New Hate: The Drunken Glory Movement
The Drunken Glory movement, mixing intoxication and the gospel…
Crowder, who claims he met Jesus while on an acid trip, suggests that ‘intimacy with God’ is expressed by living in a trance-like, spiritually drunken state of ecstacy. This is then presented as ‘the presence of God’ and the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
I mean look at this fucking herb…
July 28th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Utter, utter, utter silliness. Clanging cymbals, a complete failure of hermeneutics.
With all due respect, Jeff, I don’t understand why you give this man an outlet on your blog. I know you’re an intelligent person, which is why I like reading your blog, most especially the bits where you challenge me, a believer, with the arguments and ideology of men like Gore Vidal, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the like. Please understand, I don’t mean any disrespect by saying this, but I feel like a person of your intelligence–a guy who likes Camus, Faulkner, the realm of ideas–has better things to do with his time than actually sit through eleven minutes of this nonsense.
This guy is a moron, yes, there’s no question about that. But what gets me about atheists who use people like this guy to prove their point that religion (and most often the bullet is aimed at Christianity) is the “opiate of the masses,” is that this man does not get the final word on what Christianity is, what a good exegesis, hermeneutic, and application of scripture is–if he even bothers to do any of these very essential things to the reading of scripture at all.
Why do people like Bill Maher find the easiest targets to uphold their ideology? Why don’t they engage with thinkers like G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Timothy Keller, and Terry Eagleton? Men who actually pose a challenge to their stance on the matter.
Again, Jeff, I’m a faithful reader of this blog. I like the art, toys, books, film, the updates on hardcore and punk, the dedication to remembering what veganism, straight edge, and hardcore/punk have meant to you in the past, and the discomfort you find in the worst face of religion. But this guy is just too easy to make fun of. And without the world of the internet, and our society’s utter failure to stay entrenched in the medium of print, the world of thoughts and ideas, this guy wouldn’t have a voice anyone gave a thought to.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I agree with you.
This is garbage.
That being said I am fascinated that it has an audience, the fact that there exists a ‘Drunken Glory’ movement at all and that people come to see this, enough that this guy John Crowder has seminars, tours of foreign lands, podcasts and even an iPhone App.
I don’t apologize for posting it as I never held it up as an example of all Christians, I realize this has about as much to do with Christianity as ‘Hardline’ does with my own beliefs.
Enlightenment through intoxication in itself is a fascinatingly ignorant concept (Timothy Leary be damned).
I am always intrigued by those so desperately looking for something that they latch on to insanity.
Plus there’s the bearded turd with an anchor tattoo on his face…
July 30th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Whoa. I don’t think posting a lot of philosophers and talking about the merits of proper scriptural interpretation pose any challenge to atheism.
Christian hermeneutics is entirely a human subject – and no god needs to exist in order for one to interpret a way of living from a single book. The above authors spent a lot of time thinking about spirituality, but they were operating under the paradigm that a god exists. Thats a fundamental assumption that has absolutely no basis in reality. remove that assumption, and the rest is just clever human writing and thought.
No matter how long you ponder the bible, god, or anything, it doesn’t change the fact that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the christian god, or any god for that matter, ever existed. Furthermore, there is an amazing amount of data to suggest that god does not exist.
My point is, is that any atheist can reply to even the best well thought out argument for religion with “show me some evidence”. Abandon the god exists assumption, and all it is left is amazingly well constructed secular philosophy.
also, the dude in the videos is hilarious. and I liked Raid’s Above the law lp. it is scathingly awesome hardcore.
July 30th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Well said.
It’s always interesting to ponder how vast the distance in intellectual real estate between the concepts of ‘There is no God’, ‘God may exist’, ‘There is a God’ and ‘Belief in the New Testament God’.
Assuming you could get me to the ‘God may exist’ or even ‘There is a God’ stages that’s still a million miles from believing in the ‘Holy Trinity’ of the New Testament.
Raid is awesome. Here is an interesting recent interview with Steve Lovett the singer of Raid – http://www.xcatalystx.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1990&sid=59a95fcf58c5a4b5d8d756a74cbc88ff
July 30th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Joe,
Thanks for your respectful reply. While I like reading the arguments of people like Christopher Hitchens, I often think his sort of hateful attitude gets in the way of what he’s trying to say. Whether or not Hitchens is right, Christianity isn’t going anywhere as far as I can see. It’s been around a long time, and some might tell you that while the movement of atheism is growing, the same can be said for people exercising belief in a deity. Some would claim we’re getting more religious, not less. I don’t have any other reference for this claim other than Reza Aslan’s last book “How to Win a Cosmic War” (which I recommend if you’re interested in why religious war is so futile).
And on to your response.
“Whoa. I don’t think posting a lot of philosophers and talking about the merits of proper scriptural interpretation pose any challenge to atheism.”
You’re right. Listing a bunch of names and such isn’t a challenge to atheism, but that wasn’t entirely connected to my poiny about hermeneutics and exegesis. I was referring to these things because this guy clearly has done neither if he honestly believes the things coming out of his mouth are endorsed by the Hebrew scripture and the New Testament. It’s as simple as that. Nothing he says has any real traction in the Bible. Scripture can’t mean what it never meant. This guy, if he’s serious about Biblical scholarship, should know this.
As for the names I listed, nearly every one of those individuals has written extensively on apologetics. Their books do pose a challenge to the atheist, as a number of them have debated the New Atheists publicly.
“Christian hermeneutics is entirely a human subject – and no god needs to exist in order for one to interpret a way of living from a single book. The above authors spent a lot of time thinking about spirituality, but they were operating under the paradigm that a god exists. Thats a fundamental assumption that has absolutely no basis in reality. remove that assumption, and the rest is just clever human writing and thought.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to as far as Christian hermeneutics being an entirely human subject. My point was directed at anyone using the Bible to uphold an argument, or to support their lifestyle. People, like this individual in these videos, who are proclaiming scripture as the basis of their ideology, need to do a better job of studying the book they are quoting. The people who wrote the Bible had an intention for their work, a meaning that, most oftentimes, was not meant to be ambiguous. Not sure if I’m hitting on anything close to what you’re saying. Sorry…my bottom line is that hermeneutics and exegesis, using a commentary, and studying the original Greek and Hebrew is usually never about defending the Christian faith, but is most often about applying it in the way it was meant to be applied.
As for the writers I listed, I’m not sure you can say that all of them were working on the assumption that a God did exist whenever they were writing. I think one of Dostoevsky’s most famous quotes is, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” It would appear to me that these guys spent a lot of time pondering the world without God, the possibilities and consequences of a world without an all powerful, all knowing Being. I would also argue that these men have to operate within the arguments counter to their own in order to support their ideas. Several these men I listed, most especially the ones living, have had some interesting debates with the new atheists.
“No matter how long you ponder the bible, god, or anything, it doesn’t change the fact that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the christian god, or any god for that matter, ever existed. Furthermore, there is an amazing amount of data to suggest that god does not exist. ”
Your rhetoric suggests faith. The data “suggests” that God does not exist, but you’re not telling me that it’s proven anything. This is dangerous territory that I’m walking into, as I think George H. Smith would probably tell me the atheist has nothing to prove because their statements are negative: “i.e. it’s not that they believe there is no god, but that they do not believe there is not.” I’m not about to tell you that there is any evidence of God’s existence. There might be clues, I would say. For a list of these, please read Francis S. Collins’s book The Language of God. He is a devout Christian, devout evolutionist, head of the human genome project, who believes there are clues to suggest the work of a Creator.
“My point is, is that any atheist can reply to even the best well thought out argument for religion with “show me some evidence”. Abandon the god exists assumption, and all it is left is amazingly well constructed secular philosophy.”
You’re right. The atheist can do this. But in saying this, you’re disregarding the fact that everyone, in some way, operates in belief/faith. Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t have a ton of evidence that his theories are the truth.
I don’t think that anything I have to say here is going to change your thoughts on the matter. I don’t have that kind of power, nor would I want it. My point was that this guy in these videos is a moron (something Jeff and I agreed on), and that it is unfair for anyone to look at this man and say, “This is why I hate Christians. Morons like this.” His ideas don’t have an ounce of support from scripture. None. He is, in some ways, like the Rod Parsley’s and Pat Robertson’s of our world, only he likes drugs and alcohol. Though you guys may disagree with my faith in the God of the Bible, we should be able to agree that there is such a thing as bad interpretation of texts, and that these things are often no laughing matters, but quite dangerous if given enough power and sway.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
My response was riddled with errors. Sorry. Sheesh. A few corrections are in order:
-”poiny” should be “point”
-the George H. Smith bit was kind of messy, should have been: This is dangerous territory that I’m walking into, as I think George H. Smith would probably tell me the atheist has nothing to prove because their statements are negative: “i.e. it’s not that they believe there is no god, but that they do not believe there is.”
-I’m still not sure if last paragraph “matters” should be “matter.” Ah, well. You get the point.