You discerned with your natural mind and eyes. The strawman argument is one built upon "my gift is greater than yours" when in fact its so easy to scream demons at something you don't understand. What I find interesting that in Christs day He was accused of the same thing because the religious of His day were not experiencing and walking in the same power.
It would seem to me, that you are more quick to believe in demons over the demonstration of God's power in a way that you two have never seen before.
How does your "discernment" stand in light that your quicker to believe in demons and a make believe kudalini spirit that has absolutely no biblical basis at all other than the fact that it tickled your itchy ears?
Please read this in light of pure simple logic and love. It is my desire for you to know God's love in such an intoxicating bliss. A peace that transcends all understanding, day in and day out.
Hard to address such issues without feeling attacked. I again bring up that because in the natural your mind did not agree with what you saw and yet none of brought up what Crowder actually believes. And if you do your research leave the biased efforts of the heretic hunters who have betrayed their first love for another gospel.
Never forget, people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Very basic principle in assuming the best vs assuming the worst.
You seem to have misunderstood what the term straw man means.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
In layman's terms that means that you are arguing with yourself , not with me. You fill in my position for me and then refute my supposed position which you created.
I never said anything about a Kudalini spirit one way or the other.
I have actually given you very little info to go on concerning me. You have not asked , but rather assumed.
I told you that both my wife and I spiritually discerned demons on Crowder. You changed that into some sort of fleshy closed mindedness.
I also told you that I dug deeper and watched more than just this one video. You changed that into me taking what Crowder said out of context and judging based on superficial and misleading info.
I also explained why I used the video that I did in the opening post and said I was fine with someone posting a better video if they had one. I did not indicate my position on the person who made the you tube video. It was simply used for informational purposes.
Like I said earlier. I enjoy the fact that a diversity of posts are being made on this thread. I am not offended at your assumptions , but you are barking up the wrong tree with these random fishing expeditions as to what my motives and thought processes could possibly be.
I could post a dozen videos and we could argue about the details. But I consider that to be strife at that point. I intentionally do not keep posting more and more evidence for a people who have already made up their mind.. I believe I made my point and this is not a subtle one. A person needs to be fully persuaded in their own mind and act accordingly.
Or to put it another way. You can lead a horse to water , but you cannot make the horse drink. I am certainly not going to get into a wrestling match with the horse...
Crowder has a public ministry that anyone is free to check out as thoroughly as they feel the need to. His strange behavior on the video is not an isolated instance taken out of context. In fact , it is one of the main teachings of his ministry. Namely to act high. To inject imaginary needles into his veins , pretend to smoke drugs , snort drugs , etc.
It is his schtick. His gimmick to get attention. Of course he has a message that he works in there once he has people's attention. I noticed that he plays the crowd like Jay Leno does. When Jay Leno has a joke that bombs during his routine , he will re-tell one of the successful jokes from earlier in the routine. Whenever something falls flat with the crowd , Crowder uses his drug high routine to reel the crowd back in. It's called working a crowd. People in show biz receive training to do that. Of course his followers will claim that God knows how to work a crowd and is leading him this way. Either way , he works the crowd. I find the way that he does it immature at best and blasphemous , at worst. Combining that with the red flags that I discerned , that is enough for me.
Meaning of schtick.
A shtick (Yiddish: שטיק
(or schtick) is a comic theme or gimmick. "Shtick" is derived from the Yiddish word shtik (שטיק
, meaning "piece"; the closely related German word Stück has the same meaning. The English word "piece" itself is also sometimes used in a similar context. Another variant is "bits of business" or just "bits"; comic mannerisms such as Laurel and Hardy's fiddling with their ties, or one of them looking into the camera shaking his head while the other one would ramble on. A shtick can also refer to an adopted persona, usually for comedy performances, that is maintained consistently (though not necessarily exclusively) across the performer's career. In this usage, the recurring personalities adopted by Laurel and Hardy through all of their many comedy films (despite the fact that they often played characters with different names and professions) would qualify as their shtick. A comedian might maintain several different shticks of this sort, particularly if they appear in a variety show that encourages them to develop multiple characters, such as Saturday Night Live.
In common usage, the word shtick has also come to mean any talent, style, habit, or other eccentricity for which a person is particularly well-known, even if not intended for comedic purposes. For example, a person who is known locally for his or her ability to eat dozens of hot dogs quickly might say that it was their shtick.
Some of his messages are not so bad in and of them self. He seems to borrow a lot of his teachings from what is circulating in some circles. Nothing really that unique. I could find fault with some of it , if I choose to do so.
I read a lot and I recognize the seed of most of his teachings in other people's ministries. I assume he listens to them and then puts his own version of it out there.
His stories about being physically in two places at the same time are hard to believe. His testimony about running naked around town and getting put in the loony bin is weird. It's all part of his schtick.
He uses Shock value and drug high thing as his main claim to fame.
