|
|
|
supagenius
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 57
Location: Alexandria
|
[quote="Philip Taylor"]
quote:
Originally posted by supagenius:
Dictionary definition of evangelical:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evangelical Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament. (more definitions are available at the above link) Does the fact that a church follow the Bible mean that they should be bashed?
Phil,
To answer some of the points in your 2nd last post:
1) "Evangelical" is a term often used to describe zealots and proselytisers. Indeed, the link you supplied also defines "evangelical" as "characterised by ardent or crusading enthusiam; zealot." This "crusading" quality is, I think, part of the reason the term "evangelical" has been applied to churches that fall generally under the Pentecostal movement founded by The Reverend Charles Parham & William Seymour. This is the definition of "evangelical" I have in mind when referring to the Church in the script as "Evangelical." As far as being a Church which follows the Bible, I would have thought that most churches do? Or am I mistaken - do you know of a Church which proclaims itself as Christian, yet rejects the Bible's teachings?
2) "There are probably thousands of people who attend these churches who would claim that these two guy's churches do nurture their inner life." I agree. Perhaps you missed the reference in my earlier post to a girl in the script who says the Church gives her certainty and her life meaning and purpose.
3) "You state these two guys quote the Bible on the subject of tithing. Aren't preachers supposed to quote the Bible? Should preachers only read half of the Bible?" Preachers can quote the Bible, Mickey Mouse or even Mein Kampf if they like. However, there is a certain phrase beloved by public figures. You might be familiar with it. It goes "I was quoted out of context." Given that the Bible - whichever half they read - was written thousands of years ago, in a different language, in a different society with different customs, in different circumstances, by people of a different culture, it seems a bit of a stretch to take a quote at random, apply it to whatever argument you're making, and then say "This is God's will. It's right there in the Bible.'
4) "You said that Hillsong's communion service was not magical or mysterious for you. I wonder if the thousands of other people attending had their consciousness moved to the spiritual side of life." See Point 2.
5) "Would you write a script that would bash Brett? He is successful. He is the first EO to hold an event in two states. After all "success is a wonderful panacea." To write about Brett or anyone/aything else, I would follow my usual procedure - I'd research the topic and decide if I was interested in writing about it. If I was, the nature of the script would depend on what I thought the story was.
6) "You are sure that these guys would not care about your script's sentiments. I challenge you to go to these men and to their extended families and explain what you would like to do and get their permission. Have the guts to face your victims."
Firstly, I wasn't aware that, in order to criticise someone or something, you had to ask their permission. When your posts say "Peter Beattie's been screwing us for years", did you face Peter Beattie and ask for permission to bash him? Second, as I have mentioned, the script is about a fictional Church with fictional characters. It's actually very difficult to ask permission from a fictional character. Third, we're back to semantics again. You have a fondness for emotive terms like "bashed" and "victims." You say "bashed," I say "criticise." I don't consider someone or something that I've criticised to be a "victim." Fourth, if someone who's been criticised doesn't like it, or feels they have been misrepresented, they have the right of reply. A large, prosperous Church usually doesn't have any difficulty in making its feelings known.
7) "This may be theory to you. You may see it as "a victimless crime like punching someone in the dark." More emotive terms. Somehow, I don't equate writing a script with an act of criminal assault.
"This is my life." No, Phil, it's not. It's a script. It's not about you. It isn't based on you. It doesn't even mention you. To say that this script is all about you and your life, and that it somehow insults and affronts your existence, is the equivalent of me saying "How dare they make that movie called The Bank?! My dad worked in a Bank! "
|
Sun May 07, 2006 9:27 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|