Phenomena such as Faith Healing, Glossolalia and Snake Handling existed in US christian movements as early as the 1800's. It seems like the video you replied with is more like one christian group trying to distance itself to the embarrassment that is evangelicals, and it's easy to rope in foreign adaptations of Pentecostalism to use as evidence.

Pentecostalism itself is a foreign adaption which is based on a heresay known as montanism (now neo-montanism). It got its start in the early 1800's by the "Irvingites", who followed an outcast pastor teaching heretical christology doctrines. The father of the modern movement (early 1900s), John Alexander Dowie, believed he was the prophet Elijah and the first restored apostle to the church. It also has links with free masonry.

Ultimately your embed is just commentary on internal strife in an overall larger movement that I don't care about, and is a distraction from the real issue. What all of these have in common is the fact that human beings have a fundamental inability to avoid large scale social misdirection, and that is observable through every aspect of our existence regardless of culture, religion, social structure, lifestyle, sports team, et al.

The embed is about the false spirit which has invaded the church, which is the same spirit working in the video above. It is highlighting the abberant behavior that people who don't know much about Christianity assume is normal for Christians. This is due to the proliferation of the pentecostal and charismatic churches. This is not a judgement against pentecostals or charismatics, it is simply to say that this spirit of disorder is not from God.

Yes, there is a herd mentality, which is why the bible tells us to discern all things. Human beings are fundementally vulnerable to spiritual deception. Only God can protect us from this delusion that society is steeped in.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that the obsession over materialism, commercialism and sexuality as exploited by modern media, such as the original video portrays, is in many ways a poison to the human condition, there are many worse examples of this in every society. Least of which would be this exact scenario played out in Western culture when a pop-star pays a charity visit to support their government sanctioned killers in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Evil doesn't often come dressed in red skin and armed with pitchforks. Evil can be banal and mundane, and it will usually come camouflaged as something good. I don't condemn the good deed, but I think you have to admit there is something profoundly disturbing about seeing grown men, soldiers no less, lose their minds as if someone flipped a switch. And yes, there are worse things, but that isn't really the point. I was pointing out the strings so someone might notice the puppeteer.

I really feel like you come here to show other people your belief as a way to convince yourself. Having a personal crusade to publicly disclaim everything that you judge as contradicting to the beliefs you were raised with makes it easy to put the doubt you have about your own faith out of mind.

I grew up without any religion in my life. I was formally agnostic, and so I understand your perspective. You don't see any evidence of a spirit, and none of it adds up in your mind. To you it's all some kind of mass delusion or hysteria. That's what I used to think until God showed me He is very real, and very much involved in what is going on on Planet Earth. I found that material existence is but a veil to a much larger reality. I pray that God will give you that experience as well, and show you that Jesus loves you, and that He is the way, the truth and the life. I am not here to prove something, I am here to do the will of God and tell you that Jesus died for your sins so you can be reconciled to God and have eternal life. I am here to warn you that the wages of sin is death, and that if you die in your sins without Gods pardon, you face Gods judgement, and hell. I say these things out of love, because I care about what happens to you.

PS - have you ever seen Japanese tentacle porn?

Hell vomited up that garbage, there is no doubt. I find though that true corruption comes by 1000 cuts. By the time a child is six years old, they will have spent more time in front of the Television/media than they will have spent quality time with their dads in a whole lifetime. That is what is really disturbing, and no one is standing in the gap. Modern parenting is putting your kid in front of a TV and giving them whatever the TV programs them to ask for. Sadly, this is just scratching the surface.

>> ^artician

Phenomena such as Faith Healing, Glossolalia and Snake Handling existed in US christian movements as early as the 1800's. It seems like the video you replied with is more like one christian group trying to distance itself to the embarrassment that is evangelicals, and it's easy to rope in foreign adaptations of Pentecostalism to use as evidence.

Ultimately your embed is just commentary on internal strife in an overall larger movement that I don't care about, and is a distraction from the real issue. What all of these have in common is the fact that human beings have a fundamental inability to avoid large scale social misdirection, and that is observable through every aspect of our existence regardless of culture, religion, social structure, lifestyle, sports team, et al.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that the obsession over materialism, commercialism and sexuality as exploited by modern media, such as the original video portrays, is in many ways a poison to the human condition, there are many worse examples of this in every society. Least of which would be this exact scenario played out in Western culture when a pop-star pays a charity visit to support their government sanctioned killers in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I really feel like you come here to show other people your belief as a way to convince yourself. Having a personal crusade to publicly disclaim everything that you judge as contradicting to the beliefs you were raised with makes it easy to put the doubt you have about your own faith out of mind.

PS - have you ever seen Japanese tentacle porn?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Ps; He doesn't even realise that he is a product of the "sick society" he hates so much. The same society that allows him to spout his evangelical style gibberish. He should try doing it in North Korea or some such place. Christopher Hitchens is gone, but i can imagine him debating this clown (actually, he wouldn't bother), and tearing him a new one.

I dearly dearly DEARLY hope that the Sift wakes up and stops even acknowledging that shinyblurry is here when he makes his soapbox comments.

I welcome him here as a person, but as an evangelical who is attempting to convert the masses, I am so bone deep bored by him, I can't hardly stand it.

I'm sorry that he upset you so much, Jigga. I know you are grieving. As soon as I heard the news about Hitch, I knew that there would be a communal outpouring of grief here on the Sift.

Ignore him when he has this hat on. There is nothing else for it. Trolling is accepted every single day here, and has driven away many a fine person from the Sift. SB's silly link is nothing, really.

It is your understandable grief talking, yeah?

If you really want to do something, encourage everyone to ignore sb. He'll go away when he stops getting fed. Or rather, the evangelical part will go away. Comments on cat videos as a normal human being, and not as a proseltyzing agent, are always welcome.

I'm not suggesting we silence ourselves, I'm just suggesting we be a little more respectful and a little less evangelical in our approach. Cthulhu knows I've gone through years of spite and aggression - sex on a church alter, ripping the book of Genesis to shreds (in words) at a dinner party and baiting people who are clearly outmatched into a theological debate they have no hope of surviving, among countless other examples. Whatever. It was a phase, and I'm not ashamed of those days, but at the same time I don't really think all that spite accomplished anything but to further alienate people of faith.

I find my older self wanting to be a good ambassador for atheism, rather than a bad-ass, kick-ass sword wielding crusader. I want atheism to appear as calm and mainstream as possible. I want to lead by example. Secular Jesus.

Beyond that, I see how damaging religion is when it's used as a wedge issue, and we contribute to that wedge by terrifying otherwise good people of faith and driving them into the political margins. I believe that people of faith are more susceptible to fear than non-theists, and that in many ways we scare them further to into the arms of fascists and plutocrats when we go on the offensive. Back in the day when democracy was strong, people of faith stood along side the labor movement, the civil rights movement and other importance social movements. All that 'care for the poor, turn the other cheek, love your brother, rich people are going to hell (eye of the needle)' stuff was taken seriously. I'd love to see that altruistic, socially conscious, admirable side of Christianity make a comeback, and drive the free market, homophobic, racist bible belt bullies back into the fucking swamp where they belong.

We don't have to agree, but I want you to at least understand (and hopefully respect) where I'm coming from. Good chat @hpqp.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Unfortunately we only have one fundamentalist Christian martyr representative willing to take the onslaught of our rage. Calling @shinyblurry - you got some 'splaining to do. >> ^bareboards2:

http://johnshore.com/2011/12/03/a-gay-boy-cries-out-te
ll-me-christian-that-you-hear-him/
"Evangelical, fundamentalist Christians—by which I mean, specifically, Christians who believe that being gay is a moral abomination, an appalling affront to God—talk to me, please, about this kid.
Tell me that your belief system didn’t help put the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks. Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions. Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel for themselves.
Tell me that you can’t comprehend the connection between your conviction that God finds homosexuals repulsive, and the fact that this kid finds himself so repulsive that he habitually cuts his own flesh.
Tell me, please, how you love this kid. Tell me how you understand his pain. Tell me how when he cries, you cry.
Tell me how you want to do everything in your power to make sure that no one, ever again, feels free to in any way victimize a young gay person.
A Christian myself, I am pleading with you to be honest with me about this.
Tell me, please, how none of this kid’s anguish has anything to do with you.
I’m listening. I really am.
We all are."

http://johnshore.com/2011/12/03/a-gay-boy-cries-out-tell-me-christian-that-you-hear-him/

"Evangelical, fundamentalist Christians—by which I mean, specifically, Christians who believe that being gay is a moral abomination, an appalling affront to God—talk to me, please, about this kid.

Tell me that your belief system didn’t help put the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks. Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions. Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel for themselves.

Tell me that you can’t comprehend the connection between your conviction that God finds homosexuals repulsive, and the fact that this kid finds himself so repulsive that he habitually cuts his own flesh.

Tell me, please, how you love this kid. Tell me how you understand his pain. Tell me how when he cries, you cry.

Tell me how you want to do everything in your power to make sure that no one, ever again, feels free to in any way victimize a young gay person.

A Christian myself, I am pleading with you to be honest with me about this.

Tell me, please, how none of this kid’s anguish has anything to do with you.

I’m listening. I really am.

We all are."

You had better get right with God and stop messing around. You know God exists, and you're rejecting Him. A very unwise position to be in. The only reason we move and breath is due to His providence and mercy. He is patient with you, because He desires you come to repentence. But you aren't guaranteed a single day. Don't count on His patience to last forever.

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
So, you had an out of body experience and you know you have a spirit, yet you keep denying God anyway. Incredible. This is what is meant by this verse:
Romans 1:18-19
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Do you realize that when you stand before God you will have no excuse?
>> ^A10anis:
Oh dear. Another "near death" experience. Near death means exactly that. You may appear dead but, you're just near it. At times of great stress neuron activity increases, this is simply the body trying to survive. I had an out of body experience when hit by a car, all sorts of weird thoughts went through my mind in slow motion. I attributed my survival to many factors, none of which were god. Of course the gullable will be rejoicing and saying; "see, god exists." So, how long before the book, cult following, and his evangelical ministry? Ignorance is not a blessing from god, it's a debilitating disease.


I am truly sorry for you. you are a brainwashed moron.Get educated, and try to think for yourself.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, you had an out of body experience and you know you have a spirit, yet you keep denying God anyway. Incredible. This is what is meant by this verse:
Romans 1:18-19
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Do you realize that when you stand before God you will have no excuse?
>> ^A10anis:
Oh dear. Another "near death" experience. Near death means exactly that. You may appear dead but, you're just near it. At times of great stress neuron activity increases, this is simply the body trying to survive. I had an out of body experience when hit by a car, all sorts of weird thoughts went through my mind in slow motion. I attributed my survival to many factors, none of which were god. Of course the gullable will be rejoicing and saying; "see, god exists." So, how long before the book, cult following, and his evangelical ministry? Ignorance is not a blessing from god, it's a debilitating disease.


I am truly sorry for you. you are a brainwashed moron.Get educated, and try to think for yourself.

So, you had an out of body experience and you know you have a spirit, yet you keep denying God anyway. Incredible. This is what is meant by this verse:

Romans 1:18-19

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Do you realize that when you stand before God you will have no excuse?

>> ^A10anis:
Oh dear. Another "near death" experience. Near death means exactly that. You may appear dead but, you're just near it. At times of great stress neuron activity increases, this is simply the body trying to survive. I had an out of body experience when hit by a car, all sorts of weird thoughts went through my mind in slow motion. I attributed my survival to many factors, none of which were god. Of course the gullable will be rejoicing and saying; "see, god exists." So, how long before the book, cult following, and his evangelical ministry? Ignorance is not a blessing from god, it's a debilitating disease.

Oh dear. Another "near death" experience. Near death means exactly that. You may appear dead but, you're just near it. At times of great stress neuron activity increases, this is simply the body trying to survive. I had an out of body experience when hit by a car, all sorts of weird thoughts went through my mind in slow motion. I attributed my survival to many factors, none of which were god. Of course the gullable will be rejoicing and saying; "see, god exists." So, how long before the book, cult following, and his evangelical ministry? Ignorance is not a blessing from god, it's a debilitating disease.

He raises one or two good points. Unfortunately, they are hard to discern when wrapped up in his nut-job, evangelical delivery. One can only feel sorry for his kids/grandchildren.

Newt is a master of manipulation. The way he smoothly piles begged question upon begged question here is impressive. If you have some time and are willing to suffer mild nausea, check out the Thanksgiving Value Voters summit where Newt plays the Evangelicals like a Stradivarius and rockets to the front of the pack in the polls the next day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and to quote Cassandra Clare:

“Sarcasm is the last refuge of the imaginatively bankrupt.”

It's a tool passive aggressive people use to make the point about you, to delegitimize your point of view. It is just thinly veiled mockery. For a theist, ridicule from atheists, or more commonly, militant antitheists, is a daily event. It's just something that you get used to. It is rare to find rational discourse on this subject, although a few people on this board have stepped up to the plate.

It is about ego, and prejudice. Since he has decided to bash me in this thread, let's take HPQP as a good example of this. You only have to look at his videos to see that he has quite a lot of hatred stored up in his heart for Christianity. Thoughtful people aren't going to dedicate their time to trashing something they disagree with. This is clearly obsessive behavior fueled by anger and resentment, and most likely an underlying inferiority complex.

But, this is the way of the culture. Rudeness and intolerance is becoming the norm, especially in these United States. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705331806/Poll-Americans-are-becoming-more-rude.html

I appreciate you advocating for more decorum on here. On this subject particularly, if you watch some of the debates, like say dawkins vs lennox, you can see it is possible to discuss these issues in a respectful and civilized way, that is even intellectually satisfying. Even Hitchens said that the question of God was the greatest conversation you could have because it was a subject that led to every other important subject. It's sad that many people here don't seem to realize that and go out of their way to stifle discussion.




>> ^SDGundamX:

@hpqp
Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.
I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).
Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.
But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?
Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.
This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.
I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.
Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

Thank you for this response. I find the discussion about civility, tone and sarcasm in debates to be an interesting one indeed, and intend on creating a sifttalk post about it in the near future. I will be sure to let you know when I do.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp

Thanks for explaining why you @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK and I.

I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).

Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.

But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?

Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.

This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.

I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.

Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.