Making A Mockery of Christianity

[jaybird]

Worse than Pat Robertson?

pat has probably done more damage. but mike will sit there on camera with who knows how many watching and just go on and on how he loves money, " theres something about money that excites ya!"
he is so bad when i first saw him i thought it was a joke video but he is a legit preacher with a legit large following. crazy world.

 

[Oeste]

I got a good chuckle from detractors of the first video because it was pretty obvious some of them had ever been to a Holiness or Pentecostal church before. These people are not mocking Christianity but simply believe in an “enthusiastic” revelation of Holy Spirit.

I remember going to a particular rock concert. The band was up on the stage playing music. The crowd started jumping up and down and in place. People waved their hands and shouted every time the band leader strummed loudly and pointed his guitar at them. They did this right on cue. At the end of his set, he jumped backward into the crowd and I watched as they passed him around.

No one claimed the music was phony or fake. No one questioned whether the music really made the crowd jump up and down. In fact, if you had asked anyone attending the concert that the music wasn’t really making them do anything they would have vehemently disagreed and told you that it did. The same principle applies to this video. The thought that the music was fake or phony and the guitarist a charlatan would never enter the mind of the concert goers, and the same thought would never enter the minds of the church attendees here.

If it’s a good concert you will move. Concerts, like sermons, can be hit or miss. The pastor can get you to move but not always. Some will get excited at the concert and some will get excited at church. I was not jumping up and down with the rest of the concert goers, but I never thought that the music wasn’t moving them or that they were just fooling or deceiving themselves into thinking the music was good. That’s because I’ve been to many concerts where the music did just that, at least for me.

It’s just different strokes for different folk, people. We have many types of music and we also have many types of churches. We have different “genres” of Rock, like pop, soul, heavy metal, etc., and we have different “genres” of Christian churches, like Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and Baptists. I can’t sing worth squat so I was never one to join a choir. Others can’t wait to get there to sing along. Christ did not create all of us liking a particular type of music, and he understands we are all unique. One pastor's approach may work for you, whilst a different pastor's approach will work for another.

The difference I see between this video and some of the concerts I’ve been to is that the pastor is working the crowd into a frenzy around the word of God, whilst the bandleader around his lyrics. One will talk about biblical principles while the other will most likely talk about worldly ones. Charismatic churches are not my cup of tea, but to be honest, I’d rather see these folks making waves at church than making waves at some of the raucous concerts I’ve seen take place.

I can still remember my mom and dad as they shook their heads in disbelief at the way the crowd was screaming at the Beatles when they played the Ed Sullivan show. I think I’m seeing a little bit of that here. But as far as the second video…I don’t mind preachers telling church-goers that the profits of a particular DVD or book will be used to promote the church or a particular ministry, like a youth choir or a new furnace. But they enter the world of chicanery when they start selling them as cures or entry fees to the Kingdom.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I got a good chuckle from detractors of the first video because it was pretty obvious some of them had ever been to a Holiness or Pentecostal church before. These people are not mocking Christianity but simply believe in an “enthusiastic” revelation of Holy Spirit.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of what was said; not that they are mocking Christianity, but are making a mockery of it. That is, their actions are, in a word or two, excessively silly.

 

[Glaurung]

Didn't the Pope abolish Purgatory though?

No Purgatory is doctrine. It is the state of those who have died reconciled to God but have yet to make satisfaction for their sins.

Limbo on the other hand can mean two things. The first being the place where the righteous who died before Christ awaited redemption, and the second being a medieval speculation regarding the fate of unbaptised infants. It is this second idea which the Chruch clarified was never actually doctrine but only a theological hypothesis. In my understanding the idea that the Chruch has denounced Limbo an acceptable belief is more of a media misrepresentation.

 

[psychoslice]

Christianity has given me so many laughs, its all worth while in that respect.

 

[Kapalika]

@ original post;

Christianity does such a good job at it well on it's own that it doesn't need those who are insincere about it from making it hard to tell who is serious and who isn't.

 

[Windwalker]

It is because of common sense.

I visited a Pentecostal church some years. I volunteered to be prayed over during the altar call or whatever it is. The pastor put his hands on my head, said a little prayer and then started pushing against my forehead. I guess I was supposed to fall down when he touched me, but instead I stood there and just looked at him. His eyes were steaming mad. He pushed harder, actually forcing me to take a step back. I rolled my head to the side and swatted his hand away.

Boy was that a mistake! The church went dead silent. I was actually accused of having a demon inside of me, because no one could resist like that.

My friend, who was a member there and had invited me along, asked me why I didn't fall down when he touched me. I replied, "was I supposed to?" He said, "yes...everyone does. It's what we do."

Oh good grief.

Some will do this to fit in, others are just more suggestible and when the pastor does his little hand push, they take it the rest of the way in their response. It's not faking it for a lot of people, even though some are in order to fit in. That does not of course mean there is actually some supernatural force flowing through the room or from his hands. Of course not. But in their beliefs, there is. And hence why when you responded as you did, you challenged their belief system. Not responding is one thing, but fighting the pastor would be seen as a challenge against what they believed to be the sacred.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And hence why when you responded as you did, you challenged their belief system. Not responding is one thing, but fighting the pastor would be seen as a challenge against what they believed to be the sacred.

That just solidifies the appearance of a lie, though. When it boils down to "do what the pastor suggests, or you're a blasphemer" the pastor becomes god, and the church service becomes about all the cool stuff he can do.

 

[Windwalker]

That just solidifies the appearance of a lie, though. When it boils down to "do what the pastor suggests, or you're a blasphemer" the pastor becomes god, and the church service becomes about all the cool stuff he can do.

Not necessarily. I'm saying if you are a guest in the church and are participating with them in their sacred space, there is a difference between say, disagreeing with their beliefs quietly, and standing up and actively challenging them.

For instance, say an atheist goes to his mother's church with her. He doesn't believe God exists. What should he do when the pastor teaches everyone that God is real? Stand up and challenge the pastor and present arguments from anti-apologist websites, or be quiet and say nothing out of respect to his mother's beliefs and everyone else there who shares them with her? How would you suggest would be the better way to behave in that situation?

 

[Windwalker]

Just to clarify, he did state this, "I volunteered to be prayed over during the altar call or whatever it is." Imagine the said atheist in my example above went up to the communion altar with his mother, and spit the wafer back at the minister. This would make no sense to anyone why he went up to the altar with her if he didn't want to actively participate in the ritual. Obviously the minister would be upset by that response. Right?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not necessarily. I'm saying if you are a guest in the church and are participating with them in their sacred space, there is a difference between say, disagreeing with their beliefs quietly, and standing up and actively challenging them.

Only, that's not quite what happened in the example given, is it? It was more he volunteered, and inadvertently "offended" by not knowing he was supposed to pretend to get knocked back. It's not like he stood up there and said "That's a load of rubbish!"

For instance, say an atheist goes to his mother's church with her. He doesn't believe God exists. What should he do when the pastor teaches everyone that God is real? Stand up and challenge the pastor and present arguments from anti-apologist websites, or be quiet and say nothing out of respect to his mother's beliefs and everyone else there who shares them with her? How would you suggest would be the better way to behave in that situation?

The better way is to just not go. Because shifting the example to a Pagan going to church with his parents for their sake, remaining quite and respectful, I still got dirty looks for not participating.

 

[Windwalker]

Only, that's not quite what happened in the example given, is it? It was more he volunteered, and inadvertently "offended" by not knowing he was supposed to pretend to get knocked back. It's not like he stood up there and said "That's a load of rubbish!"

It was the swatting of his hand that got the negative response. Not the fact he didn't respond as the pastor had hoped he would and fall over speaking in tongues. That's why I said it's like spitting the wafer out at the priest, in a way.

The better way is to just not go. Because shifting the example to a Pagan going to church with his parents for their sake, remaining quite and respectful, I still got dirty looks for not participating.

Well, that can happen in some churches, but not in others. It depends on the congregation. Often times those that don't participate are telling themselves others must be judging them when they aren't. That happens too. If someone were visiting once or twice with family or a friend, and others scowled at them for not participated, then I'd say that's a pretty damned messed up group. If someone was a regular there and never joined in, then that becomes a different thing and people may get upset, or not. it depends.

 

[Windwalker]

The difference I see between this video and some of the concerts I’ve been to is that the pastor is working the crowd into a frenzy around the word of God, whilst the bandleader around his lyrics. One will talk about biblical principles while the other will most likely talk about worldly ones. Charismatic churches are not my cup of tea, but to be honest, I’d rather see these folks making waves at church than making waves at some of the raucous concerts I’ve seen take place.

I really loved your post and the points you made it in. These churches very much are like a rock concert. This is just "group energy" and how it can manifest itself in many ways. It becomes a certain cultural form and certain expectation get set. One expects to see someone at a rock concert having a good time, enjoying the experience as opposed to sitting with their hands crossed over their chest and looking off into a corner somewhere. Something doesn't belong there, and others will notice that.

Your post made me think of a book I have called Chanting: Discovering Spirit in Sound: Robert Gass, Kathleen A. Brehony: 9780767903233: Amazon.com: Books He was a rock musician and the book goes into much of what you talk about, and goes into how chant is used to create that group energy. Music is chant. They are mantras, repeating notes and phrases in a group participation. So in this sense all songs are group chanting. Now what I'd like to add to further this thread is that speaking in tongues plays that function of chant. I think the best description I've heard was when someone referred to them as a "jazz mantra". That's perfect! They serve to "raise the energy". And that is what this all is, including the whole "getting slain in the spirit" phenomena. It's group energy. It's not "fake".

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It was the swatting of his hand that got the negative response.

A natural human response to an infuriated hit to the forehead, I'd say. But even then, why not show the truth for what it is? Religious fervor or not, passionate display or not, the fact of the matter is that the pastor does not have the powers that he claims to have. Is the service about worshiping god? Or is it about displaying the cool things that the pastor can do because he believes in god? (Which can then make the congregation feel inferior, and thus look to the pastor in awe all the more, when they can't replicate his "miracles")

Sometimes the religious need a skeptic to show them the folly of their ways. Sometimes the religious take it too far, and need to be knocked back down to appreciate honest worship, and perhaps bring themselves closer to their divinity. I'm not suggesting going into a Holy-Rollers snake handling and laughing at them mockingly, but why should someone - even a guest - play along and allow for a lie?

 

[Windwalker]

A natural human response to an infuriated hit to the forehead,

I'm not saying I don't understand that as a natural response, only that the act itself in that situation would be taken quite badly by others.

Like I said, imagine someone spitting the wafer back at the priest in front of the congregation because they were told it was the body of Jesus they just put in their mouth, not realizing the symbolism of it. I think being told that what they just put in your mouth was human flesh, spitting it out would be the natural response too to most anyone! Obviously during a communion ritual that would be received quite negatively, however.

But even then, why not show the truth for what it is?

Because it's not the right place. If that's how they do their sacred rituals, then the appropriate thing to do would be to politely decline, respectfully bow out of it in other words.

Religious fervor or not, passionate display or not, the fact of the matter is that the pastor does not have the powers that he claims to have.

But the congregation believes he does. Catholics believe their priest has the power to forgive their sins. Does he? It doesn't matter. He symbolically does for them, and is therefore a sacred symbol for them. To stand outside their confession booths and debunk the priest would be seen as quite sacrilegious, to say the least.

Is the service about worshiping god? Or is it about displaying the cool things that the pastor can do because he believes in god?

That's part of how they worship God. It's all symbolic, and he plays a role in that symbolism. He is a sacred symbol in that setting, helping them bridge the gap between themselves and God.

(Which can then make the congregation feel inferior, and thus look to the pastor in awe all the more, when they can't replicate his "miracles")

Not if that's how they see the role of the pastor in their relationship with the sacred.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Like I said, imagine someone spitting the wafer back at the priest in front of the congregation because they were told it was the body of Jesus they just put in their mouth, not realizing the symbolism of it. I think being told that what they just put in your mouth was human flesh, spitting it out would be the natural response too to most anyone!

There are a couple problems with this analogy, though.

Firstly, a non-Catholic wouldn't be eligible to receive communion. I realize there's no way for the priest or deacon to screen this, yet there is the quite usual option of going up for communion with one's arms crossed over their chest, indicating reception of a blessing and nothing more. That's usually the polite non-Catholic action to take, if one even goes up for communion at all; it's not a mandatory thing, and several people don't go up for varying reasons.

Secondly, you're comparing physical contact - what some would call assault - to a symbolism that's quite easily seen through. Even when the priest says "the body/blood of christ", anyone - even a Catholic - knows that it's not actually flesh and blood. Spitting it out would be a conscious effort, not a natural reaction.

In the example given, Neo volunteered for what he thought was a blessing. Not a blessing and "pretend to fall backwards when I smack your forehead."

Because it's not the right place. If that's how they do their sacred rituals, then the appropriate thing to do would be to politely decline, respectfully bow out of it in other words.

Perhaps. But as I've said, and as I would argue, they're not worshiping god, they're worshiping what the pastor pretends to be able to do. It is blatant deception, which is never a good thing.

Catholics believe their priest has the power to forgive their sins.

No, Catholics believe that the priest is given authority by their god to intercede on their behalf so that god may forgive their sins. Quite a different thing from pretending to have Jedi powers.

That's part of how they worship God. It's all symbolic, and he plays a role in that symbolism. He is a sacred symbol in that setting, helping them bridge the gap between themselves and God.

And if that's what they believe then I hope it makes them happy. But for what I see is a man pretending to have a power that he does not, so that he might grip the audience in awe and take their money that they're more than happy to give to their "obviously" holy man. The Hávamál has a segment that says "If harm thou knowest, as harm proclaim it, and make no friendship with foes." When their pastor wears diamonds and gold, drives a car worth more than their homes, and lives in a home worth more than their children's education, there is nothing to call that but harm. And when he gets that money from them because they think he can do miracles, he doesn't deserve the distinction of sacred.

Not if that's how they see the role of the pastor in their relationship with the sacred.

Only there is that element of superiority. That's why he's the pastor, the one to lead them to salvation - or poverty, more like. Do they think it's a sacred relationship? Sure. But it's not, it's a relationship of power and control. And the more they believe that he can push them over with "holy wind" or what have you, the more control he has over them. And we've all seen how horribly that can turn out.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I never get sick of this guy:

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

He is, however, triggering a reaction from them, giving them a moment to just let that numinous passion and ecstasy and enthusiasm overcome them during their group worship and ritual.

Why should I pay him for ecstasy? I can drive myself to "feel da LAAAAAWWWWWDDD" myself. Whipping yourself into a frenzy is just ... whipping yourself into a frenzy.

Is it because you know?

I've certainly watched enough of it to realize just how full of it they are. First, you force push the other members of the staff, who are getting paid to go along with it. This helps feed the frenzy, and then the gullible start doing it too, and then everyone ...

It's a wonder the cameraman never collapses to the floor, though.

Boy was that a mistake! The church went dead silent. I was actually accused of having a demon inside of me, because no one could resist like that.

My brother and I try very hard to resist the urge to go to churches like those and quote (to the point of absurd nerdism) all the Exorcist movies.

We're pretty sure we wouldn't make it to the parking lot alive.

Are they deceiving others in order to obtain money?

You don't buy fancy suits and airplanes on what a preacher should be making ...

They aren't being paid to fall down.

Not in money, but in heavenly merit.

The only one making the money is the pastor.

What's fake is this idea that people don't naturally enjoy acting, embellishing, lying, etc. We all do. We've always gravitated towards legendary tales and exaggerated promises. We expect being lied to. We love watching movies, and reality TV.

Most people who LARP (live action role play) understand they are not REALLY having a magic battle out in the forest.

any u guys heard of mike murdock? he is IMO the all time best when it comes to greedy money preachers.

I had a patient who had him on every blasted Sunday morning. GOD, I hate that man. I want to take those seeds and shove them so high up his rear end he coughs them out.

No one claimed the music was phony or fake.

But fandoms, music or fantasy or otherwise, don't usually think such reactions are proof they are going to heaven or something.

For instance, say an atheist goes to his mother's church with her. He doesn't believe God exists. What should he do when the pastor teaches everyone that God is real? Stand up and challenge the pastor and present arguments from anti-apologist websites, or be quiet and say nothing out of respect to his mother's beliefs and everyone else there who shares them with her? How would you suggest would be the better way to behave in that situation?

One requires listening while keeping your opinion to yourself. The other requires participating in a play you never auditioned for.

The better way is to just not go. Because shifting the example to a Pagan going to church with his parents for their sake, remaining quite and respectful, I still got dirty looks for not participating.

My grandfather's funeral took place at a Southern Baptist church. Cousins from his side of the family (there aren't that many relatives on that side left) came all the way from Canada to pay their respects. They dressed like, well, I know one is definitely Wiccan, not sure about the other. They had poppies on their dresses as well, which was a Canadian thing honoring fallen soldiers or something. The level of hate they received ... I was practically drunk by then, and thank God I didn't go off on them. Imagine a pastor being asked to do a sermon and at first it's "meh" but whatever, but then he goes off on a misogynistic Franklin Graham-ish diatribe and sends "those against Christ" to hell.

AT. A. FUNERAL.

But, then I got a laugh when the graveside service was done by Grandpa's Mason guys, and it's just a pagan ritual with some sprinkling of Jesus thrown in. The Graham-ish pastor was red as a beet, LOL.

I forget my point. I only know that entire church should burn in hell.

Perhaps. But as I've said, and as I would argue, they're not worshiping god, they're worshiping what the pastor pretends to be able to do. It is blatant deception, which is never a good thing.

Yeah. If it's not blasphemy, it's close.

 

[Windwalker]

One requires listening while keeping your opinion to yourself. The other requires participating in a play you never auditioned for.

When you walk up to the altar in a Pentecostal church to have the pastor lay hands on you and pray for you, you are doing much more than just sitting quietly in the pew observing keeping your opinion to yourself. You joined in the play as an actor.

 

[Windwalker]

There are a couple problems with this analogy, though.

Firstly, a non-Catholic wouldn't be eligible to receive communion.

I originally said a minister and this last time said Priest. The analogy applies in Protestant churches as well.

Secondly, you're comparing physical contact - what some would call assault - to a symbolism that's quite easily seen through.

Laying hands on someone in an altar call is in fact part of that ritual. "The laying on of hands" is a big deal in Pentecostal rituals. It is symbolic, believing it imparts a blessing, or a transference of energies.

Even when the priest says "the body/blood of christ", anyone - even a Catholic - knows that it's not actually flesh and blood.

One of the criticisms against Christianity in Rome was that they practiced cannibalism. Plus, the RCC teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation where they literally believe the wafer and the wine become the literal blood and body of Jesus at consecration, and it only retains the appearance of a wafer and wine. So, yes, they believe it is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.

Spitting it out would be a conscious effort, not a natural reaction.

Not if someone were told it became human flesh in their mouth because it magically changed and they weren't expecting it. Try saying that to a child at the dinner table and watch their response. I'm imagining a sibling saying that to get a reaction from their sister, or something. Donuts to dollars she'd spit it out.

In the example given, Neo volunteered for what he thought was a blessing. Not a blessing and "pretend to fall backwards when I smack your forehead."

Here's the thing. It was a Pentecostal church. That's a common thing that's going on in there. Was he unaware of the goings on in that kind of church? Were there no other people at the altar having hands laid on them and that sort of thing happening? Had he never heard of or seen that anywhere before? Perhaps, but I tend to doubt that. I've been in plenty of Pentecostal churches and being members sitting quietly in the pew is hardly the way to describe them!

Perhaps. But as I've said, and as I would argue, they're not worshiping god, they're worshiping what the pastor pretends to be able to do. It is blatant deception, which is never a good thing.

That's not true. This is not an accurate description at all. I was a part of a Pentecostal church for many years when I was younger, and most of the pastors very much believed in what they were doing. And none of the members I knew viewed the pastor as having special powers above them as members.

Are there charlatans? Most certainly! But that does not describe most of these ministers. Honestly, I think why the minister looked "mad" at him was possibly that he felt dismay that his "magic" wasn't working on him. He was possibly just getting a fierce look to try to give it more "umph" to make it happen. In other words, he really believed it and was upset it wasn't working like it should. I have seen that also.

No, Catholics believe that the priest is given authority by their god to intercede on their behalf so that god may forgive their sins. Quite a different thing from pretending to have Jedi powers.

But he is seen as an intercessor for them, so if he said he doesn't grant them forgiveness, he in fact has powers to them.

But for what I see is a man pretending to have a power that he does not, so that he might grip the audience in awe and take their money that they're more than happy to give to their "obviously" holy man.

Perhaps in some cases it is a charlatan, but that does not describe all of those who believe in this. I've known plenty of pastors who believe in this stuff, and they are sincere in their beliefs. They sincerely believe this as "the power of God", their words. I've known them personally, so I can't be a total cynic and claim they're all hucksters.

When their pastor wears diamonds and gold, drives a car worth more than their homes, and lives in a home worth more than their children's education, there is nothing to call that but harm. And when he gets that money from them because they think he can do miracles, he doesn't deserve the distinction of sacred.

That may well be, but if their system of belief was the "Prosperity Gospel" world, he to them in that case is in fact a symbol of that Gospel to them! His wealth symbolically inspires them to follow it. Even if he is a huckster, he is still a symbol to them because they "believe" in him.

Only there is that element of superiority. That's why he's the pastor, the one to lead them to salvation - or poverty, more like. Do they think it's a sacred relationship? Sure. But it's not, it's a relationship of power and control.

Hierarchies are part of most Christian churches. Very few don't have that aspect of them. The Pope is the head, and most everyone in the RCC sees that as a sacred relationship. Power and control takes on many forms, sometimes for service to others, sometimes in service to themselves.

What are the 3 forms of power again? Power over others, power with others, and power from within? Something like that?

And the more they believe that he can push them over with "holy wind" or what have you, the more control he has over them. And we've all seen how horribly that can turn out.

I think that's a little cynical. It depends on the pastor. A reasonable leader does what they do for the benefit of others. Some abuse that power.