This is an exceptional question. I have no answer, but in thinking of one I ponder the concept of the Mask. Sometimes I feel that anonymity allows a person to be a "truer" version of themselves. The anonymity provides safety. It bypasses material reality's "punch in the face conversational protocols". A shorter, lower friction transition between what one feels and what one says. But lately I'm wondering what life would be like without electronic communications. If I lived my life perpetually under life's "punch in face conversation protocol" everything I felt would by necessity reconcile itself to the set of things that would get my nose caved in by a fist. Does that make me any less "true"? Perhaps it makes me more *aware*, and that's a "truer" version of me than if I immediately spoke my feelings. So on the one hand, seeing people's more immediate feelings and instincts is valuable. But we might be losing something by adding the veil of anonymity.
Saw a great MTV commercial several years ago. The gist??/ "Sending me a tweet that you are having coffee at Starbucks is not the same as having a cup of coffee with me." Like all technologies, there is a cost in human terms to increased connectivity/productivity.
I agree with the critiques. Anonymity brings out bad in people. That's only good if we see it in ourselves and give it to the LORD. It is better to have a cup of coffee with someone than to post that I'm having one. Yet, if not for it, none of us would know any of each other. I think that is what makes it hard to call it for better or worse. It truly is both.
I remember him talking as if living a sinless life was achievable. I don't remember him talking about healing as if it were bought and paid for but can't honestly say I'm surprised. It reminds me of the church I attended for a few months that preached all sorts of things, including healing in the atonement. They seemed to truly believe that you could speak things into being, on the back of what seemed like nothing more than butchering the context of Job 22:28. Yet despite their declarations they still had sickness within the church, people still died, and they struggled to pay their bills. Last I heard their congregation wasn't getting any bigger so they rattled around in premises many times the size of what they needed that they couldn't really afford but lacking options to move elsewhere. The really sad thing is that many there (including leadership) weren't willing to spend time to Scripturally address concerns about what they were teaching. But I've ranted about that often enough... Interestingly one of two points that Bill Johnson (of Bethel fame) made in one of his books that I agreed with (I regarded most of his book as a bunch of stories and inoffensive to toxic teaching) related to Elijah and Elisha. The gist of it was that Elisha would get the requested double portion of Elijah's anointing only if he kept his eyes fixed on Elijah. Then came down the chariot with the horses of fire, and Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind. The point he made was that, had Elisha been distracted by the supernatural chariot, he'd have taken his eyes off Elijah. But ironically it seems the hypercharismatic churches seek signs and wonders first, as if they are evidence of God's blessing, rather than seeking God even if all they ever received was God's presence. ... which leads into a searching question, that I mentioned in passing when chatting to a couple of the people in leadership at the church I mentioned. Would we be willing to give up everything and follow God even if all we received in return was, well, God? Would we continue to follow even if it meant poverty, sickness, death? Or do we only follow God in the hope that we'll get material comforts this side of heaven?
Anonymity is a mixed blessing, that's for sure. It's good that people can hide behind a pseudonym and talk about things without the same sense of vulnerability that would exist when talking to people in a more physical setting. Talking about problems, concerns, struggles or whatever on a message board doesn't result in people possibly asking "how are you getting on with..." at an inopportune moment. Of course the downside is that it's easier to be obnoxious online because, to borrow hisleast's image, fists don't meet faces online. And it's easy to forget that behind each avatar and screen name sits a real person with real feelings and concerns.
And in all honesty, what do we get but God? Materially we get nothing. Some wicked are rich. Sone righteous are rich. Some wicked are broke. Some righteous are broke. Yes, the Bible says a lot about money, but money ain't what it's all about.
Didn't you get the memo that God promised us health and wealth the minute we accept Jesus? If you're not rolling in cash and in perfect health, maybe there's something wrong with you. Sadly the faith that prevents sickness (because as we all know there's no sickness in heaven, so it shouldn't exist on earth either) can't prevent death. Oh, wait, there's no death in heaven either. As you were....
Hank Hanegfaaff's Christianity in Crisis came out in 1991 or so. I remember reading it at the time. If the church read books, that could have been the end of health and wealth.
The trouble is that the church does read books. They read books by the likes of Bill Johnson, Kris Vallotton, John Paul Jackson, Joel Osteen etc. Books that promise the earth, promise health and wealth and the like.
Your choice of analogies is particularly intriguing, as I was born and raised and hail from a "punch in the face" mentality - a street-fighter type among the same types, and behind that avatar lurks a "contained" ... can't think of an apt term. But the anonymity of cyberspace with it's "just the facts, Ma'am" has done a great deal to hone and to help groom my approach. I find dealing with the truth in a purely rational yet no-holds-barred fashion has been very effective and attractive to me, and has to a large degree reshaped my conversation in the real asylum. This, I value.
Ok. Let me clarify. It sounds complimentary to EVERYBODY ELSE, as the "best" is brought out of them. For some reason, probably because you and I clash like cats and dogs, I feel like I'm the butt of some kind of in forum joke in regards to your comment. How do I bring out the best in others, by the way? ???
When a person discusses anything with you, they must have (or find) a more profound understanding of their faith than perhaps they had coming into the discussion. Anytime someone looks deeper into their faith, only good can come of it. Sorry Aaron. I'm not much of a one for hidden agendas, or backhanded compliments. You'll just have to accept it for what it says, nothing more.
Sure, except it sometimes seems with TV that no amount of violence and gore is too much but as soon as someone slips off their clothes you'd think the world was about to end.