Originally posted by divegeester
However i think what Kelly may be saying is that you have apparently pitched the awful situation as an arbitrary inference that Pentecostalism as a denomination of Christianity is bad, and that the people in that denomination are being homogenised and stereotyped by this generalisation.

And Kelly is countering this with "homogenised and stereotyped generalisations" about the cult/denomination. He/she - as has been the case in some debates about capitalism and free markets on another forum - seems to like to argue that 'a bad example of something is not an example of that thing'. And so the ugly reality of something is unhooked from the ideal, just like that. I have had four major brushes with pentacostalism in my life - all horrid, like this one is, albeit with different details and circumstances. The "good" examples pentacostalism I have come across have not disturbed others too much and what goes on in their heads is their business. Are we to say that pentcostalism that doesn't disturb others is real pentacostalism, and that pentacostalism that causes harm is not real pentacostalism? Is that how problems with how people with certain beliefs treat others can be airbrushed out of existence? With inept analogies about people watching TV? 😀

Originally posted by FMF
She is a pentacostal. She attributes all her decisions to what she describes as her direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. She cites the will of God, the will of Jesus and the will of the Holy Spirit at all times. She did not do this when she was a Catholic.

Her embrace of pentacostalism has, in her mind and in her deeds, e ...[text shortened]... als are the same. Is this your only line of defence for this particular pentacostal person?

Again, how does that relate to Pentecostalism? What specifically is it that
she is doing directly comes from being a Pentecostal? I've been asking that
over and over and yet you seem to shirk answering it! Being a Pentecostal
Baptist is different than being a non-Pentecostal Baptist so what exactly is
it about being a Pentecostal that is causing her to behave this way? You
have claimed over an over to have some experience in this, so can I except
an answer some time soon?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, how does that relate to Pentecostalism? What specifically is it that she is doing directly comes from being a Pentecostal? I've been asking that over and over and yet you seem to shirk answering it!

I have answered you more than once. Please read my posts again.

Originally posted by FMF
And Kelly is countering this with "homogenised and stereotyped generalisations" about the cult/denomination. He/she - as has been the case in some debates about capitalism and free markets on another forum - seems to like to argue that 'a bad example of something is not an example of that thing'. And so the ugly reality of something is unhooked from the ideal, j ...[text shortened]... ers can be airbrushed out of existence? With inept analogies about people watching TV? 😀

Both are true: A bad example of a thing IS a bad example of it. It is also true that an example does not constitute the whole; to infer that it does is called a generalisation unless supported by experience of the whole.

You have had 4 experiences with "Pentecostalism" which have provided you with sufficient evidence that the whole is of the same type. Kelly has other experiences to convince him otherwise. I have had lot of contact with people who are from the Pentecostal denomination, mostly good experiences but some less so, although none of the extreme you describe.

This mix of experience is normal I would think, given the denominational, cultural and indeed spiritual variation there is within the Christian religion. There have been a few people I've met over the years whom I'm happy not to have contact with again despite their claims at sharing the same god and spirit.

Originally posted by divegeester
You have had 4 experiences with "Pentecostalism" which have provided you with sufficient evidence that the whole is of the same type. Kelly has other experiences to convince him otherwise.

Then why doesn't Kelly mount some kind of defence of the pentacostalism he/she likes and approves of?

In my OP I asked: "Presumably no one here is going to defend Pentacostalism, right?"

Clearly this was slightly tongue in cheek, in an effort to stimulate a debate. And yet Kelly hasn't defended pentacostalism - except in as much as he/she has tried to deny that the woman in my story is a 'real' pentacostal - and to be strangely impervious to the fact that her actions and words are clearly rooted in her pentacostalism.

That's not a defence. It's a kind of evasion.

My hope in starting this debate was to provoke knowledgeable people into framing pentacostalism in a positive way so that I could perhaps better understand the predicament that my friends are in.

Instead, all I have got from some - to a degree, anyway - is a kind of denial.

Originally posted by FMF
Then why doesn't Kelly mount some kind of defence of the pentacostalism he/she likes and approves of?

In my OP I asked: "Presumably no one here is going to defend Pentacostalism, right?"

Clearly this was slightly tongue in cheek, in an effort to stimulate a debate. And yet Kelly hasn't defended pentacostalism - except in as much as he/she has tried to deny re in.

Instead, all I have got from some - to a degree, anyway - is a kind of denial.

Well its kinda like defending Catholism or Evangelicals etc. You have the good, bad, and ugly within each of them. Then what you wind up trying to defend are screw balls like the lady you identified. Then once you identify them you then assume that they are representative of the rest of them. It reminds me of when Michael Jackson converted to being a JW. I then asked someone who was a JW about the conversion and they denied that he was actually a "true JW". After all, who would want to claim him even if he really was one at one time. I think now he converted to Islam.

Originally posted by whodey
Well its kinda like defending Catholism or Evangelicals etc. You have the good, bad, and ugly within each of them. Then what you wind up trying to defend are screw balls like the lady you identified. Then once you identify them you then assume that they are representative of the rest of them. It reminds me of when Michael Jackson converted to being a JW. ...[text shortened]... d want to claim him even if he really was one at one time. I think now he converted to Islam.

More evasion. My question is very straight forward. Why can't I get a straight forward answer? 😀

Originally posted by FMF
More evasion. My question is very straight forward. Why can't I get a straight forward answer? 😀

If you think your very tragic but (in this thread at least) isolated incident constitutes a comprehensive condemnation of Pentecostalism which is worth putting up a defense against, then you may be expecting a long wait, because imo it doesn't. Your increasingly rantish demands for one are in danger of demeaning the genuinely sad anecdote you portrayed.

Originally posted by divegeester
If you think your very tragic but (in this thread at least) isolated incident constitutes a comprehensive condemnation of Pentecostalism which is worth putting up a defense against, then you may be expecting a long wait, because imo it doesn't. Your increasingly rantish demands for one are in danger of demeaning the genuinely sad anecdote you portrayed.

Well in the context of the suffering going on here, I don't think the disapproval of "divegeester" ranks very high. Sorry about that. RHP can make people feel a little more important than they really are, that's clear. Me inclided from time to time. No one has come forward to defend pentacostalism. There's only denial. And obfuscation. And now - with you - an attempt to turn it back on me: I am demeaning the real people involved with my er... "ranting". Sorry to have upset you. Perhaps that is the real cost: the discomfort this has caused you and Kelly. Stuff here in Yogya pales in the face of your distaste. "Isolated incident"? Oh nice, case dismissed. You characterize what I have said as a comprehensive condemnation of Pentecostalism: and yet I have never claimed anything of the sort. I have just asked for a defence of this cultish denomination. Yours is yet another post trying to diffuse this whole thing by either blaming the victims, discreditting the messenger (me) or just plain blah blah blah while the original question I posed in the OP goes unanswered.

Originally posted by FMF
Well in the context of the suffering going on here, I don't think the disapproval of "divegeester" ranks very high. Sorry about that. RHP can make people feel a little more important than they really are, that's clear. Me inclided from time to time. No one has come forward to defend pentacostalism. There's only denial. And obfuscation. And now - with you - an at ...[text shortened]... ust plain blah blah blah while the original question I posed in the OP goes unanswered.

You have not upset me at all. And I feel no discomfort.

I have shown no distaste and am not dismissing any case, i have been very supportive in this thread of your friends situation, and I still am, it's disgraceful.

I have NOT "characterized what you have said as a comprehensive condemnation of Pentecostalism", in fact I am claiming the opposite if you bother to read my post FMF.

How on earth is my last post trying to blame the victims?

There is only one person discrediting you here I’m afraid, and it isn't me.

I have in this thread, been supportive of your friend’s treatment but I simply don't agree with your arbitrary inference about general Pentecostalism. My disagreement of that argument is NOT an indication of defence of what happened to your friend’s, and your attempts to prove otherwise by accusing me of something indicates that you are looking to use this incident to pick a fight against Pentecostals - and by the way, I am not one.

I'm happy to discuss this distressing situation with you, but please don't twist my words again.

Originally posted by divegeester
I simply don't agree with your arbitrary inference about general Pentecostalism.

So you still don't want to answer the OP question?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, how does that relate to Pentecostalism? What specifically is it that she is doing directly comes from being a Pentecostal?

So you *are* infact a Pentacostal Cultist? Oh, that explains a lot about your stubbornness, your ignorance, your unableness to grasp science, your... for short: you!

I thought pretty well of Pentacostal before, if you except the wierd ones, but if you see yourself as a representatist of the Pentacostal Cultists, then I have to rethink my opinion of them, sorry, your friends in the Cult.

Originally posted by divegeester
you are looking to use this incident to pick a fight against Pentecostals

The penny has dropped! 🙂

I have never disguised the fact.

Indeed, my OP asks: Presumably no one here is going to defend Pentacostalism, right?

Couldn't be clearer.

And nobody has taken it upon themselves to defend it. Instead they have been trying to say things like 'the woman in the story is not a pentacostal' or 'what's her exit from the Catholic Church, her new direct relationship with God, her ecstatic fervour, and speaking in tongues, got to do with pentacostalism?'

Originally posted by FMF
The penny has dropped! 🙂

I have never disguised the fact.

Indeed, my OP asks: Presumably no one here is going to defend Pentacostalism, right?

Couldn't be clearer.

And nobody has taken it upon themselves to defend it. Instead they have been trying to say things like 'the woman in the story is not a pentacostal' or 'what's her exit from the Catholic ...[text shortened]... p with God, her ecstatic fervour, and speaking in tongues, got to do with pentacostalism?'

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a trick question! I thought you were looking for reasoned debate but instead you want a tennis match.

Ok I'll make a defence of it:

Pentecostalism takes its name from the day of Pentecost which was the first date of the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts of the Apostles. The contemporary movement has its roots around the start of the 20th century. It is an excellent denomination of the Christian church. I have known literally hundreds of people who have had their lives wonderfully transformed by an experience with Jesus whilst being in this movement and i have seen no harm whatsoever in people expressing themselves spiritually through various manifestations of Pentecostal behaviour such as speaking in tongues etc.

Happy now? Good debate isn't it.

Originally posted by divegeester
Sorry, I didn't realise it was a trick question!

"Presumably no one here is going to defend Pentacostalism, right?" is not a trick question. What are you on about?

It is an excellent denomination of the Christian church. I have known literally hundreds of people who have had their lives wonderfully transformed by an experience with Jesus whilst being in this movement and i have seen no harm whatsoever in people expressing themselves spiritually through various manifestations of Pentecostal behaviour such as speaking in tongues etc.

It sounds completely ghastly - not to mention sad - that people's lives might have come to this. The "speaking in tongues" thing in particular is woeful. Utterly woeful.

But I am in favour of freedom of speech, action and thought.