Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
You DID indicate that as part of the problem. If you did not then that just adds all the more to the confusion and the issue of style and substance. Seriously. If that is the case think about it because if you have an important message to get across you should be concerned with how to do that effectively. Otherwise why bother if you don't even give a hoot?
|
One of the marks of the effeminisation of our society is this insistence upon the superiority of style over substance. It matters not at all what point a person makes, the idea a person expresses is of no serious concern one way or the other. No, what matters is "how they say it". Style, and a vapid, tepid, lukewarm style at that, is to be preferred, it seems, by so many.
A person's statements are judged in this day and age, not by the content of their words, but by their melody (or lack thereof). Thus, demogogues may spew forth endless reams of absolute meaninglessness, and we swallow it all, and applaud, and remark how stirring and true the words were, if - and only if - the delivery is to our satisfaction. Like grade school instructors, we look for the inflection, tone, punctuation, form, and care not for the content, substance, thought or idea being expressed. As long as the style is pleasing to us, we care not what is being said.
Thus, a man may make no sense whatsoever, but it is accepted as great and wonderful if it tickles our ear. And likewise, a man may make perfect sense, but it is rejected if the the form and style is not up to our "standards" of rhetorical correctness.
Praxeas, this insistence upon style is part of what is killing us.
I refuse the poison.
If it means you or others will not listen, then so be it. I speak what I believe to be truth. I do not speak because I hope people will be impressed with my elocutionary skills. I speak because the truth must be spoken. "I believe, therefore I have spoken."
If a person cannot even pay attention to WHAT I am saying because I do not meet their expectations of HOW I should be saying it, then I doubt they are worth the bother for me to comply with some silly notion of correctness. They are looking for form, style, appearance... not the substance of what someone has to say. They are not my intended audience, therefore.
Their protestations of my "uncouthness" or "roughness" or "impoliteness" are nothing more than the complaints of eavesdroppers, as far as I am concerned.
Now, I have known you for I don't even know how many years. It is therefore important for me to attempt to make myself clear to you. In fact, I try to be clear to whoever I talk, or post as the case may be. Generally speaking, that is.
I will attempt one more time to make this pont clear, with which you seem to be having so much trouble for some reason... though I think you are latching on to the smallest jot and tittle and passing by the more important and serious issues - again, bypassing the main thing to harangue and argue about the smallest thing...
Once again, for clarity's sake, I asked the question concerning the modern church, questioning whether the claim that is made by the modern church world of Christendom (Oneness Pentecostalism included) is backed up by the observable reality.
It is clear that my premise is something akin to the following: The modern church is hypocritical in that it offers the Bible as a solution to society's ills while it simultaneously is either afflicted with those very same ills, or else is contributing to those ills.
I offered several points in support of that premise. ONE of those points concerned with the modern church's relationship to the family. And on that point I offered several subpoints. And ONE of those subpoints concerned the youth and children oriented programs so beloved by the modern church culture insofar as those programs contributed to segregating family members along age.
That was simply one subpoint of a larger point, which itself was but one point out of (I believe it was) four points, which themselves were never inteded to be the sum of all points, but were simply those four which I felt inclined to talk about.
Yet, this one tiny subpoint of a larger point which itself contributed only 25 percent toward the entire original post, was elevated to the position of ground zero. It was assumed that this one subpoint of a larger (though still itself a minority) point must be THE point of points. Consider what was asked:
"When you are addressing a huge problem,
and then you relegate the cause to something such as kids having a separate class from adults once a week...well...that's just laughable." (emphasis added)
The poster here claimed I relegated the cause of the problem to kids having a separate class from adults once a week.
1. This is a rhetorical attempt at marginalising the point I actually made. I never said anything about "once a week".
2. This is a gross over simplification of what I did most plainly and clearly state.
3. This is indicative of either unwillingness or inability to see the obvious (namely what I actually posted).
Then you pick up the gauntlet, so to say, and repeat the nonsense herein described, compounding it by offering a false dichotomy of either I made the point the poster quoted says I made, or else I made no such point at all.
The fact is, Praxeas, age-segregated services and "programs" are 1)unbiblical, and therefore 2)unauthorised by the New Testament, and therefore 3)contrary to the will of God, and 4)observably harmful to the spiritual growth of Christian families, altogether.
Is this debatable? Certainly it is.
But to attempt to make age-segregated classes THE fulcrum upon which my entire post attempts to balance is ridiculous and a waste of bandwidth.
Finally, Praxeas, this may come across as rude and crude and socially unacceptable, but I honestly don't care one single whit about anyone who complains about my "style". I apologise. Sometimes I wish I could care. But I don't! I cannot help it! I really and truly believe that anyone who would reject anyone's message or statements or opinions simply because "that person's tone doesn't please me"... I honestly believe that such people are feeble minded, effeminate, spiritually pudgy and not even worth trying to please in any way, shape, or form.
In fact, I believe such people are possibly lost, for that very effeminacy alone. I do believe when Paul said the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of God, he meant what he said. And I believe his words are the words of God Himself.
The man who prefers style over substance (even if he might disagree, but especially if he might agree, with that substance or content), is a wickedly carnally-minded man, an intellectual sodomite, if I may be so crude.
And that is my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
I think we have almost destroyed our usefulness to God with this damnable softness, this "sensitivity" to the carnal man's "feelings". We relegate the omnipotent power of God to save - the proclaimed Word of Truth - to a status of insufferable weakness. We make God in His glory and splendour subservient to the FLESH and its SELFCENTEREDNESS>
Jesus said unless a man deny himself, he cannot be His disciple.
Do you think He meant to include denying our desire that people please us with their words, tone, demeaner, mannerisms?
I think perhaps so.
Linear Mode
