Christians" there are out there.
                  Ah, but you assume I am a member of the ultra-liberal denomination PCUSA. This is not the case. I am a member of the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), which is, by comparison, rather conservative.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by EntropiaAddict View Post
                    I have to ask, but you put in this sentence and your signature says Presbyterian. The Presbyterian are notorious for "getting with the times" and the PCUSA are the ones that just recently voted to allow openly gay clergy, a decision which lead many Presbyterians to leave the denomination. Just curious on where the difference lies?
                    The PCUSA has more in common with a book club than a church. The only thing the PCUSA has in common with the Orthodox Presbyterians is its form of church government.

                    William
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by William View Post

                      The PCUSA has more in common with a book club than a church. The only thing the PCUSA has in common with the Orthodox Presbyterians is its form of church government.

                      William
                      Not part of PCUSA answers that question perfectly. It kind of stinks for Presbyterians in general that PCUSA is giving them such a bad name, especially since they seem to be getting the majority of the attention as far as the Presbyterian denomination goes.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        So, who else would rather see an artist like Weird Al play the Super Bowl halftime show? Nothing could be worse than what they have done thus far.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          I love "Weird Al" myself and would love to see him perform at the Super Bowl. I just went and saw him at the Hollywood Bowl a couple of weeks ago and it was a blast.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Super Bowl has always gone to the performer that will bring in the most views. Since Adele is hot right now, the want to capitalize on making money. I agree that watching Weird Al would be much more interesting. Then again, I kind of like that Adele doesn't perform in underwear and has a beautiful voice, unlike most female performers now in days.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by LeapOfFaith89 View Post
                              I kind of like that Adele doesn't perform in underwear and has a beautiful voice, unlike most female performers now in days.
                              I agree with that but she does have a foul mouth.

                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap