Featured Magnets for A Mens Mind

Amen, amen, and amen! :thumbsup:

He achieved precisely the opposite of what he allegedly intended, though I have extreme doubts and misgivings regarding this sermon, given what I suspect were Martin's motivations for writing it.

Too much time online the week before?? Who knows?

But regardless of what the "Denizens of Doctrine" around here think, I agree 110% with you, Scarlett: Completely and totally beyond the pail of "out of line."

 

He preached the word of God. He didn't point out a specific person. He used the word to convict.

Kudos to him and any pastor who takes this sin to task head on.

 

How exactly does anyone on this board know what he achieved? Scripture says that God's word does not return void. Perhaps it achieved exactly what God had intended for it to achieve when He gave him the word to preach?

Or maybe too much time standing behind women at church with their yoga pants and skinny jeans ?

Well we can mark it down as two of ya being dead wrong. :laugh:

 

Make that three dead wrong posters

 

OK, didn't want to go into this, but from a professional aspect, the first thing I noted was his body language did not fit his words.

His message was supposed to be chastising. His body language was nothing but provocative and -- this is disgusting -- self-arousing.

As Scarlett said, the message was more titillating than it was effective. His caressing of his own body in "illustrating" his words was not indicative of chastisement, but it was as though he was reliving some fantasy.

That's entirely possible, but he announced through his non-verbal communication that he enjoyed it -- a lot.

Well, you can do that if you wish. I'll chalk it up to your own denial, how's that?

 

I figured some would start overanalyzing because that's what people do when they don't want to receive what was said. We start looking for ways to lessen the truth of the message.

This isn't intended to be an indictment of the way he stood or paused or changed the cadence of his speech. This is about what he said. Le's deal with THAT.

And how again does anyone on this board know that? Are you saying it was titillating to you? We have no idea what it was to his congregagtion unless EWF is hiding some more info he hasn't shared.

That's pure conjecture.

That he enjoyed what? Preaching the sermon? Giving illustrations? What part was he communicating his enjoyment for? His body movements told you all that?

That's fine. Did you see me hold down a key on my keyboard too long or something?

 

I've been resisting watching this sermon. But the comments in this thread are from folks I respect so I might have to tune in and form an opinion.

 

ITL please do watch it.

 

Oh, I'm sure you "figured" that, Zaac.

And it is not "overanalyzing." Anyone with a neutral perspective -- which is what I had when initializing the video -- who isn't struck by his non-verbal communication, or at least claims they are not, isn't being honest with themselves.

As it happens, I would receive a message on this subject that was delivered without titillation and self-arousal. We don't have this as a major problem in my church, as someone suggested might be the case earlier in the thread. I mentioned the rare occasion it happens, and my reaction to it, if you'd care to review. And if you do, you will see your accusation here is unfounded.

I'm aware that some in other churches feel it is a problem. I haven't been to them to know whether I would view it as a problem or not. I do know, however, as a professional in the field of mental health, that Martin was not consistent in his verbal and non-verbal messages on that video. You can accept that or not, makes no difference to me.

Sorry, Zaac, but it doesn't work that way. Verbal and non-verbal communication must match up, or the message is undermined, and judgment as to its genuineness must be made. Ever had a four-year-old? Ever asked him/her if he's seen the last chocolate chip cookie? Did you believe him/her when he/she looked at the floor, shuffled his/her feet and stuttered and stammered out a denial?

Same thing. Non-verbal communication is 70% of every message we give. Martin wasn't being honest about his concerns, nor his own motivation for giving this message, and when such dishonesty and subterfuge is detected, it leaves the message in question.

We don't. I'm basing that opinion on the imbalance of verbal and non-verbal communication. Martin was certainly titillated by his own message. That's obvious to me, and I'm sure it is obvious to others with some level of experience in non-verbal communication. Scarlett's a teacher. I know she has that experience.

No, as I just said, that's analysis based on knowledge. Anyone who has that knowledge can arrive at the same conclusion I did. I was being polite in avoiding insult to the man and to those who admire him, but the denial on this thread is in itself disingenuous. I'm sure several, including those who admire the guy, are actually uncomfortable with how he presented it. They just don't want to admit it, given the implications.

The illustratory portion, the body caressing, whatever you want to call it.

Absolutely.

No. It is the vociferousness of your defense. :laugh: Just kidding.

 

You can roll em back into your head. You're as sure about what you know about me as you are about what those folks were feeling after hearing his sermon. :laugh:

Perhaps you're focusing too much on his body instead of his words?

Umm what you mentioned about your church has nothing to do with what he said. So why would I need to review that comment?

I'm sorry for you because not everyone is a mental health professional. I don't know too many Christians who go to church trying to see if the pastor's body language is matching up with his words. The only time I ever hear of anyone doing that is if they already have a bias based upon what they've been told. Most Christians go to church and listen to the preacher preach. We don't start looking for tell-tale signs of something else until we stop listening to the words being preached.

A four year old looking for a cookie wasn't preaching that sermon.

Nothing but conjecture again.

You're right. A lot of us have that experience. But how do you know what he was titillated by if he was at all titillated? I know a lot of pastors who get quite titillated by the preaching of the word that God has given them. And I'm NOT speaking of a sexual titillation.

Again, mere conjecture . Knowledge doesn't equate to truth. You're surmising and trying to make that equal to the truth in order to take away from what the man preached. That ain't cool. That's manipulative.

That may well be the case. I again, didn't see anything wrong with his presentation.

Overreaching with the whole body caressing bit.

 

thisnumbersdisconnected;

?

Your un godly speculation is without biblical warrant;
here is more of your nonsense;

You are way too full of yourself....[you know he was dis-honest..yeah right...]
keep your pop psychology babble to yourself and not inflict it on us to disparage a man of God.

 

Whether you realize it or not, so do you, with everyone you speak with personally.

I believe I made that clear in my reply to that particular comment.

Everyone does, Zaac. You don't realize it, but everyone does. And everyone notices when body language and verbal message don't match up. Some read more into it than others, some are subconsciously affected by it to a greater degree than others, but everyone does.

That's totally bogus, a made-up excuse to reject what I've said. Unworthy of you, Zaac.

Of course we don't -- until the verbal and non-verbal communications don't match up. Then, to lesser or greater degrees, bells and whistles go off in our minds. Some of us choose to ignore them. Most prefer to explore what's upsetting their ability to hear the message.

Logical fallacy, Zaac. you know why the four-year-old and the cookie illustration was used.

That's just plain bogus, and I suspect you are well aware of it.

I believe you are well aware that what I've said is true, and likely also know that it applies to this display by Martin.

By caressing their own body in very provocative ways so as to "illustrate" a sermon on indecent dress? Really? I don't believe there are any pastors out there that would use this kind of non-verbal communication in such a sermon. It is obvious what he felt, and I believe just about anyone with objectivity would agree.

On the contrary, non-verbal communication is part of every single communication we all take in, though most aren't aware of it. It isn't manipulative, it is a measure of truth, genuineness, and veracity. It tells us if the speaker is trustworthy. There's no "conjecture" about it. It is part of everything we take in.

You may not be one who is aware of non-verbal communication, but I assure you, it is an effective measure of a person's message, its value and its veracity.

Not really. It is non-verbal communication that does not fit the verbal message. View it again. True to be objective about it.

 

He said "pop psychology babble" lol

 

Just like Martin's disgusting, self-caressing display has no biblical basis?

I've received rejections like that one before. Mostly from addicts confronted with their addiction who didn't like what they heard. Hm ...

 

I took a beating a few years ago, right here on the ole' B.B., for using the "stumbling block" verses to support my view that women shouldn't nurse their babies in the pews.

I was actually told it was the problem of the tempted, offended, and just plain old weirded out.

 

You're not telling me anything I don't know. I didn't say we don't do it. I said perhaps you're doing it too much.

Again, I know folks watch body language. I didn't say otherwise. I just tend to believe on this issue you're trying to equate what you think his reasons are for doing something with the actual reasons that you couldn't possibly know.

TND, I'm well aware that people do this all the time. I'm just saying you can't no for sure why it's not matching up if it isn't. You've implied that he was aroused by what he was talking about and that it caused the congregagtion to focus on the very things he mentioned when you can't know that.

I have a pretty good idea for why you think it was used.

Again, perhaps he shouldn't have chosen certain body movements.

But it is impossible for you to know what he felt short of him ripping off his clothes and standing before the congregation with body parts excited as he talked. I saw nothing lewd or vulgar in his behavior.

 

Must have been before I got here because I think that's how feminism in a lot of regards has taught women to respond.

The women feel as though they bear none of the responsibility for a guy lusting. They feel as though they should be able to wear and act any way they want and if the guy responds in a less than GODLY manner, that's on him.

Very few want to believe that BIBLICALLY it's also on the woman. There is absolutely no reason for a woman to be nursing a baby in church in the pews.

And there is no reason for women to be dressing the way they do at church and then getting upset because the pastor speaks to it.

 

How can one do it "too much" when one observes that the verbal and non-verbal communication does not match up? It is a red flag.

Again, from a professional viewpoint -- and I don't really care if there are those on here who don't want input from a professional viewpoint -- it is obvious to me that the self-caressing display borders on self-arousal. I can only conclude -- and will admit there is room for error, but not much -- that he "touched himself" because the message excited him. How, I don't know. Perhaps preaching the message is what excited him. There is also the possibility that the subject matter is what excited him.

Another issue, and I haven't really touched on it, but it bears investigation. What Scarlett said is spot on: Every man who heard that message got up out of his pew and began looking around to see how many women were inappropriately dressed. I don't think that was Martin's objective, regardless of the reasons for his display.

"For sure," no. But I can make a very well-educated guess, and there really are only a couple possibilities.

Implied? No, I think I stated it pretty clearly, though not as a definitive, but as a conjecture. A strong one, for certain, but conjecture nonetheless.

I note you don't attempt to explain it, which is pretty disingenuous of you. You know it was used to prove the point of disparate messages conveyed simultaneously.

I'd say that's an understatement.

You think he was going to do a "happy dance" in front of the congregation? Unlikely. But there remains the fact that his movements, "touches" and gestures bordered on the boundaries of very inappropriate, which is unbecoming for a pastor, regardless of his message.