Last week, ABC's Nightline aired a debate on the existence of Satan - and all the things that go along with that. Arguing for the Biblical position of the existence of the devil were Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle) and Annie Lobert (former prostitute and founder of Hookers for Jesus - not what it sounds like).
Arguing against the existence of Satan were Deepak Chopra (New-Age author of many popular books who dresses like a classic James Bond villain) and Bishop Carlton Pearson (former evangelical demon-caster-outer).
Here's a short YouTube clip:
One of the best lines came when Mark Driscoll said (as only Driscoll can say) that if people would have made up a religion and voted on it, they would have come up with something like a "salvation by eating chicken wings and napping". At least he said that is what he would have voted for.
You can watch the entire debate by clicking here. Scroll down and click on the video labeled "Driscoll Slams Pearson's Religious History" to see a great exchange.
4 comments:
Deepak sounds like "King Julian" in Madagascar. His logic (or lack thereof) is also comparable to that character, it seems. I don't know what his background is, but he almost sounds like a gnostic?
So, I'm taking it that the Bishop is definitely not a fundamentalist. No wonder people think Christianity and God's Word is irrelevant, hearing people like this Bishop. Piecemeal faith is random and when each person can pick and choose, nothing applies to anyone all the time anymore.
This debate makes so obvious that God's use of broken people is intentional. Aesthetically, the side of "Devil's existence" is less "slick" and more homespun? The side that says there is no Devil is so visually fashionable. That is so interesting.
I listened to what I could, but grew tired of the Bible being placed on trial (again). It seemed it was easier to sidestep and try to discount the Bible rather than argue with the concepts being laid out by it. I find that to be a cop-out response - actually debate the idea instead of debating the assumptions at the outset. Sigh.
Driscoll was thrilling - never backing down, even his body language shows no shame. I love it.
Here. This is what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUCENHqr7b4
See if that doesn't make you think "Deepak".
Salvation by eating wings and napping grabbed my attention !
Some of my favorite past-times.
Hey, Kristin - you're right about Deepak and his relation to King Julian. Haha!
Deepak is a New Age guru and gnosticism is the basis for the New Age Movement. Years ago someone noted that the New Age is essentially the Old Gnosticism.
I liked Driscoll in this debate - he combines good information with edgy humor - my kinda guy!
I thought Annie Lobert did fine, but she seemed to be in a little over her head. She mainly made her points through cliches and emotional appeals, but she also appeared to connect with the audience at times (the debate was recorded at Mars Hill Church, so Driscoll and Lobert did enjoy home-field advantage).
Post a Comment