183 replies to this topic

[Laudate_Dominum]

I was curious so I watched this. http://thewhosoevers...murderyourflesh

Just thought I'd share and see what others say.

[Selah]

Oh, Sonny. You have a heart of gold. <3

Sorry. I'm biased.

I'll watch the video and let you know what I think afterwards.

[Ice_nine]

I was curious so I watched this. http://thewhosoevers...murderyourflesh

Just thought I'd share and see what others say.

What is with you and your super long videos!

I mean help the rest of us with ADD for once

[Selah]

the demon choking you out was probably a result of your "15 hits of crack'

just a thought.

and LOL i skipped through and landed on a part where Ryan, probably in the middle of something, says, "I wanna sleep with girls!'

[Ice_nine]

ok I'm about halfway through this.

The main problem is that movements like these seem based on emotional appeal. Now I'm not against emotion, it's a valid way to experience the world, but it's not enough in and of itself. Without a solid philosophy and theology behind it the movement will not be sustainable because it will have to perpetually ignore reason.

There's also the idea that spontaneity is more authentic, likening the disciples to pop-culture icons.

Of course there are good things in there, but like most things, it's mixed with bad things.

[Winchester]

I'm not watching that the essence of cow.

[Papist]

They sure do make a point to always preach how other Christians what it wrong and they have it so right.

And if I could get a message to the speaker, DUH! Theology of the Body.

[BG45]

I'm not a Whosoever. I'm a Warrior. (Reference to the FB group.)

Seriously though, can't stand emotion based appeals more than anything else. It's not authentic Christianity to me, just the sort of manipulation that eventually churns out more Atheists who feel they were emotionally abused by Christians.

[Ice_nine]

I'm not a Whosoever. I'm a Warrior. (Reference to the FB group.)

Seriously though, can't stand emotion based appeals more than anything else. It's not authentic Christianity to me, just the sort of manipulation that eventually churns out more Atheists who feel they were emotionally abused by Christians.

EXACTLY.

Furthermore, the inability of these movements to understand nuance. Murder is an evil act, unlike killing which can be acceptable in some situations, like killing a cow or killing someone who is trying to kill you.

But then again the word "murder" is totally more bad-arse and hard-core than the word "kill."

[Papist]

EXACTLY.

Furthermore, the inability of these movements to understand nuance. Murder is an evil act, unlike killing which can be acceptable in some situations, like killing a cow or killing someone who is trying to kill you.

But then again the word "murder" is totally more bad-arse and hard-core than the word "kill."

Yes! What I have found interesting over the years is that have to try to spruce up the wording to appeal to emotion. I have been to my fair share of Christian hard rock concerts, e.g. Cornerstone Festival. And they are very careful to not sound "churchy".

[Selah]

It reminds me of mortification

[Nihil Obstat]

The use of the words murder and kill interchangeably is a big pet peeve of mine. A few secular comedy writers that I read do that, I suppose for the added impact, but it's so, so wrong.

[Selah]

The use of the words murder and kill interchangeably is a big pet peeve of mine. A few secular comedy writers that I read do that, I suppose for the added impact, but it's so, so wrong.

How come?

(just curious to hear your point of view)

[Nihil Obstat]

How come?

(just curious to hear your point of view)

Because murder is always wrong, but killing is not.

Let's just make up a fictitious example... a journalist gets lost in some desert in the Middle East and gets attacked by a group of guys intent on either taking him hostage or killing him if he resists. He's right to resist, with deadly force if need be.
Let's say he's got a gun with him too, and he's some kind of action movie hero.
It would be wrong to say "the journalist murdered five armed kidnappers." Not only wrong, IMO if we're talking about a real person that would be slanderous. It would be correct to say "the journalist killed five armed kidnappers."
When people make that mistake, I don't think they usually intend it maliciously, but it's such a pet peeve of mine because it contributes to people not understanding the difference, or even knowing that a difference exists.

[BigJon16]

I was curious so I watched this. http://thewhosoevers...murderyourflesh

Just thought I'd share and see what others say.

To me, this video demonstrates why I think Catholicism is the only thing that can be taken seriously.

Edited by BigJon16, 06 February 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[Selah]

it appeals to the emotion, to the "edgy" whatever that means. Whenever movements like this pop up, it's easy to see they have never bothered to do their homework in regards to the history of Christianity.

Edited by Selah, 06 February 2012 - 03:57 PM.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The use of the words murder and kill interchangeably is a big pet peeve of mine. A few secular comedy writers that I read do that, I suppose for the added impact, but it's so, so wrong.

I'm not disagreeing with you really, but I've just got to say that quaint euphemisms for killing irk me far more. Also, people who insist or imply that legality defines morality. Murder and kill are interchangeable in many contexts. I would have little problem with saying that Saddam Hussein was murdered. Or that Bin Laden was murdered. I don't get my panties in a twist when someone says that abortion is murder. And yes, I know the dictionary and legal definitions of murder. If the killing is direct and intentional, regardless of legal sanction, I think there is a valid informal sense in which it is murder. If someone were using the term to sensationalize or otherwise distort what was in fact an accident, I would be perturbed. But still, what's far worse to me is when people gloss over atrocities with cute euphemisms or callous legalisms. The ease with which humans rationalize killing is disturbing to me.
ETA: Again, I don't mean this as a contradiction of your pov, just adding something new and sharing my feelings. lol

Edited by Laudate_Dominum, 07 February 2012 - 02:39 AM.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm not disagreeing with you really, but I've just got to say that quaint euphemisms for killing irk me far more. Also, people who insist or imply that legality defines morality. Murder and kill are interchangeable in many contexts. I would have little problem with saying that Saddam Hussein was murdered. Or that Bin Laden was murdered. I don't get my panties in a twist when someone says that abortion is murder. And yes, I know the dictionary and legal definitions of murder. If the killing is direct and intentional, regardless of legal sanction, I think there is a valid informal sense in which it is murder. If someone were using the term to sensationalize or otherwise distort what was in fact an accident, I would be perturbed. But still, what's far worse to me is when people gloss over atrocities with cute euphemisms or callous legalisms. The ease with which humans rationalize killing is disturbing to me.
ETA: Again, I don't mean this as a contradiction of your pov, just adding something new and sharing my feelings. lol

Yeah, I agree.

[Hubertus]

I agree also. The non-denominational Protestant culture today seems to be abusing all kinds of language in general. Here we see "Murder your flesh," and it's not a far cry from the "Love Jesus, hate religion" and the like. I'm not able to watch the entire video at the moment, but the phrase sounds like something that is accompanied by pride; it tells you to be a martyr but it draws too much attention to your martyrdom. It's as if you're supposed to get some kind of self-gratifying pleasure out of denying yourself. Very contradictory.

[Selah]

Self-denial isn't fun. If it was, everyone would be doing it. True self-denial isn't a pretty graphic for a t-shirt.

Edited by Selah, 07 February 2012 - 10:45 AM.