The Compromise Between Faith and Reality

[Pseudo]

He said a weird timing in the interview about wanting specifically I ind an all black church because he likes black people. That's nice but wanting that "specifically" it also strikes me as sort of wanting to break from his current surroundings/family/culture.

 

[Lark]

wow... that's like saying "this food is awful!" and continuing eating it anyways... one of those things that makes you think "wow... I'm really dealing with a BRIGHT one here!"

if he really felt that against it I'm sure that he wouldn't accept the money that he's paid for doing "the devil's work"... it's not like he doesn't have plenty of money as it is... he could probably even find some way out of his contract if he really feels that strongly

I'm not particularly religious (agnostic) but to continue being paid $300k + per episode for something that he believes is evil seems kind of hypocritical to me in a way...

Maybe he will, although its funny how people can deal with cognitive dissonance, I'm sure we all do it and with greater frequency than we're willing to admit, either to ourselves or others.

 

[miss fortune]

Maybe he will, although its funny how people can deal with cognitive dissonance, I'm sure we all do it and with greater frequency than we're willing to admit, either to ourselves or others.

my thoughts are along the lines of "don't publicly moralize unless you want people to point out that you're not following through with it"

 

[Z Buck McFate]

But I think the gist probably is that (1) he might have to pay damages, aside from losing the pay from whatever episodes he did not perform and (2) it could dissuade other shows from hiring him because he's a risk. Those are the two major things I can imagine.

One possible scenario that’s coming to mind is that maybe he tried to leave (mentioned it, threatened it, whatever) and they employed scare tactics- presenting a worst case scenario as some kind of inevitability- so this “please don’t watch this filth” announcement is some kind of retaliation because he felt like his back was against the wall (and didn’t step back to take account of how it all would come across PR-wise). I guess forthcoming updates will indicate such missing pieces that would make this sound more reasonable on his end, if there are any.

It really does initially come across as ridiculously hypocritical, though- that his means of easing his conscience is to put out a video asking other people to do something so that he can feel less guilty about continuing to do what’s making him feel guilty (and to bank the proceeds).

 

[SilkRoad]

It also makes it sound as though it was purely emotional.

I believe decisions regarding faith should engage both intellect and emotion - God gave us both, after all. He may be confused but if he had thought about it as well as felt about it, if you know what I mean...his comments and/or decision might make more sense.

 

[Lark]

my thoughts are along the lines of "don't publicly moralize unless you want people to point out that you're not following through with it"

Perhaps, I've done that though and I know I still would.

Moralising is an interesting thing Whatever because when people do it its generally aspirational, anyone who is wise would recognise that, aspirations for themselves and others, plus people generally moralise about things they arent experiencing or dont think its likely they will, its easy to say dont drink alcohol if you never drink alcohol or dont use drugs if they've never had any appeal to you anyway.

As a result I like to read authors or perspectives on temptation which treat it like a real lived thing, instead of something easy, Augustine and Tolstoy both admit to falling short of their moral qualms or ideals, although perhaps Tolstoy over did the guilt and I've no idea how he became a celebite while still married and his wife put up with it. Some of the greatest tales in the bible deal with precisely this thing, I dont believe that many of the reductive or rationalising treatments of these messages are fair but I think the messages themselves say something about profoundly real insight, perrenial insight too, into human nature. Jesus was up casting the disciples all the time about their judgementalism and pride, although he didnt eschew judgements altogther.

I dont like Nietzsche, in part because of how his insights have been twisted or become amoral flags of convenience, but he did write some good stuff in Thus Spake Zarathustra about how some virtuous people in their relationship to virtue per se succeed in turning virtue into their vice, which I dont just see as being about persecuting zeal, which as a believer I've never liked and I understand is the whole of what non-believers identify as believing mindsets sometimes, but about unlived life and choking out life with a kind of oversimplification. Complexity wont go away no matter how we wish it sometimes.

Your post probably made me think more than I thought it would, thanks

 

[Lark]

It also makes it sound as though it was purely emotional.

I believe decisions regarding faith should engage both intellect and emotion - God gave us both, after all. He may be confused but if he had thought about it as well as felt about it, if you know what I mean...his comments and/or decision might make more sense.

This I heartily agree with and its also one of the reasons I have hope for religious faith which I've lost for other things, like political ideologies, religion can still engage both the mind and emotion simultaneously, it aims it, it aims at harmonising both together in the better examples of religion I can think of and isnt either entirely emotive or entirely rational.

Although, as this story makes clear, any belief system is difficult to translate into a lived reality. And that's not just true of religion but pretty much everything.

 

[Halla74]

I believe decisions regarding faith should engage both intellect and emotion - God gave us both, after all. He may be confused but if he had thought about it as well as felt about it, if you know what I mean...his comments and/or decision might make more sense.

After living most of my life as an extroverted sensor with very heavily developed thinking preferences, I wound up getting Godsmacked by my feelings when faced with major decisions about the most significant aspects of my life. It is not possible to build a decision making model in a spreadsheet for EVERY major life decision, and then be able to walk away from it with peace of mind, and peace in your heart. No one can predict ALL the variables in major life decisions, OR the values of the variables with 100% accuracy at the time their decision must be made. Believe, I tried to do it for years. I got away with it for awhile, but eventually got knocked on my ass.

IMHO, the bottom line is this: If you are about to make a major decision, you've figured a way to make the numbers "jive" - yet you still have a bad feeling in your gut and unexplainable weight in your heart, then you'd better step back and figure out how you feel about the entire situation and park your thinking at the door for a bit. Once my thoughts and my heart line up, I am able to make indescribably large decisions at a moment's notice. At that point I have done what is right by me, and all I believe in and stand for, and hell or high water if I am loved for it or hated for it, at least I was true to myself and I'm able to walk forward in peace and continue in my life without regret.

This I heartily agree with and its also one of the reasons I have hope for religious faith which I've lost for other things, like political ideologies, religion can still engage both the mind and emotion simultaneously, it aims it, it aims at harmonising both together in the better examples of religion I can think of and isnt either entirely emotive or entirely rational.

Political ideologies frequently engage both the mind and emotion simultaneously, they just do an absolutely horrible job of it.

This is precisely why so many Republicans in the U.S.A. are totally fine with corporate de-regulation to the point that fraud and corruption become part of everyday life, simply because their punk in a blue suit, white shirt and red tie pledged to not fund any public health programs that sponsor abortion in any way with tax dollars. The appeal to these single issue, narrow minded voters is predominantly emotional. They "think" that a candidate speaking from such a bully pulpit MUST also be ethical, but the charade is the worst of hoaxes, yet those voting sheep willingly get sheered after each election, and I dare say sent to the slaughterhouse when their 401-Ks, SEP IRAs and mutual funds plummet in value every 10 - 15 years when the powers that be sodomize the common market for the benefit of the power elite.

Although, as this story makes clear, any belief system is difficult to translate into a lived reality. And that's not just true of religion but pretty much everything.

I totally agree with this statement.

Regardless of how virtuous, pure and/or rational any cause is - once it is institutionalized by mankind and transformed into a contagious ideology that is in part tied to extracting contributions from and formulating the opinions of its followers with any sort of "blind faith" - what was once a wonderful concept/idea just became a ravenous demon that at some point will propogate idiocy and misery amongst men and women in the lands where the institutionalized belief/concept has influence.

As strong as my own spiritual beliefs are, I can honestly say that I have very little use for organized religion; I never have.
Yeah, yeah that's a very ESTP way to be.
But. that was my belief and practice for the 30+ years that I had no Earthly idea what my MBTI type was, and still is my modus operandi.

Why? Because my connection to the God of my understanding has been direct and clear to me since I was a small child.
All the hours I was made to go to religious education classes my mind was filled with garbage, watered down parables of my faith, which ultimately conflicted with subsequent teachings in the years I was older.
AND - to be quite honest, no one tells me what to do, what to think, or how to feel.
My thoughts and feelings are my own; my locus of control is as self-directed as can be imagined.

I would rather be burned in hell for eternity for living my life according to my beliefs as to how I am to act as an agent of the greater good through the course of my life as a means of demonstrating thanks to my creator; than to blindly walk through life acting and feeling as others told me to - and then explain to my maker when my hour of judgment comes that I did not live of the free will He gave me, or the guidance He sent to me as I lived, but that I foolishly lived according to the teachings of men who were more concerned with the aggrandizement of their own institution and its power than for a common love of mankind, that God taught to us all to hold for one another.



-Halla74

 

[garbage]

I don't know what his contract says, but I assume there is standard boilerplate out there for actors on tv shows?

I did a little Googling and came up with a general assessment of what can happen when one breaks a contract:
[...]
But I think the gist probably is that (1) he might have to pay damages, aside from losing the pay from whatever episodes he did not perform and (2) it could dissuade other shows from hiring him because he's a risk. Those are the two major things I can imagine.

Oh hell, thanks for this actual information. It's better than my speculation on whether he'd be self-immolating or not..

If the outcome were more severe, then I wouldn't expect him to act. But if the major consequence was simply that the show would suffer damages and that he'd have to pay restitution and to quit the show, then I'd hope for him to explore his convictions further, then potentially act upon them.

So, there's very little 'rational' consequence for acting on his words.


To muse about this further--

To an extent, he is acting on his beliefs by actually speaking out. It's surprising and even a bit awe-inspiring that he'd do so, because that in and of itself comes with negative backlash and other nasty consequences.

I'd question whether keeping on with the show is about money for him; surely he's not under the impression that he'd be hurting. At this point, this show is an extremely significant part of his life--for good and for bad--and that might be driving his hesitation to press on. It's akin to deliberating over whether to leave a sour marriage that you entered into in high school and have been in for a couple decades--there's significant emotion, thought, and anxiety involved because there's personally a lot at stake.

 

[Totenkindly]

To an extent, he is acting on his beliefs by actually speaking out. It's surprising and even a bit awe-inspiring that he'd do so, because that in and of itself comes with negative backlash and other nasty consequences.

Definitely .As of today, apparently he has been apologizing for his remarks -- from all the backlash I presume.
http://news.yahoo.com/two-half-men-actor-apologizes-022918218.html

In a statement issued late Tuesday, Jones said he had the highest regard for all of the people he has worked with on the comedy, including creator Chuck Lorre and Warner Bros. studio chief Peter Roth.

"I apologize if my remarks reflect me showing indifference to and disrespect of my colleagues and a lack of appreciation of the extraordinary opportunity of which I have been blessed," said Jones, who reportedly makes $350,000 an episode. "I never intended that."

I suspect his agent laid things out for him. I love these PR statements. Damage control, Will Robinson!

......

I'd question whether keeping on with the show is about money for him; surely he's not under the impression that he'd be hurting. At this point, this show is an extremely significant part of his life--for good and for bad--and that might be driving his hesitation to press on. It's akin to deliberating over whether to leave a sour marriage that you entered into in high school and have been in for a couple decades--there's significant emotion, thought, and anxiety involved because there's personally a lot at stake.

Well, that's true. People have trouble even leaving bad marriages, after becoming accustomed to it.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

After living most of my life as an extroverted sensor with very heavily developed thinking preferences, I wound up getting Godsmacked by my feelings when faced with major decisions about the most significant aspects of my life. It is not possible to build a decision making model in a spreadsheet for EVERY major life decision, and then be able to walk away from it with peace of mind, and peace in your heart. No one can predict ALL the variables in major life decisions, OR the values of the variables with 100% accuracy at the time their decision must be made. Believe, I tried to do it for years. I got away with it for awhile, but eventually got knocked on my ass.

IMHO, the bottom line is this: If you are about to make a major decision, you've figured a way to make the numbers "jive" - yet you still have a bad feeling in your gut and unexplainable weight in your heart, then you'd better step back and figure out how you feel about the entire situation and park your thinking at the door for a bit. Once my thoughts and my heart line up, I am able to make indescribably large decisions at a moment's notice. At that point I have done what is right by me, and all I believe in and stand for, and hell or high water if I am loved for it or hated for it, at least I was true to myself and I'm able to walk forward in peace and continue in my life without regret.



Political ideologies frequently engage both the mind and emotion simultaneously, they just do an absolutely horrible job of it.

This is precisely why so many Republicans in the U.S.A. are totally fine with corporate de-regulation to the point that fraud and corruption become part of everyday life, simply because their punk in a blue suit, white shirt and red tie pledged to not fund any public health programs that sponsor abortion in any way with tax dollars. The appeal to these single issue, narrow minded voters is predominantly emotional. They "think" that a candidate speaking from such a bully pulpit MUST also be ethical, but the charade is the worst of hoaxes, yet those voting sheep willingly get sheered after each election, and I dare say sent to the slaughterhouse when their 401-Ks, SEP IRAs and mutual funds plummet in value every 10 - 15 years when the powers that be sodomize the common market for the benefit of the power elite.



I totally agree with this statement.

Regardless of how virtuous, pure and/or rational any cause is - once it is institutionalized by mankind and transformed into a contagious ideology that is in part tied to extracting contributions from and formulating the opinions of its followers with any sort of "blind faith" - what was once a wonderful concept/idea just became a ravenous demon that at some point will propogate idiocy and misery amongst men and women in the lands where the institutionalized belief/concept has influence.

As strong as my own spiritual beliefs are, I can honestly say that I have very little use for organized religion; I never have.
Yeah, yeah that's a very ESTP way to be.
But. that was my belief and practice for the 30+ years that I had no Earthly idea what my MBTI type was, and still is my modus operandi.

Why? Because my connection to the God of my understanding has been direct and clear to me since I was a small child.
All the hours I was made to go to religious education classes my mind was filled with garbage, watered down parables of my faith, which ultimately conflicted with subsequent teachings in the years I was older.
AND - to be quite honest, no one tells me what to do, what to think, or how to feel.
My thoughts and feelings are my own; my locus of control is as self-directed as can be imagined.

I would rather be burned in hell for eternity for living my life according to my beliefs as to how I am to act as an agent of the greater good through the course of my life as a means of demonstrating thanks to my creator; than to blindly walk through life acting and feeling as others told me to - and then explain to my maker when my hour of judgment comes that I did not live of the free will He gave me, or the guidance He sent to me as I lived, but that I foolishly lived according to the teachings of men who were more concerned with the aggrandizement of their own institution and its power than for a common love of mankind, that God taught to us all to hold for one another.



-Halla74

VERY WELL SAID!!!!

 

[garbage]

Definitely .As of today, apparently he has been apologizing for his remarks -- from all the backlash I presume.
http://news.yahoo.com/two-half-men-actor-apologizes-022918218.html

Leave it to you to actually give us information

Well, I guess this was inevitable. Sad, but inevitable.

I suspect his agent laid things out for him. I love these PR statements. Damage control, Will Robinson!

Yeah, that one's pretty funny. "I apologize if" has 'agent' written all over.

Though I think this interview was all him:

n another interview posted on Tuesday with Christianity Today, Jones described himself as a "paid hypocrite."
"Even though it's my job to be an actor, I have given my life to God," he said. "I am very comfortable and firm in that, but I still have to be on this show. It's the No. 1 comedy, but it's very inappropriate and the themes are very inappropriate. I have to be this person I am not."

Though it still leaves me wondering why he feels that he needs to be on the show. What's holding him back? It's about the only point of speculation we have left about this issue.


But my favorite part of all is the comments section, of course:

Nick,,, Your a elitist,, Big Bang Theory is funny,,, Respect for women and Nerds???,, this is comedy man!!! Its there to make you laugh,, You want to change society then run for office,, This makes fun of real life {Or Nerds and Women at least, as every one normal perceives them} and that is the part that is funny, People are not snow flakes no matter what you say,

 

[Lark]

Political ideologies frequently engage both the mind and emotion simultaneously, they just do an absolutely horrible job of it.

I believe that what you describe political ideologies doing is in part because it is not, at the very least consciously, aiming to harmonise thought and feeling. Therefore you have people believing they are entirely rational and priding themselves upon it and characterising their opposition as entirely irrational. They could be, that's an individual/personal thing really, ideology is one possible channel for personality.

This is precisely why so many Republicans in the U.S.A. are totally fine with corporate de-regulation to the point that fraud and corruption become part of everyday life, simply because their punk in a blue suit, white shirt and red tie pledged to not fund any public health programs that sponsor abortion in any way with tax dollars. The appeal to these single issue, narrow minded voters is predominantly emotional. They "think" that a candidate speaking from such a bully pulpit MUST also be ethical, but the charade is the worst of hoaxes, yet those voting sheep willingly get sheered after each election, and I dare say sent to the slaughterhouse when their 401-Ks, SEP IRAs and mutual funds plummet in value every 10 - 15 years when the powers that be sodomize the common market for the benefit of the power elite.

I have heard precisely the same characterisation of liberals but the topics are different. You know, I'm not necessarily saying that it isnt so, just that I would not accept so one sided a version of things.

I totally agree with this statement.

Regardless of how virtuous, pure and/or rational any cause is - once it is institutionalized by mankind and transformed into a contagious ideology that is in part tied to extracting contributions from and formulating the opinions of its followers with any sort of "blind faith" - what was once a wonderful concept/idea just became a ravenous demon that at some point will propogate idiocy and misery amongst men and women in the lands where the institutionalized belief/concept has influence.

I have heard that sort of thing before, I used to give it much more credit than I do today.

At what point is something institutionalised and at what point is it not? Can you encounter it on a monday and it is uninstitutionalised and on tuesday it is? There were some feminists who dealing with anarchism and post-modernism wrote about the tyranny of structurelessnes and the tyranny of tyranny in response to the centrality of spontaneity and single issue thinking in their circles, its a good read, I think available online.

Personally I believe that institutionalising theories are one response to the problems associated with continuity or consistency of thinking and action between individuals, from individuals coming and going, the need for organisation and eventually the handing on of traditions, or the learning labelled a tradition, between on generation and another.

As strong as my own spiritual beliefs are, I can honestly say that I have very little use for organized religion; I never have.
Yeah, yeah that's a very ESTP way to be.
But. that was my belief and practice for the 30+ years that I had no Earthly idea what my MBTI type was, and still is my modus operandi.

The law is organised and institutionalised, it is imperfect but is it something which as a result would qualify for the label of being of "very little use"? I would suggest that even if it has served as the "is not" or "other" in peoples thinking that organised religion has and does serve a great purpose, I would say that upon careful examination it does not always turn out to be the "other" is it imagined to be or being either the invention of humankind, or something other which has been channelled through humankind, it will be as much a mix of good and bad as man is.

Why? Because my connection to the God of my understanding has been direct and clear to me since I was a small child.
All the hours I was made to go to religious education classes my mind was filled with garbage, watered down parables of my faith, which ultimately conflicted with subsequent teachings in the years I was older.
AND - to be quite honest, no one tells me what to do, what to think, or how to feel.
My thoughts and feelings are my own; my locus of control is as self-directed as can be imagined.

I am sorry to hear you had such a bad experience, sometimes the worst representative of any creedo, religion, ideology, whatever are the self-appointed advocates themselves.

I would rather be burned in hell for eternity for living my life according to my beliefs as to how I am to act as an agent of the greater good through the course of my life as a means of demonstrating thanks to my creator; than to blindly walk through life acting and feeling as others told me to - and then explain to my maker when my hour of judgment comes that I did not live of the free will He gave me, or the guidance He sent to me as I lived, but that I foolishly lived according to the teachings of men who were more concerned with the aggrandizement of their own institution and its power than for a common love of mankind, that God taught to us all to hold for one another.

In some ways I understand your sentiments but the horror of you burning in hell, for whatever reason, kind of threw me.

Orwell only wrote about being an athiest once, so far as I know, and did so fairly simply, concluding that no one believed in hell or heaven or God, in any serious sense, because if they did they could not say with such frequency that people could "go to hell" or something similar. I am careful as a result of reading that and thinking about it.

Always interested in what you have to say Halla

 

[Red Herring]

Question: Do you think a lot might get lost in translation?

Because the dubbed version in German is abysmal and I am clueless as why it would be so popular. The jokes are bad and the acting is worse.

 

[Beorn]

Question: Do you think a lot might get lost in translation?

Because the dubbed version in German is abysmal and I am clueless as why it would be so popular. The jokes are bad and the acting is worse.

LOL

No. Nothing is lost in translation. It really is that bad. I don't know why it's so popular. The characters don't even seem relatable to average americans as is the case in other bad sitcoms.

 

[Mole]

The Devil gets all the good lines.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Though it still leaves me wondering why he feels that he needs to be on the show. What's holding him back? It's about the only point of speculation we have left about this issue.

Not sure if I'm speculating in the same context you're asking but here's my two cents worth.

I'm a recovering Charismatic Fundamentalist. I spent seven years in a Dispensationalist Evangelical church and eight years in a Charismatic. Both had strong Fundie tendencies.

It has been about four years I've been out of a church and about four months that I realized I stopped going to church because I think it's all a bunch of hogwash.

I am shocked at how much deprogramming I am going through. Relearning what real compassion is. Relearning how to figure out how to fight my own way out of a paper bag. Relearning how to make a decision.

My take on why he's staying is the whole "It's God's will" thing. This was crammed down my throat until I was almost afraid to fart without a blessing from on high. Okay, that may be a slight exaggeration but you get my point. God's will was more about what job I had than about what kind of person I was. Like I said, I've had to relearn what real compassion looks like. It's far easier to love people when it really doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is...or whether or not they drop an f-bomb from time to time...or if they enjoy totally raunchy t.v. shows...or if they have been divorced three times...you get my point.

He's there because he believes it is God's will for him. Don't ask me how he came to that conclusion. Could be the contract. Could be a conviction in his spirit. But for whatever reason he believes that leaving the show is disobedience. And it's far worse to be disobedient than it is to portray raunchiness.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Coriolis]

IMHO, the bottom line is this: If you are about to make a major decision, you've figured a way to make the numbers "jive" - yet you still have a bad feeling in your gut and unexplainable weight in your heart, then you'd better step back and figure out how you feel about the entire situation and park your thinking at the door for a bit. Once my thoughts and my heart line up, I am able to make indescribably large decisions at a moment's notice. At that point I have done what is right by me, and all I believe in and stand for, and hell or high water if I am loved for it or hated for it, at least I was true to myself and I'm able to walk forward in peace and continue in my life without regret.

This is very well-stated. I have always interpreted that gut feel as intuition, not feeling/emotion (though I won't claim anything is purely one or the other, or that I can clearly identify the dividing line).

As for the OP, I see this type of contradiction IRL. For example, there are a couple of people in my workplace who are self-declared fundamentalist Christians, to the point of believing that women should stay home with their children and should not be put in charge of men. Yet one has a female supervisor, both are accountable to other female managers, and both must defer to other more senior female colleagues. On the one hand, I admire their professionalism in doing exactly that, in spite of their stated personal beliefs. On the other hand, I wonder how they live with the daily necessity of acting contrary to their beliefs. These people have more reason to be motivated by financial necessity than a celebrity actor, though.

 

[Totenkindly]

Though I think this interview was all him:

I agree with this, that seemed to state his actual feelings.

But my favorite part of all is the comments section, of course:

Comments sections on public media either really piss me off (if I care about the topic) or make me laugh (if I don't care). They're usually so over-the-top and sometimes thoughtless. This comment actually does make a good point, that it's just a TV show that makes fun of issues IRL; even the topics I do care about, I can tolerate a lot in my comedy although I've seen other people get riled up about the show(s) in question because they can't separate the joke from the reality.

The Devil gets all the good lines.

You think God would have had a better press agent.

"Okay, YHWH, I mean, I can respect what you are trying to do here, with the chosen people and all that -- real heart-felt, I think people can connect there, and very family-oriented -- but I think you need to lighten up on 'I'm the Only God Around' think and killing entire families including the kids when the parents steal coats and pocket change from the pagans. I mean, people are gonna think you're some kind of nutcase narcissist. Unless of course we make this a dark comedy of sorts. Have you ever considered making the script more of a dark comedy? You could even have a talking donkey that only Moses can see.... kind of like Wilfred. Let's give him a Porteguese accent."

 

[Mole]

Not sure if I'm speculating in the same context you're asking but here's my two cents worth.

I'm a recovering Charismatic Fundamentalist. I spent seven years in a Dispensationalist Evangelical church and eight years in a Charismatic. Both had strong Fundie tendencies.

It has been about four years I've been out of a church and about four months that I realized I stopped going to church because I think it's all a bunch of hogwash.

I am shocked at how much deprogramming I am going through. Relearning what real compassion is. Relearning how to figure out how to fight my own way out of a paper bag. Relearning how to make a decision.

My take on why he's staying is the whole "It's God's will" thing. This was crammed down my throat until I was almost afraid to fart without a blessing from on high. Okay, that may be a slight exaggeration but you get my point. God's will was more about what job I had than about what kind of person I was. Like I said, I've had to relearn what real compassion looks like. It's far easier to love people when it really doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is...or whether or not they drop an f-bomb from time to time...or if they enjoy totally raunchy t.v. shows...or if they have been divorced three times...you get my point.

He's there because he believes it is God's will for him. Don't ask me how he came to that conclusion. Could be the contract. Could be a conviction in his spirit. But for whatever reason he believes that leaving the show is disobedience. And it's far worse to be disobedient than it is to portray raunchiness.

That's how I see it anyway.

Changing one's mind is an extraordinary event. It is a a hard won success. And it gives one a supplety and strength that can be transferred to the rest of one's life.