theoposis,
Sorry for the late reply. I have been a bit pre-occupied with my studies lately. Mondays and Wednesdays I'm at campus all day, so sometimes I don't have the time to post.
However I just wanted to say a few things and perhaps bring this thread to a close if I could...
[font=Impact]
1.[/font]
theopoesis wrote:Here's the rub. You're certainly not hurting me, and I'm nowhere near the brink of tears. You don't need to regret starting this thread. God will make use of it.
Okay thanks for letting me know; I'm glad you're okay. Like I said I don't like upsetting people on purpose or anything.
theopoesis wrote:Also, to be blunt (and I mean no offense), I could frankly care less whether a demon stopped the video of your megachurch rock concert, or whether it was a technical difficulty. Perhaps I misread you in your initial post. If I did, I apologize. If you are wanting to just talk about the guy's comment, then I really have nothing to say in this thread.
Just to be clear about a few things.
A.) It's a traditional Baptist church with separate sanctuaries, each catering to the musical preferences of our church members.
B.) It is certainly not a "rock church." The worship music genre is a lot like alternative rock -- nothing heavy. And the congregates don't seem to express themselves with the same exuberance as members of a Pentecostal service might. Actually they are quite quiet by comparison -- clapping and singing, but nothing much more than that.
C.) The video was a live feed of a guest pastor who was speaking from the main sanctuary at our church. His sermon was on the role of men and women in marriage, and he particularly disdained liberal positions on the matter and made it clear to everyone which gender should dominate. Near the conclusion of his sermon, the speakers cut out for a minute or so at no particular important moment. The video was still on, but the sound cut off -- however the sound team fixed things right away.
D.) It was only until after the conclusion of the service that our announcer/service coordinator guy walked up on stage and claimed that it was an attempted attack by Satan to disrupt the message. This wasn't the first time he has expressed such views. Just so you know, this is the kind of guy who thinks that if you give into temptation to get up in the middle of service to go use the restroom, that you are letting Satan use you as a tool of distraction -- if that means anything.
E.) I'm pretty sure it was just a technical burp. There's no way to confirm if Satan, or unicorns, or ghosts, or Super Mario was involved -- either way, what occurred was a physical cause
by definition -- because what happened was natural -- whether it was the mic that died, or a short in the wire, or some sort of glitch. In any case, the most reasonable assumption would be the simplest one --
and by that I don't mean, "the demons did it."
[font=Impact]
2.[/font]
theopoesis wrote:But if that's your only intent, I have to ask about the side commentary throughout the entire thread and the OP on supernaturalism and the validity of doctrine. If you only want to comment on an incident, why comment on Christianity and the church as a whole with such comments as:
Darias wrote:Sometimes it's just all I can do to go to church... the superstition is ridiculous, the fundamentalism is intoxicating
Darias wrote:I wish my fellow believers would just love a little more, worry about doctrine and devils a little less.
A.) Well I certainly did want to address that guy's comment. But once this discussion developed, I realized that his comment was just an incarnation of an existing doctrine, if not a more extreme expression of such. And I personally feel that such thinking is problematic and harmful for the church and Christianity in general.
B.) As for the comments in the OP, above, by "doctrine" and "fundamentalism," I was referring to extremely conservative teachings concerning the role or women; by superstition, I was referring to the announcers comments.
C.) And I was also honestly venting my frustration of week after week not knowing what my pastor is gonna say next, whether its something about Muslims or Gays or whether its a literal reading of the Bible -- I never know what he's going to say, and it can be not only annoying but mentally exhausting sometimes. If I may use this thread as an example, it would be as if I was your pastor and you had to listen to me week after week.
[font=Impact]
3.[/font]
theopoesis wrote:If you only want to denounce a guy's specific action and don't want to attract opposition, why use inflammatory rhetoric and universalizing statements such as these?
Darias wrote:To claim that the "daddy of all evil entities" magically inhibited the sound-system, as to try to stop the message (aka unquestionable truth) from being preached -- still affects feeble, fearful minds. It still scares people into believing that the message was truth and that the devil has magic powers.
Darias wrote:philosophical/theological ideas is at best speculative -- at worst hog-wash.
Darias wrote:How am I changing the course of an entire religion by asking why an adult Christian leader wasn't responsible and discerning enough to know that what he said was superstitious, ignorant, fear mongering, and potentially damaging for those of the faith and for the converts who joined the faith (as I have explained in this post) ???
Words like "absurd" and "stupidity" and "ignorance" and "delusional" (all used elsewhere) aren't exactly the way to treat other positions with respect. You come in and immediately denounce doctrine in favor of love, and then denounce theology as hog-wash. You equate those who accept the supernatural with "fundamentalists" and with "ridiculous superstition." And then, when someone comes in to attempt to defend theology and supernaturalism, you step back and say, "What's going on? I'm just talking about this guy on Sunday morning, not theology or supernaturalism in general." If that's the case, why the blanket statements and insulting vocabulary towards all conservative Christians? Why the red herrings in your own OP? That's why I was angry. You insult those like me and denounce the core of my faith as "hog-wash" and then you play the victim card as if I am persecuting you because you are "liberal."
A.) Quote 1: I was simply using satire to illustrate the silliness (
if "silliness" is offensive, I just don't know how else to put it; I find such a notion absolutely dumb, and that's the only way I can define it) of the idea that evil spirits supernaturally manipulate technology -- and even more {
"unfortunate?"} was claiming that this incident was a Satanic attack, when in fact it was the inevitable glitch of a faulty sound system
which has messed up briefly before.
And worse still -- saying such a careless statement immediately before leading the invitation to accept Christ. This was harmful to the faith for two big reasons:
- 1.) People who know better, whether they are Christian or not, are immediately turned-off from the message and the prayer he is about to give. For believers who think salvation is a matter of heaven or hell, you would think this would concern them greatly.
2.) People who don't know better -- young children, emotionally compromised adults who are desperate for some answers, whether they are Christian or otherwise receive the comments thusly. They believe that what the pastor said had to be unquestionable truth because Satan was trying to prevent them from hearing it -- thus accepting whatever doctrine he presented without question. Next, for the "unsaved" in the room, they might become fearful that the devil is out to get them and therefore come to salvation out of fear, rather than by sober-minded will.
- * This is particularly destabilizing to Christianity. Of the later group of Christians they are converting out of fear over something that was natural. They might realize this later and come to associate their new found faith with trickery and or superstition or whathaveyou -- and then leave the faith and abandon theism, etc. People in the former group will only use such instances to re-affirm their superstitious (sorry, I can't think of a kinder word) perceptions.
* Of course it's fine if you believe in devils -- and I'll even grant you super-naturalism since many Christians believe in some level of supernatural intervention.
However it's not fine when Christians think that demons are constantly interceding in everyday common events, when someone says "demon" this and "demon" that -- one does indeed become superstitious and unwilling to engage in rational inquiry/accept rational explanation for common occurrences in the world.
This behavior bad for the growth of Christianity because it stunts it. This is bad for the perception of Christianity because it worsens it. This is bad for Christians in general because it makes them "unwise" at best, and like Pat Robertson at worst.
I'm sorry if this upsets you, but this is honestly how I feel. If I did not care about Christianity and the survival of Theism, I wouldn't bother bringing anything up.
B.) Quote 2: Here I am referring to philosophy in general. For example I can think of the best table that there can be, but that doesn't mean it exists in a perfect form somewhere. Like I said there is a lot of "goofy" philosophical ideas out there, and there are probably just as many "goofy" theological positions as well -- and this is precisely the reason why I said what I said; those things cannot be used as reliable evidence for such reasons.
C.) Quote 3: My feelings here are explained in
section A.)
[font=Impact]
4.[/font]
theopoesis wrote:Then this one really got to me...
Darias wrote:If I may be so blunt, you are understandably hesitant to answer my legitimate questions because you have no adequate answer for them. Am I right?
This is essentially the same cop-out move I have gotten time and time again from several Christians in this forum. What ever happened to 1 Peter 3:15?
This question ticks me off more than anything because right after the sentence you quote in making this accusation, I answer your question in attempting to defend demons, Satan, and the supernatural as perfectly fitting within theology. You are completely wrong. Is it copping out to tell you that coming and starting a thread that thoroughly insults those who are different than you (while sidestepping the logic of my first posts) is a detrimental way to have a conversation? Or is it copping out to play the victim card when I'm here trying to ignore your vitriol and to have a conversation with you? I was merely trying to point out that you ask for a theological justification for appealing to spiritual forces, and then before I even answer, you claim that such a response is necessarily ignorant. How does this motivate me to continue in this conversation if I know whatever answer I give will be considered "ignorant"?
If you were going to give your answer, then why did you say that you were
hesitant to do so, assuming you felt hesitancy because of my potential criticism? I found your tone similar to that of others who've expressed similar sentiments to me before in the attempts to end a debate -- which is essentially
blame me, and walk away.
I've never called your position ignorant once in this debate, I called that man's words ignorant and the idea that there are devils devils everywhere playing with everything ignorant.
I never said that belief in the devil or in supernatural intervention was ignorant, though I'm not a huge fan of either,
especially the latter.
[font=Impact]
5.[/font]
theopoesis wrote:Darias wrote:Just because you believe in some miracles, it doesn't mean that you must believe in day-to-day supernatural intervention -- and even if you did, why would you blame the supernatural for such simple and explainable things, such as a short in a faulty sound system? And why would you defend someone else for doing the same thing?
In my first post, I said very clearly, "I also think it is impossible to know whether a demon was in the machine. That being said, I will defend the right and even necessity of the religious to be able to speak of the supernatural (including demons)." I'm not defending the guy's specific claim, and frankly the guy has a lot to learn if the sermon is on TV and the music is a rock concert. But if you come into the Holy Huddle room and denounce doctrine and a subset of Christians, I'm going to challenge you on it every time. Don't come here looking for sympathy unless you give a sympathetic read to those you denounce. Don't come here with the lone intent to voice frustration over an isolated event and then make a blanket claim that doctrine should be downplayed. I'm going to challenge you on a claim like that every time. In the same way you think this event misled individuals, I think your claim and tone misleads those who would read this post. If you remove the insults and the blanket statements, I'm never going to waste time on a thread like this. But if you continue in present form, you've found yourself a consistent adversary. I will challenge you on every front.
I stated very firmly in another thread that those who refused to dialogue with you are not acting in Christian charity. This is the truth, and I stand by it. For this same reason, I cannot refuse to debate you. Instead, when your inflammatory rhetoric drives me to rage, I'll tell you I'm taking a break so I don't say something insulting. I figured an explanation for my absence was a courtesy, but I might be wrong.
But here's the other side of the coin, Darias. You are a Christian who preaches the emphasis of love, so act like it. Check your language. Cut back on the sarcasm. Don't denounce the core of other people's faiths as "hogwash". I've taken classes under Bart Ehrman. E.O. Wilson once called me an idiot when I tried to justify theism in a class he was lecturing in. I went to a seminary full of liberal (and that's a technical term), post-liberal, and neo-orthodox theologians. All of them disagreed with my perspectives, but not a single one was so insulting as you have been in this thread. Anger is my weakness, so if you have any love for a brother in Christ, do me a favor and cut back, ok?
I'm not on the verge of tears because you are challenging my faith. No offense, but you're not that strong of a debater. I am at the edge of my restraint before I start applying some labels of my own. Apparently, you think I've come close to that already. I apologize, and any "left and right" language, "motive" and "wording" was assumed in my posts only as a counterbalance to claims you had already made about other positions. I was applying your own "strong debater" skills to yourself to show you how it ran both ways. If that offends you, imagine how your posts offend me when you use these methods first and then added insulting labels, direct insults to my beliefs, and sarcasm.
And that is why you will see opposition here, Darias. I don't denounce you as a non-Christian. I see you as a Christian who sarcastically and insultingly opposes my opinions and then plays the victim card to try to make me look bad when I'm here trying to turn the other cheek and discuss the validity of doctrine and supernaturalism with you. You think it's "hog-wash", and I think you're wrong. And I think its a point worth standing up for.
I'll let you decide whether to continue discussion in this thread. I won't respond again unless you request it. But know that any future threads that start with similar tones and similar blanket statements that catch my eye will also warrant my opposition. And you'll know why I am there. Not because I think you are "liberal" or "non-Christian" or because I hate "liberals" or "non-Christians" (the groomsmen at my wedding this summer included a liberal soon to be episcopalian priest and a semi-secular semi-hindu man, as well as an evangelical missionary), but because I think your tone and your blanket statements are an affront to the truth, and I believe it is my responsibility (as per 1 Peter 3:15) to resist you. Moreover, now that I've seen you start a thread requesting Christians debate you instead of just dismiss you, I find it a duty to oblige.
Best regards,
theopoesis
From my initial perspective, it just seemed like as soon as you joined this thread you were apologizing for him and criticizing my motives for posting, and subsequently my views on the matter -- that I was asking too much for criticizing him. And I did find that to be frustrating. I originally posted here to see if anyone else had experienced something similar to that or to see how Christians really thought about the matter -- or if I was jut the only one who felt that way.
And when you go and turn my criticism into an attack on you -- when you throw emotion into the mix and start getting angry -- when you accuse me of not being a loving Christian because I don't panzy around with words or my opinions -- I don't think it's helpful.
Feel free to debate with me whenever you want, but don't make me feel guilty for disagreeing with you
Also I'm not responsible for what other liberals on this site say. I don't always agree with them whole-heartedly, but you do seem to be making it into a left and right, thing, and I find that un-necessary.
I feel that I can be honest here in Holy Huddle because we are Christians and I don't feel any need to play around and use soft cuddly verbiage.
I think perhaps it would be best if we cease posting here since we've milked about everything we can milk from this stone. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
