SA Pastor is Sex Freak

[Twisted_Dawg]

Rick Hawkins, who is the pastor at Family Praise Worship on Loop 410, got busted by WOAI-TV last night for soliciting sex with a bunch of single and married women that he was "counseling". I am not sure what is more sad....the harm he inflicted on all those women, or all those suckers (church members) that bought into his bullshit. Watch the video and see all those members jumping around like trained monkeys while he rails his venom.

As a sidebar, his newest "best friend", TV evangelist Paula White, who bought an expensive house in Boerne near Hawkins own house, was one of 5 national TV evangelist the Senate will investigate. Hawkins was recently divorced and White is getting divorced.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0767ec2f-2038-4acb-ba14-b66a8e619e05

[Phenomanul]

Don't judge the many by the actions of a few.

I could easily come in here and say that beer drinkers are, "the scum of the earth" to borrow a phrase from that other thread; and then proceed to link article after article of drunk drivers, party miscreants, thug misfits wreaking havoc on society.

While that may be the case for some people, it obviously would be a stereotypical generalization nonetheless.

[Holt's Cat]

I will judge televangelists/celebrity ministers a bit harshly because most of them have turned out to be all about glorifying themselves.

[Holt's Cat]

Is she (http://www.paulawhite.org/) running a ministry or angling to become the next Martha?

[Phenomanul]

I will judge televangelists/celebrity ministers a bit harshly because most of them have turned out to be all about glorifying themselves.


Really???

And just how did you come by those numbers?

[Holt's Cat]

Name me one who hasn't.

[peewee's lovechild]

Don't judge the many by the actions of a few.

I could easily come in here and say that beer drinkers are, "the scum of the earth" to borrow a phrase from that other thread; and then proceed to link article after article of drunk drivers, party miscreants, thug misfits wreaking havoc on society.

While that may be the case for some people, it obviously would be a stereotypical generalization nonetheless.

Since god has no need for human currency, I'll judge them all I want.

They lead a life of luxury while those who hold on to faith live in misery.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

http://www.maj.com/gallery/DanElHombre/smilies/popcorn.gif

[Phenomanul]

Name me one who hasn't.


Billy Graham.... and for that matter, his sons.

Enumerable singers who are also celebrities (Steve Green, Steven Curtis Chapman, Philips, Craig & Dean, MercyMe, Salvador, Chris Tomlin, Jeremy Camp, etc...)

My point stands however. Your comment was beyond stereotypical. All you are standing on is your opinion.

[Holt's Cat]

So yes, Billy Graham. He alone is why I wrote "most" and not all.

[Phenomanul]

Since god has no need for human currency, I'll judge them all I want.

They lead a life of luxury while those who hold on to faith live in misery.


And how exactly do you have access to their tax forms? And how many people are we talking about here?

They probably have donated a higher percentage of their income to selfless causes than you ever have in your entire llifetime. But don't let that little detail get in the way of your scorn.

And don't get me wrong, I don't particularly condone their lifestyles. But I also didn't lump them all together like you did.

Hatred is always more opinionated than it is practical; your comments embody this much.

[MoSpur]

Its so easy for people to judge another when something like this is exposed by the media.

[peewee's lovechild]

And how exactly do you have access to their tax forms? And how many people are we talking about here?

They probably donate a higher percentage of their income to selfless causes than you ever have in your llifetime. But don't let that little detail get in the way of your scorn.

And don't get me wrong, I don't particularly condone their lifestyles. But I also didn't lump them all together like you did.

Hatred is always more opinionated than it is practical.

I'm sorry.
I wasn't aware that Jesus Christ wore that latest in fashion trends and lived in a 50 room mansion.

I must've gotten a bible with all that stuff written out of it.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm sorry but I didn't see anyone judging anyone until Pheno chimmed and started in with the whole "don't judge them all" bit. It was a breaking story where exactly was the judging?

[MoSpur]

I'm sorry but I didn't see anyone judging anyone until Pheno chimmed and started in with the whole "don't judge them all" bit. It was a breaking story where exactly was the judging?

The story was not based on facts. They're allegations. Nothing was proven to be exact. Read what the person who started the thread wrote. That sounds like judging to me.

[Phenomanul]

I'm sorry.
I wasn't aware that Jesus Christ wore that latest in fashion trends and lived in a 50 room mansion.

I must've gotten a bible with all that stuff written out of it.


Continue to ignore the point I'm trying to make. Sarcasm really works for you.

And nevermind the fact that I've agreed with you on the crux of the argument.




We understand your hate. Just don't expect us to buy into your rabid generalizations.

[Phenomanul]

I'm sorry but I didn't see anyone judging anyone until Pheno chimmed and started in with the whole "don't judge them all" bit. It was a breaking story where exactly was the judging?


This goes back to the "attack on Christians" topic started in that other thread. Otherwise why even start the thread? Try to keep up.

Obviously there are some rotten apples. That doesn't suggest that all apples are rotten.

[Phenomanul]

I'm out. I have to get back to work.

[BacktoBasics]

The story was not based on facts. They're allegations. Nothing was proven to be exact. Read what the person who started the thread wrote. That sounds like judging to me.
Sounded more like an extension of the article. I get it though, people can go through this world wrecking havoc on peoples lives and its all subjective to a jury's opinion before we are allowed to point fingers.

[peewee's lovechild]

Continue to ignore the point I'm trying to make. Sarcasm really works for you.

And nevermind the fact that I've agreed with you on the crux of the argument.




We understand your hate. Just don't expect us to buy into your rabid generalizations.

What's your point?
Not all televangelists are bad??

Good point.

My point was that Jesus Christ would never have done any of this. He never would have asked for people to give him money. He never would have lived a comfortable life at the expense of others. He never would have lived like these televangelists . . . ever.

If you defend them, then you don't understand what chrisitanity is.

[BacktoBasics]

I have a hard time respecting someone who demands my excellence and part of my income only to hop in their Lambo and cruise over to the Dominion for a relaxing round of golf.

[ploto]

Jesus judged the Pharisees the hardest of all- the religious leaders who were hypocrits.

[MoSpur]

Sounded more like an extension of the article. I get it though, people can go through this world wrecking havoc on peoples lives and its all subjective to a jury's opinion before we are allowed to point fingers.

People can base judgement based on this story if they want. I choose not to do so because I don't think its right to. The news story was based on a woman telling her side of the story and some other email or something like that. However, the allegations haven't been proven.

[peewee's lovechild]

Jesus judged the Pharisees the hardest of all- the religious leaders who were hypocrits.

True that.

And, he also destroyed the stands of all the vendors who made their business outside the Temple.

These televangelists put them all to shame.

[2centsworth]

Phenomanul owning fools in this thread.

btw, some TV evangelist make my skin crawl.

[E20]

I saw his sermon and I'm pretty sure that if Jesus were to see how this sermon is conducted he would laugh his ass off. :lmao Looked a cross between Jerry Springer and the Price is Right.

Also, the lady being interviewed had a Dennis Rodman voice, what is this guy doing hitting on women with a man voice? :lmao

[ploto]

People can base judgement based on this story if they want. I choose not to do so because I don't think its right to. The news story was based on a woman telling her side of the story and some other email or something like that. However, the allegations haven't been proven.
There is more in that story than one woman's story and an-email.



A woman who says she was victimized by Hawkins sexual advances asked us not to reveal who she is.

We've confirmed Hawkins had several extramarital affairs before he and his wife divorced last February.

One of his affairs recently caused the break up of a marriage between two of his church employees.

A former book keeper even left the church in protest over those payments.

We also uncovered another one of Hawkins indiscretions, again with another married member of his congregation.

In an e-mail, the husband of that woman confirms the incident.

[BacktoBasics]

We've confirmed Hawkins had several extramarital affairs before he and his wife divorced last February.

Would that be considered an opinion?

[MoSpur]

There is more in that story than one woman's story and an-email.

They state they confirmed, but none of the confirmations were reported on the story.

[BacktoBasics]

They state they confirmed, but none of the confirmations were reported on the story.There may be a reason to hold back info, like privacy and so forth.

Orrrrrrrrrr the glove didn't fit :rolleyes

[td4mvp21]

That is pretty damn sad. Don't preach to people and then go off and do the opposite. I hate people like that.

[MoSpur]

Would that be considered an opinion?

If it was actually confirmed, then no. Who did they confirm that with though? They didn't say who they confirmed their allegations with.

I am not here to defend this pastor. All I am saying is that the story in my opinion seems to be one-sided. If it turns out to be true, it would be very sad. If it turns out to be false it will still be very sad. I just believe that it isn't right for me to judge someone. I believe that God is the only one who can judge.

[peewee's lovechild]

If it was actually confirmed, then no. Who did they confirm that with though? They didn't say who they confirmed their allegations with.

I am not here to defend this pastor. All I am saying is that the story in my opinion seems to be one-sided. If it turns out to be true, it would be very sad. If it turns out to be false it will still be very sad. I just believe that it isn't right for me to judge someone. I believe that God is the only one who can judge.

I wonder if you felt this same way about the allegations directed towards Ted Haggard.

[MoSpur]

What happened when I started a thread in here about a fellow poster under the name Batman got shot?

People started going off as to why he got shot based on what KENS had reported. KENS reported what the police had told them.

However, according to Batman not all of what was reported was true. However, people felt free to judge Batman and his friends based on what was reported.

Ask Batman if that's fair.

[MoSpur]

I wonder if you felt this same way about the allegations directed towards Ted Haggard.

To be honest, I don't know who he is.

[peewee's lovechild]

To be honest, I don't know who he is.

:wtf

A famous pastor who the everyone regarded as being this great guy and even had access to the White House because of his religiosity.

He got caught banging a tranny and doing meth.

[MoSpur]

:wtf

A famous pastor who the everyone regarded as being this great guy and even had access to the White House because of his religiosity.

He got caught banging a tranny and doing meth.

Honestly, I never heard of that.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

"Let us now sing the opening hymn..."

"Bow-chicka-bow-wow."

[peewee's lovechild]

"Let us now sing the opening hymn..."

"Bow-chicka-bow-wow."

It gives a whole new meaning to the snake tempting Eve.

But, it all makes sense somehow.

[Sunshine]

Rick Hawkins, who is the pastor at Family Praise Worship on Loop 410, got busted by WOAI-TV last night for soliciting sex with a bunch of single and married women that he was "counseling". I am not sure what is more sad....the harm he inflicted on all those women, or all those suckers (church members) that bought into his bullshit. Watch the video and see all those members jumping around like trained monkeys while he rails his venom.

As a sidebar, his newest "best friend", TV evangelist Paula White, who bought an expensive house in Boerne near Hawkins own house, was one of 5 national TV evangelist the Senate will investigate. Hawkins was recently divorced and White is getting divorced.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0767ec2f-2038-4acb-ba14-b66a8e619e05


I wonder when he and Paula will be tying the knot?

[Twisted_Dawg]

I wonder when he and Paula will be tying the knot?

I am sure after that story broke yesterday she has deleted him from her Fav Five.

[Twisted_Dawg]

This goes back to the "attack on Christians" topic started in that other thread. Otherwise why even start the thread? Try to keep up.

Obviously there are some rotten apples. That doesn't suggest that all apples are rotten.

Have you ever thought that the "attack on Christians" starts with those that
lie about and bend the message of Christ to serve their own needs and interests?

[Twisted_Dawg]

If it was actually confirmed, then no. Who did they confirm that with though? They didn't say who they confirmed their allegations with.

I am not here to defend this pastor. All I am saying is that the story in my opinion seems to be one-sided. If it turns out to be true, it would be very sad. If it turns out to be false it will still be very sad. I just believe that it isn't right for me to judge someone. I believe that God is the only one who can judge.

Where you by chance one of those members of Hawkin's church shown on the video jumping up and down, lying on the ground and speaking in tongues?

Get a reality check: Hawkins is a S-N-A-K-E.

[Twisted_Dawg]

I will judge televangelists/celebrity ministers a bit harshly because most of them have turned out to be all about glorifying themselves.

...not to mention making millions selling books, CD & DVD sets which lead to wealth, success and happiness. And throw in some "love offerings"....it's all good!

[Phenomanul]

Have you ever thought that the "attack on Christians" starts with those that
lie about and bend the message of Christ to serve their own needs and interests?

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Again, you are generalizing. When did believing in GOD require one to be poor? Wasn't King Solomon the richest man in recorded history?

While the financial spectrum for Christians is all over the board (from very poor to very rich), there is no rule that dictates that GOD can't financially bless people. He blesses some much, and others less. If you think about about it, it's not that hard to figure out; if GOD blessed certain people with more than they could manage they then would lose their dependence on Him. Obviously, that's not something He would want. And while that may be the case for many, even that is not a rule.

Besides (for the second time) many of these people give away far more money, both percentage-wise and absolute value-wise than the majority of those that criticize them. It's a two way street.

So yes... while it is true that many early Christians gave away all their earthly possessions in pursuit of Christ's calling many seem to forget that it was other Christians who helped financially support them.

To each their own.

And again re-read the very first thing I wrote in this thread.



Don't judge the many by the actions of a few.

That point continues to be ignored.

[Sapphire]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Again, you are generalizing. When did believing in GOD require one to be poor? Wasn't King Solomon the richest man in recorded history?

While the financial spectrum for Christians is all over the board (from very poor to very rich), there is no rule that dictates that GOD can't financially bless people. He blesses some much, and others less. If you think about about it, it's not that hard to figure out; if GOD blessed certain people with more than they could manage they then would lose their dependence on Him. Obviously, that's not something He would want. And while that may be the case for many, even that is not a rule.

Besides (for the second time) many of these people give away far more money, both percentage-wise and absolute value-wise than the majority of those that criticize them. It's a two way street.

So yes... while it is true that many early Christians gave away all their earthly possessions in pursuit of Christ's calling many seem to forget that it was other Christians who helped financially support them.

To each their own.

And again re-read the very first thing I wrote in this thread.



That point continues to be ignored.
What I have a problem with is these "blessings". It's wonderful that God blessed my pastor with a $400K home in Stone Oak, however, I don't understand why, as a pastor, he feels the need to live in a $400K home in Stone Oak. Especially when just this past weekend we had our Missions Conference, where some of the missionaries, who are dirt poor, shared the stage with our pastor. I just think it's very hypocritical to stand side by side with them in "support" when after the service you are going to your palace, and they are going back to Mexico, where they live in basically a hut, to spread the Gospel.

[Holt's Cat]

What I have a problem with is these "blessings". It's wonderful that God blessed my pastor with a $400K home in Stone Oak, however, I don't understand why, as a pastor, he feels the need to live in a $400K home in Stone Oak. Especially when just this past weekend we had our Missions Conference, where some of the missionaries, who are dirt poor, shared the stage with our pastor. I just think it's very hypocritical to stand side by side with them in "support" when after the service you are going to your palace, and they are going back to Mexico, where they live in basically a hut, to spread the Gospel.

Amen.

[peewee's lovechild]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Again, you are generalizing. When did believing in GOD require one to be poor? Wasn't King Solomon the richest man in recorded history?

While the financial spectrum for Christians is all over the board (from very poor to very rich), there is no rule that dictates that GOD can't financially bless people. He blesses some much, and others less. If you think about about it, it's not that hard to figure out; if GOD blessed certain people with more than they could manage they then would lose their dependence on Him. Obviously, that's not something He would want. And while that may be the case for many, even that is not a rule.

Besides (for the second time) many of these people give away far more money, both percentage-wise and absolute value-wise than the majority of those that criticize them. It's a two way street.

So yes... while it is true that many early Christians gave away all their earthly possessions in pursuit of Christ's calling many seem to forget that it was other Christians who helped financially support them.

To each their own.

And again re-read the very first thing I wrote in this thread.



That point continues to be ignored.


Retard, King Solomon was a Jew. He wasn't Christian. He didn't follow the teachings of Christ. And, he also became a huge disappointment to god.

You've just shown how stupid and clueless you are.

Stop posting.
Seriously.

[Melmart1]

Besides (for the second time) many of these people give away far more money, both percentage-wise and absolute value-wise than the majority of those that criticize them.



And how exactly do you have access to their tax forms?

[Phenomanul]

What I have a problem with is these "blessings". It's wonderful that God blessed my pastor with a $400K home in Stone Oak, however, I don't understand why, as a pastor, he feels the need to live in a $400K home in Stone Oak. Especially when just this past weekend we had our Missions Conference, where some of the missionaries, who are dirt poor, shared the stage with our pastor. I just think it's very hypocritical to stand side by side with them in "support" when after the service you are going to your palace, and they are going back to Mexico, where they live in basically a hut, to spread the Gospel.

My father is a Pastor. His annual salary is $16,000 per year. It is a meager sum and I therefore augment his salary with my own.

Again people; I agree that some of these people are living superfluous lives. I will however, staunchly object to peoples' tendency of lumping all ministers into one character pool just for the sake of attacking the Christian belief system. They masquerade their hate, and justify their aversion with a 'generalization'; which to me speaks volumes about their own intolerance.

[Phenomanul]

"is there a dichotomy in your statements Phenomanul?"

No,

The Baptist Convention of Texas puts out a report that itemizes the charitable donations of many churches, pastors and ministers.

Member churches receive said report annually.

I highly doubt other posters here were privy to said information.

[Phenomanul]

Retard, King Solomon was a Jew. He wasn't Christian. He didn't follow the teachings of Christ. And, he also became a huge disappointment to god.

You've just shown how stupid and clueless you are.

Stop posting.
Seriously.

That's an anachronistic descriptor not relavant to King Solomon.

JESUS was a Jew as well. And ummmm... He is also GOD.

Try to keep up buddy.

[tlongII]

Hopefully I will never argue with Phenomanul. He brings up many good points.

[Kriz-Maxima]

Agreed lets not generalize but lets not try to cover the sky with one figer either. to pretend that every pastor is a clean servant of god its not only naive but the main reason christianity its falling. How can people have faith in something containing corruption while christians fail to defend it by demanding purity of their leaders. Looking the other way will not make the problem go away.

.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Retard, King Solomon was a Jew. He wasn't Christian. He didn't follow the teachings of Christ. And, he also became a huge disappointment to god.

You've just shown how stupid and clueless you are.

Stop posting.
Seriously.

King Solomon did like to ball. He had 700 wives and 700 concubines (sex servants). That's a lot of sex for one man to handle in a lifetime.

[peewee's lovechild]

That's an anachronistic descriptor not relavant to King Solomon.

JESUS was a Jew as well. And ummmm... He is also GOD.

Try to keep up buddy.

Ummmmm, idiot, you're trying to make a point about Solomon being rich.

That's right, but he wasn't around when Jesus set forth his ministry.
So, your point is idiotic.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but he opened up salvation for gentiles . . . you might have not known that little bit of info.

And, for your information, Jesus is the son of god, not God himself.
You know, that guy that God sent to Earth to be sacrificed.

[Sapphire]

My father is a Pastor. His annual salary is $16,000 per year. It is a meager sum and I therefore augment his salary with my own.

Again people; I agree that some of these people are living superfluous lives. I will however, staunchly object to peoples' tendency of lumping all ministers into one character pool just for the sake of attacking the Christian belief system. They masquerade their hate, and justify their aversion with a 'generalization'; which to me speaks volumes about their own intolerance.

I mean no disrespect to all pastors. We are actively searching for a new church because of this--our pastor even says that it shouldn't be about him, but about Christ (referring to whether people attend that church or not). In other words, even if we don't like the pastor, we should attend simply because his messages are completely bible-based. I guess I just have a hard time with people living these lavish lifestyles "in Jesus' name." I don't think He hung on the cross so they could join the country club, wear designer clothing, own 2 homes, etc, and then get up in front of everyone on Sunday and act humble. And not only act humble, but encourage others to reflect on their own lives and feel guilty about not tithing. I'm sure your father is an honorable man--does he preach locally?

[peewee's lovechild]

King Solomon did like to ball. He had 700 wives and 700 concubines (sex servants). That's a lot of sex for one man to handle in a lifetime.

But, that's okay in phenomanul's world.

Apparently, King Solomon could do no wrong.

So, I guess phenomanul's okay with ministers having a fuck fest every once in a while because . . . hey, he was King Solomon.

[Sapphire]

Christianity 101. Jesus=God

[peewee's lovechild]

Christianity 101. Jesus=God

So, who was governing heaven while he was busy getting killed?

That's not Christianity 101, that's just a perverted christian doctrine.

[Sapphire]

So, who was governing heaven while he was busy getting killed?

That's not Christianity 101, that's just a perverted christian doctrine.
Oh OK, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Phenomanul]

But, that's okay in phenomanul's world.

Apparently, King Solomon could do no wrong.

So, I guess phenomanul's okay with ministers having a fuck fest every once in a while because . . . hey, he was King Solomon.


There you go... another generalization... maybe the problem is your tendency to jump to conclusions.

BTW... just so you know... there was a subtle purpose that would explain why GOD allowed Solomon, and for that matter David, to have many wives.

GOD allowed Solomon to acrue excess in everything so that people would know that true happiness could only be found in HIM; not in 1000+ women, not in insurmountable wealth, not in incredible wisdom etc.... only in HIM. Solomon stated this much in his writings. But don't let that lesson go unnoticed.

[Phenomanul]

Agreed lets not generalize but lets not try to cover the sky with one figer either. to pretend that every pastor is a clean servant of god its not only naive but the main reason christianity its falling. How can people have faith in something containing corruption while christians fail to defend it by demanding purity of their leaders. Looking the other way will not make the problem go away.

.


How is that any different from what I've been saying?

[Phenomanul]

I mean no disrespect to all pastors. We are actively searching for a new church because of this--our pastor even says that it shouldn't be about him, but about Christ (referring to whether people attend that church or not). In other words, even if we don't like the pastor, we should attend simply because his messages are completely bible-based. I guess I just have a hard time with people living these lavish lifestyles "in Jesus' name." I don't think He hung on the cross so they could join the country club, wear designer clothing, own 2 homes, etc, and then get up in front of everyone on Sunday and act humble. And not only act humble, but encourage others to reflect on their own lives and feel guilty about not tithing. I'm sure your father is an honorable man--does he preach locally?

Fair enough... like I said, the negative light certainly does apply to many ministers, and Hawkins may very well be one of them.... Only GOD truly knows.

My father has been a Pastor in a small town outside of Corpus for the past 10 years. He supported a family of 5 on that salary for several years... we never needed anything. GOD always provided.

[ShoogarBear]

Y'know, I have no specific problem with rich Christians.

It's the idea of getting rich by being a professional Christian that is extremely troubling.

[Phenomanul]

This is not an I win, you lose, or an I lose, you win sort of argument. I'm not trying to convert you to Christianity, make you like it or even agree with it.

Simply admit that all you are standing on with regards to your latest bashings are nothing but hate-driven opinions. Also, that you are making lame generalizations that won't stick simply because they may be true for some people.

[Phenomanul]

Y'know, I have no specific problem with rich Christians.

It's the idea of getting rich by being a professional Christian that is extremely troubling.


That may be a valid concern. But many of them also write books. Christian authors should be entitled to their earnings just like any other author...

[ShoogarBear]

That may be a valid concern. But many of them also write books. Christian authors should be entitled to their earnings just like any other author...They're certainly entitled to make a good lviing, but getting wealthy off their professed faith? Don't buy that.

[peewee's lovechild]

That may be a valid concern. But many of them also write books. Christian authors should be entitled to their earnings just like any other author...

The merchants at the Temple were simply making a living and yet Jesus basically beat the shit out of them.

I'm not sure you truly understand what it means to be a true christian.

[Phenomanul]

The merchants at the Temple were simply making a living and yet Jesus basically beat the shit out of them.

I'm not sure you truly understand what it means to be a true christian.


They were stealing. Big difference.

Try again.

[peewee's lovechild]

They were stealing. Big difference.

Try again.

Asking to poor, elderly, and the desperate to give you money for doing absolutely nothing isn't stealing.

I don't remember Jesus Christ asking the masses to give him money.

There is no difference.

Try again.

[CubanMustGo]

The merchants at the Temple were simply making a living and yet Jesus basically beat the shit out of them.

I'm not sure you truly understand what it means to be a true christian.

Agree. Not to mention this:

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:24)

Apparently a lot of those televangelists, etc. leading the rich man's lifestyle either don't read their Bibles or don't care.

[Phenomanul]

Agree. Not to mention this:

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:24)

Apparently a lot of those televangelists, etc. leading the rich man's lifestyle either don't read their Bibles or don't care.

Or you are not fully understanding the context of the verse.

[Phenomanul]

Asking to poor, elderly, and the desperate to give you money for doing absolutely nothing isn't stealing.

I don't remember Jesus Christ asking the masses to give him money.

There is no difference.

Try again.


Wait... weren't you talking about the people that Jesus chastised outside the temple?

Don't try and back off from your initial analogy.

If there were a backpeddaling emoticon... this would be the appropriate time to use it.

[CubanMustGo]

Or you are not fully understanding the context of the verse.

Well, sister, since you're willing to twist just about anything to make your point, I'll bow to your infinite wisdom and be content in my beliefs.

[Phenomanul]

Well, sister, since you're willing to twist just about anything to make your point, I'll bow to your infinite wisdom and be content in my beliefs.

How am I twisting logic?

A man came up to Jesus and asked what he must do to get into heaven.

Followed the first commandment? Check
Loved his neighbor as thyself? Check

OK... then sell everything you own and follow me.... Jesus says to him.

The man sadly turns away and goes home...

Jesus then says precisely what you wrote in your previous post.

That man valued his possessions more than GOD. It apparently occupied 1st place in his heart. That is what prevented him from gaining favor - when all is stripped bare... GOD doesn't like being placed in 2nd.

Hence in this particular example the object that was displacing GOD was the man's wealth. For others it may be their jobs, their families etc... It wasn't an absolute comment that described all wealthy people.

BTW... Didn't Jesus cast rich men in positive light as well? What about the parable of the rich man, who lent talents to his servants? Or what about the "Prodigal Son" wasn't the father wealthy?

[AlamoSpursFan]

King Solomon did like to ball. He had 700 wives and 700 concubines (sex servants). That's a lot of sex for one man to handle in a lifetime.

There's a reason why he had exactly as many sex servants as he had wives.

I'm just sayin'...

:lol

[AlamoSpursFan]

Loved his neighbor as thyself? Check


"The Bible says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'. What am I supposed to do? Jerk him off too?" -- Rodney Dangerfield

[Phenomanul]

They're certainly entitled to make a good lviing, but getting wealthy off their professed faith? Don't buy that.


Agreed... some do go overboard. But again they also give much. They'll be asked render counts with GOD when it's all said and done. To those that GOD gives much, much will He demand from them.


As far as ministers being 'paid' for their jobs; this has its roots in "Judaism". The tributes were stipulated by GOD himself during the establishment of His covenant with Israel. The Levites... the 'priesthood' tribe... were financially supported by the rest of the tribes of Israel through their tithes.

[Phenomanul]

There's a reason why he had exactly as many sex servants as he had wives.

I'm just sayin'...

:lol


He also had that many mother-in-laws... :dizzy

[Phenomanul]

I'm off to bed.

Peace.

[LuvBones]

Nice job, Phenonmanul. :) I enjoyed reading your posts.

[E20]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9n-GZPqNHYk
Looks similar to his sermon. LMAO Except Barker gets better bitches.

[peewee's lovechild]

Wait... weren't you talking about the people that Jesus chastised outside the temple?

Don't try and back off from your initial analogy.

If there were a backpeddaling emoticon... this would be the appropriate time to use it.

I did say that.

But, what's your point here?

I haven't backpeddaled one bit.

[Phenomanul]

I did say that.

But, what's your point here?

I haven't backpeddaled one bit.

No... then you are being confused by your own logic - which is a much better indicator that your argument is weak.

I said Christian authors were entitled to their earnings like any other author.

You said the merchants at the temple that Jesus threw out were also "making a living".

I said that unlike the authors (who receive earnings based on their book sales), those merchants were stealing. A point which shattered the premise of your analogy.

You then came back and tried to accuse ministers of stealing once more.
Asking to poor, elderly, and the desperate to give you money for doing absolutely nothing isn't stealing"
That you attempted to do so with:
1) A weak assessment of their role.
2) An opinion.
3) Yet another generalization.

Has defined your entire case up to this point. OBTUSE.

[peewee's lovechild]

No... then you are being confused by your own logic - which is a much better indicator that your argument is weak.

I said Christian authors were entitled to their earnings like any other author.

You said the merchants at the temple that Jesus threw out were also "making a living".

I said that unlike the authors (who receive earnings based on their book sales), those merchants were stealing. A point which shattered the premise of your analogy.

You then came back and tried to accuse ministers of stealing once more.
That you attempted to do so with:
1) A weak assessment of their role.
2) An opinion.
3) Yet another generalization.

Has defined your entire case up to this point. OBTUSE.

They are making money by using the name of Christ.

Did Jesus charge the multitude of people that came to hear him speak??

No, as a matter of fact, Jesus fed them.
Remember the loaves and fish??

So, you're saying that it's okay for them (Christian authors) to make money off of Jesus Christ. I'm saying that Jesus never charged people for his message.

Now, if these Christian authors were to donate all proceeds of their books, and retain no profit whatsoever, all in the cause to spread god's word, I'll have no problem whatsoever with that. But, the truth is that it doesn't work that way. They make millions in the name of Jesus Christ.

If you want to say that's right, that's your perogitive. But, it goes against what Jesus Christ stood for.

Preaching the word of god, spreading god's word as it were, is not about people living comfortable lives. Jesus' apostoles left very comfortable lives to suffer with him. Why is it that these televangelists, as well as other religious leaders, don't follow that same example?

And, why do you defend them?

[ploto]

My perspective is this-- it is the job of those within the faith to be the strongest opponents of those who are acting in this manner. What I mean is-- when 9/11 happened, I wanted to hear from Muslims the LOUDEST how wrong this was- how it was not what their religion teaches- that it was not representative of their faith. In the same way- I believe as a person of faith, I should be the loudest in opposition to what people are doing in the name of my faith. This is where people develop a problem- like in this thread when those within the faith become defensive instead of saying-- If this guy did this, it is awful and terrible and does not represent what we believe. Instead, it turns into defending Chrisitianity- when that is not even the issue. The issue is the behavior of some of the members of the clergy-- and believe me, as a Roman Catholic, I have dealt with this issue as well. I am appalled at the way the Church has handled allegations of sexual misconduct, and I am the FIRST to say it is wrong and damages my Church. I do not defend it. We all know there are ministers guilting people, especially old people, into sending money they barely have while they themselves live high and mighty. Anyone who defends this action is distorting the faith. And no one has declared in here that a minister of a small church is in any way behaving in the manner of these televangelists or mega-church ministers. I think most people in here respect those who genuinely live that life of service; the displeasure is with those who claim to but do not.

[peewee's lovechild]

My perspective is this-- it is the job of those within the faith to be the strongest opponents of those who are acting in this manner. What I mean is-- when 9/11 happened, I wanted to hear from Muslims the LOUDEST how wrong this was- how it was not what their religion teaches- that it was not representative of their faith. In the same way- I believe as a person of faith, I should be the loudest in opposition to what people are doing in the name of my faith. This is where people develop a problem- like in this thread when those within the faith become defensive instead of saying-- If this guy did this, it is awful and terrible and does not represent what we believe. Instead, it turns into defending Chrisitianity- when that is not even the issue. The issue is the behavior of some of the members of the clergy-- and believe me, as a Roman Catholic, I have dealt with this issue as well. I am appalled at the way the Church has handled allegations of sexual misconduct, and I am the FIRST to say it is wrong and damages my Church. I do not defend it. We all know there are ministers guilting people, especially old people, into sending money they barely have while they themselves live high and mighty. Anyone who defends this action is distorting the faith. And no one has declared in here that a minister of a small church is in any way behaving in the manner of these televangelists or mega-church ministers. I think most people in here respect those who genuinely live that life of service; the displeasure is with those who claim to but do not.

I agree with what you said, and I respect you for saying that.

My issues with religiosity have nothing to do with what televangelists are doing in god's name. This isn't an attack on the Christian faith, it's an attack on those that have raped it for their own purposes.

And, I find it unbelievable that a supposed Christian would defend their actions.

[lebomb]

Im not surprised one bit. I have no doubt he did all that is being said. I have experienced this stuff first hand. My Ex wife had an affair with a minister of another local church.....while the guy was married and preached as well. This pastor and preachers are human and will do the same sinful things anyone else will do. That is why you dont worship these fools. You should only look to god.......not pastors. These men "SHOULD" and will be held accountable for leading their flock astray by not living what they preach. How can anyone respect these men?

I myself have personally been turned away from the church as a whole......I am a Christian and do love god, but I trust NO ONE any more.

[Holt's Cat]

Besides enriching themselves through their "ministries" most of these hucksters promote a bastardized version of the Gospel. Accepting Christ is not about enriching yourself and/or having an easier life here on Earth.

[tlongII]

Evolution.

[BacktoBasics]

Apparently we are all in the wrong profession. Ministry gets you laid, I'm gonna make the switch.

[peewee's lovechild]

Apparently we are all in the wrong profession. Ministry gets you laid, I'm gonna make the switch.

No shit, and it gives you an ass load of cash to boot.

I can do with wearing a white collar all day.

[lebomb]

Apparently we are all in the wrong profession. Ministry gets you laid and wealthy, I'm gonna make the switch.

Fixed

[CuckingFunt]

Every time I see this thread, I read the title as "ST Poster is Sex Freak."

/thread jack

[Phenomanul]

I agree with what you said, and I respect you for saying that.

My issues with religiosity have nothing to do with what televangelists are doing in god's name. This isn't an attack on the Christian faith, it's an attack on those that have raped it for their own purposes.

And, I find it unbelievable that a supposed Christian would defend their actions.

Who is defending them???

Get your story straight buddy. Oh..... wait... this is another one of your generalizations... except now you are directing it in my direction. That is laughable... especially after what I've written. Talk about a reading comprehension deficiency.

Statements made by me in this thread:

I don't condone their lifestyles.
Some of them are living superfluous lives...
Some of them go overboard (on accumulating wealth)...

And I'm defending them? Jeez.

I'm saying you need to stop GENERALIZING!!!

And since you apparently have a problem understanding what that means. Here is the definition from the dicitionary.

gen·er·al·i·za·tion
Spelled Pronunciation[jen-er-uh-luh-zey-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3. Logic.
a. a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.
b. the process of obtaining such propositions

[clambake]

a better fiction has never been written. telling the prey to pray.

[peewee's lovechild]

Who is defending them???

Get your story straight buddy. Oh..... wait... this is another one of your generalizations... except now you are directing it in my direction. That is laughable... especially after what I've written. Talk about a reading comprehension deficiency.

Me:

I don't condone their lifestyles.
Some of them are living superfluous lives...
Some of them go overboard (on accumulating wealth)...

But you need to stop GENERALIZING!!!

And since you apparently have a problem understanding what that means. Here is the definition from the dicitionary.

gen·er·al·i·za·tion
Spelled Pronunciation[jen-er-uh-luh-zey-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3. Logic.
a. a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.
b. the process of obtaining such propositions

Okay, yea . . . generalizations.


So, then what are you doing?

Clarify that for all of us, because we're just calling out the ministers/pastors/priests/religious leaders who are making an assload of money from their flock.

I'll await your answer, or another post about generalizations.

[phyzik]

Who is defending them???

Get your story straight buddy. Oh..... wait... this is another one of your generalizations... except now you are directing it in my direction. That is laughable... especially after what I've written. Talk about a reading comprehension deficiency.

Me:

I don't condone their lifestyles.
Some of them are living superfluous lives...
Some of them go overboard (on accumulating wealth)...

But you need to stop GENERALIZING!!!

And since you apparently have a problem understanding what that means. Here is the definition from the dicitionary.

gen·er·al·i·za·tion
Spelled Pronunciation[jen-er-uh-luh-zey-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3. Logic.
a. a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.
b. the process of obtaining such propositions


I'd like to know a televangilist who is not getting personal gain from what they do.

[Phenomanul]

My perspective is this-- it is the job of those within the faith to be the strongest opponents of those who are acting in this manner. What I mean is-- when 9/11 happened, I wanted to hear from Muslims the LOUDEST how wrong this was- how it was not what their religion teaches- that it was not representative of their faith.

And some did do this.



In the same way- I believe as a person of faith, I should be the loudest in opposition to what people are doing in the name of my faith. This is where people develop a problem- like in this thread when those within the faith become defensive instead of saying-- If this guy did this, it is awful and terrible and does not represent what we believe.

I'm am not his Judge. Nor am I defending Hawkins' actions.

I am however defending a minister's right to make a living. Though not in excess - a difference that was made perfectly clear.

- That GOD does in fact bless people financially - as long as their wealth is not a hindrance to their relationship with HIM.
- That while it may be true that Jesus and other early Christians (including the apostles) gave up everything in pursuit of their evangelistic calling that this self-sacrifice was part of the calling itself. We shouldn't overlook that they were in fact financially supported by the blessings of other Christians. Or that not every one is called to be a missionary.
- That a salary for ministers (priests) was ordained by GOD Himself.




Instead, it turns into defending Chrisitianity- when that is not even the issue.
Oh... really? An attack on Christianity is the entire undertone behind such threads (and more subtly and attack on GOD).... why even post them then? We know earth is full of scumbags, what else is new.


The issue is the behavior of some of the members of the clergy-- and believe me, as a Roman Catholic, I have dealt with this issue as well. I am appalled at the way the Church has handled allegations of sexual misconduct, and I am the FIRST to say it is wrong and damages my Church. I do not defend it.
Let's not overlook the fact that the Pope, or rather the Vatican, is by far the wealthiest clergical entity in the world. Where's the outcry there? But that is neither here nor there... and I don't want to go there any further than I already have.



We all know there are ministers guilting people, especially old people, into sending money they barely have while they themselves live high and mighty. Anyone who defends this action is distorting the faith.

Shame on them, GOD will judge them accordingly.



And no one has declared in here that a minister of a small church is in any way behaving in the manner of these televangelists or mega-church ministers. I think most people in here respect those who genuinely live that life of service; the displeasure is with those who claim to but do not.

Then why make generalization after generalization? Everything Peewee has said undermines a greater good fulfilled by those ministers who don't enrich themselves in Christ's name... The painful part is they they vastly outnumber those he is trying to scorn.

[Phenomanul]

I'd like to know a televangilist who is not getting personal gain from what they do.


That's on page 1.

[AlamoSpursFan]

No shit, and it gives you an ass load of cash to boot.

I can do with wearing a white collar all day.

White collar priests get a whole different kind of booty.

I'd rethink my denomination choice if I were you...

:lol

[Phenomanul]

Okay, yea . . . generalizations.


So, then what are you doing?

Clarify that for all of us, because we're just calling out the ministers/pastors/priests/religious leaders who are making an assload of money from their flock.
I'll await your answer, or another post about generalizations.

You finally got it.

That was not the initial tone of this thread or the other one. Glad I could help. :wakeup

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm am not his Judge. Nor am I defending Hawkins' actions.

I am however defending a minister's right to make a living. Though not in excess - that was made perfectly clear.


You defend a minister's right to make a living by using god's name???

Again, show me where Christ made money from his ministry.





- That GOD does in fact bless people financially - as long as their wealth is not a hindrance to their relationship with HIM.


Besides Job, there isn't any example of God giving people wealth. And, Job had to lose it all before that was granted to him, as it was a test of faith.




- That while it may be true that Jesus and other early Christians (including the apostles) gave up everything in pursuit of their evangelistic calling that this self-sacrifice was part of the calling itself. We shouldn't overlook that they were in fact financially supported by the blessings of other Christians. Or that not every one is called to be a missionary.


It was part of the calling itself??? What the hell kind of arguement is that?? So, religious leaders don't have to give up anything if they don't have a "calling"? And, yes, the apostles and Jesus himself were supported by followers. But, did they get rich that way? Did they ask for financial support?? Did they require anything at all??

Read the bible. I encourage you to do so.



- That a salary for ministers (priests) was ordained by GOD Himself.


This is a bullshit statement. Where's the proof?? Don't just spout things out. Show us biblical proof where Jesus himelf said that ministers should get a salary. Remember, the OT (Old Testament) can not be used. The new covenant that Jesus made broke with the OT. Show us where in the NT (New Testament) it is said that ministers should get paid.





Oh... really? That is the entire undertone behind such threads.... why even post them then? We know earth is full of scumbags, what else is new.


You are right. The earth is full of scum bags. But, religious leaders who live hypocritically are a speacial breed of scum.





Let's not overlook the fact that the Pope, or rather the Vatican, is by far the wealthiest clergical entity in the world. Where's the outcry there? But that is neither here nor there... and I don't want to go there any further than I already have.


Shit, I'm with you there. And, if you've ever read any of my posts/rants on religion in general you'd know that I think the Vatican is a sham.




Then why make generalization after generalization? Everything Peewee has said undermines a greater good fulfilled by those ministers who don't enrich themselves in Christ's name... The painful part is they they vastly outnumber those he is trying to scorn.


I was scorning those that live hypocritically using god's name. I'm sorry I touched a nerve about your father. And, the fact that you think you have to defend him at every second may be saying somehting else. But, whatever.

There are some that try to live according to the gospel, and good for them. I'm not talking about them.

You need to stop being so touchy and remember that you're not god's little soldier. Unless, that is, he's such a weak being that he needs help from a simple human.

[peewee's lovechild]

You finally got it.

That was not the initial tone of this thread or the other one. Glad I could help. :wakeup

I'm sorry it took you all this time to realize what everyone's talking about.

Maybe, if you wouldn't get your feelings hurt everytime someone calls out a priest/minister/pastor for being a hypocritical bastard, you'd be able to catch up a bit quicker.

[clambake]

Look, Phenom, this is not just some other corporation. In this case, a few bad apples does spoil the bunch.

[peewee's lovechild]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/08/people.conan.obrien.ap/index.html

Priests and thier kinkiness.

[Goliadnative]

I am not trying to defend the money the televangelists make but this would seem to say that pastors should be allowed some compensation for their work.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 - The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

The last quote is in reference to what Jesus told the apostles in Luke 10:7 - "Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house." and Matthew 10:10 - "take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep."

[peewee's lovechild]

I am not trying to defend the money the televangelists make but this would seem to say that pastors should be allowed some compensation for their work.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 - The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

The last quote is in reference to what Jesus told the apostles in Luke 10:7 - "Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house." and Matthew 10:10 - "take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep."

All that means is that you earn your keep.

It doesn't say that the ministry should be a paid position.

Even the Apostle Paul knew this. When he stayed with Drucilla (I can't remember the text right now), he earned his keep when he stayed with Drucilla's family by making tents and other fabric items. He was never paid for doing his ministry.

So, like I said, find me a text in the NT where it says that one who performs ministry should be compensated moneterily(sp).

[Phenomanul]

You defend a minister's right to make a living by using god's name???

Again, show me where Christ made money from his ministry.





Besides Job, there isn't any example of God giving people wealth. And, Job had to lose it all before that was granted to him, as it was a test of faith.




It was part of the calling itself??? What the hell kind of arguement is that?? So, religious leaders don't have to give up anything if they don't have a "calling"? And, yes, the apostles and Jesus himself were supported by followers. But, did they get rich that way? Did they ask for financial support?? Did they require anything at all??

Read the bible. I encourage you to do so.



This is a bullshit statement. Where's the proof?? Don't just spout things out. Show us biblical proof where Jesus himelf said that ministers should get a salary. Remember, the OT (Old Testament) can not be used. The new covenant that Jesus made broke with the OT. Show us where in the NT (New Testament) it is said that ministers should get paid.





You are right. The earth is full of scum bags. But, religious leaders who live hypocritically are a speacial breed of scum.





Shit, I'm with you there. And, if you've ever read any of my posts/rants on religion in general you'd know that I think the Vatican is a sham.




I was scorning those that live hypocritically using god's name. I'm sorry I touched a nerve about your father. And, the fact that you think you have to defend him at every second may be saying somehting else. But, whatever.

There are some that try to live according to the gospel, and good for them. I'm not talking about them.

You need to stop being so touchy and remember that you're not god's little soldier. Unless, that is, he's such a weak being that he needs help from a simple human.


What was the word I used earlier to describe your arguments......

OBTUSE.

And interpret the Scriptures as you may... it seems you don't understand them (especially given that little gem of yours where you suggest that New Covenant 'broke' the Old Testament.... ummm sorry to break it to you, but only it replaced the Old Covenant GOD had made with Israel. As significant as that may be, the Old Testament still has much relevance in understanding the nature of GOD.)

Your initial comment in this thread contains all the necessary proof to confirm you are a backpedaling stereotypical twit.


Since god has no need for human currency, I'll judge them all I want.

They lead a life of luxury while those who hold on to faith live in misery.

That was your response to my first post in this thread:

Don't judge the many by the actions of a few.

Say all you want... twist the logic in whatever fashion you wish... But that sequence of posts cannot be refuted. So quit trying to change the story.

[ploto]

While I agree that it is not our place to judge a person- that is, to claim that we know the naure of an individual's standing with God- it is our place to speak out against injustice. Religion makes all kinds of statements about what is morally right and wrong. Cheating on your spouse is wrong-- taking advantage of vulnerable people is wrong... that is not judging the man- it is speking out against immoral actions.

[Phenomanul]

I'm sorry it took you all this time to realize what everyone's talking about.

Maybe, if you wouldn't get your feelings hurt everytime someone calls out a priest/minister/pastor for being a hypocritical bastard, you'd be able to catch up a bit quicker.


Read my above post you liar. :nope

So rather than admit that my reproof of your stance had a basis, you insist on trying to make me look bad..... :lmao :lmao

[Extra Stout]

So, like I said, find me a text in the NT where it says that one who performs ministry should be compensated moneterily(sp).
1 Corinthians 9:14, for one.

[Phenomanul]

While I agree that it is not our place to judge a person- that is, to claim that we know the naure of an individual's standing with God- it is our place to speak out against injustice. Religion makes all kinds of statements about what is morally right and wrong. Cheating on your spouse is wrong-- taking advantage of vulnerable people is wrong... that is not judging the man- it is speking out against immoral actions.


This I can agree with. :)

[Extra Stout]

Anyone with a modicum of discernment should be able to say that most of these televangelists are lying snakes. They mostly preach the lie of the prosperity gospel.

And while there are Christians out there who are wealthy, material wealth is not the point of the Christian faith. The preacher who says that God will repay you financially many times over for your generous donation is a liar making you out to be a fool. The blessings that are returned for that generosity are: greater union with God, a greater manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit in one's life (love, gentleness, self-control, etc.), and ever-expanding opportunities to do good for other people. On occasion, the latter might entail access to financial resources. The task for the person with resources is to be a steward of God's kingdom with them. The pursuit of material luxuries is ALWAYS an obstacle to faith. That is why Jesus said that it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It's also why he said that the person who has two cloaks must give one to the person who has none. We don't like to hear that in America because we want to have it both ways. But Jesus said that we cannot worship both God and Money, so we have to choose.

If that sounds extreme, or totally unreasonable in this society, well... nobody ever said that the process of sanctification was easy. It's called the narrow gate for a reason.

[Phenomanul]

Anyone with a modicum of discernment should be able to say that most of these televangelists are lying snakes. They mostly preach the lie of the prosperity gospel.

And while there are Christians out there who are wealthy, material wealth is not the point of the Christian faith. The preacher who says that God will repay you financially many times over for your generous donation is a liar making you out to be a fool. The blessings that are returned for that generosity are: greater union with God, a greater manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit in one's life (love, gentleness, self-control, etc.), and ever-expanding opportunities to do good for other people. On occasion, the latter might entail access to financial resources. The task for the person with resources is to be a steward of God's kingdom with them. The pursuit of material luxuries is ALWAYS an obstacle to faith. That is why Jesus said that it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It's also why he said that the person who has two cloaks must give one to the person who has none. We don't like to hear that in America because we want to have it both ways. But Jesus said that we cannot worship both God and Money, so we have to choose.

If that sounds extreme, or totally unreasonable in this society, well... nobody ever said that the process of sanctification was easy. It's called the narrow gate for a reason.

Again, I agree with most of this... In fact, I couldn't have stated it better myself. That said, the use of the word ALWAYS in that phrase is not as absolute as you suggest. I know wealthy Christians who give away more than half of their annual income. And guess what? GOD continues to bless them and to use them.

Someone here made a comment suggesting that GOD doesn't need our money. They're right; HE doesn't. HE owns everything. HE does however, require our obedience as a demonstration that we are depositing of our faith solely on HIM... not on any material possessions we may own.

[Extra Stout]

Again, I agree with most of this... In fact, I couldn't have stated it better myself. That said, the use of the word ALWAYS in that phrase is not as absolute as you suggest. I know wealthy Christians who give away more than half of their annual income. And guess what? GOD continues to bless them and to use them.

Someone here made a comment suggesting that GOD doesn't need our money. They're right; HE doesn't. HE owns everything. HE does however, require our obedience as a demonstration that we are depositing of our faith solely on HIM... not on any material possessions we may own.
Wealth is not the same thing as a life based upon the pursuit of material luxury.

That said... remember the lesson about the poor woman who gave her last two pennies to the temple.

[peewee's lovechild]

And interpret the Scriptures as you may... it seems you don't understand them (especially given that little gem of yours where you suggest that New Covenant 'broke' the Old Testament.... ummm sorry to break it to you, but only it replaced the Old Covenant GOD had made with Israel.



Hey, what happens when something becomes replaced?

Anyway, moron, if the OT was still as relevant as you wish it to be, then you'd be Jewish. Christians are christians because the follow the teachings of Jesus Christ which, sadly for you, can only be found in the NT.

Abraham, Moses, and all the others don't matter anymore because Jesus is the path to salvation.

I think you need to spend some more time with your dad.



Your initial comment in this thread contains all the necessary proof to confirm you are a backpedaling stereotypical twit.



As for my initial comment, I said that I would judge them (televangelists) all I want. And, I stand by it. If you don't condem what they do, then you condone it, no matter what you say.

[peewee's lovechild]

While I agree that it is not our place to judge a person- that is, to claim that we know the naure of an individual's standing with God- it is our place to speak out against injustice. Religion makes all kinds of statements about what is morally right and wrong. Cheating on your spouse is wrong-- taking advantage of vulnerable people is wrong... that is not judging the man- it is speking out against immoral actions.

I agree.

[peewee's lovechild]

1 Corinthians 9:14, for one.

1 Corinthians Chapter 9

The apostle did not make use of his power of being maintained at the charges of those to whom he preached, that he might give no hindrance to the gospel. Of running in the race and striving for the mastery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

9:1. Am I not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?
Non sum liber non sum apostolus nonne Iesum Dominum nostrum vidi non opus meum vos estis in Domino

9:2. And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
Si aliis non sum apostolus sed tamen vobis sum nam signaculum apostolatus mei vos estis in Domino

9:3. My defence with them that do examine me is this.
Mea defensio apud eos qui me interrogant haec est

9:4. Have not we power to eat and to drink?


Okay, so we all have the power to eat and drink.

I guess that means that we can get paid to preach.

EDIT:

I quoted the wrong text.
I was corrected by Goliadnative.

But, it still doesn't apply.

[peewee's lovechild]

If that sounds extreme, or totally unreasonable in this society, well... nobody ever said that the process of sanctification was easy. It's called the narrow gate for a reason.

True.

[peewee's lovechild]

That said... remember the lesson about the poor woman who gave her last two pennies to the temple.

Of greater value to God, than the half hearted contributions rich men make.

[Goliadnative]

The verse is 1 Corinthians 9:14 - In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

[peewee's lovechild]

The verse is 1 Corinthians 9:14 - In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

How does that translate into getting paid to preach?

[clambake]

The verse is 1 Corinthians 9:14 - In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
you sure screwed that interpretation.

[peewee's lovechild]

9:13. Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar?

9:14. So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.

9:15. But I have used none of these things. Neither have I written these things, that they should be so done unto me: for it is good for me to die rather than that any man should make my glory void.


9:16. For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me: for a necessity lieth upon me. For woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.

9:17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed to me.

9:18. What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

9:19. For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more.

[Phenomanul]

Hey, what happens when something becomes replaced?

Anyway, moron, if the OT was still as relevant as you wish it to be, then you'd be Jewish. Christians are christians because the follow the teachings of Jesus Christ which, sadly for you, can only be found in the NT.

Abraham, Moses, and all the others don't matter anymore because Jesus is the path to salvation.

I think you need to spend some more time with your dad.

How do you argue with someone who continues to place words in my mouth. You are beyond ignorant. Your stubborness is beyond assine.

READ again. "The Old Testament still has much relevance in understanding the nature of GOD." Where am I suggesting that Abraham or Moses are a path to Salvation? I am talking about understanding the nature of GOD... You truly don't understand the scriptures if you are blatantly calling for a complete disregard of the entire Old Testament (which is not the same as the Old Covenant, fool).

You are one sore debater.



As for my initial comment, I said that I would judge them (televangelists) all I want. And, I stand by it. If you don't condem what they do, then you condone it, no matter what you say.

Again... for the mentally impaired.

I said: "Don't judge the many by the actions of a few." And you implied that to mean televangelists.

The context of the thread was not what it was when you chimed in. Hence my issue with your generalizations. In fact, if you look at Twisted Dawg's Post (Post #1) he was talking about this pastor not televangelists. I didn't include the modifier.... you assumed it.

I refuse to argue any further over this. My discussion with you is over.

[Extra Stout]

9:13. Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar?

9:14. So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.

9:15. But I have used none of these things. Neither have I written these things, that they should be so done unto me: for it is good for me to die rather than that any man should make my glory void.


9:16. For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me: for a necessity lieth upon me. For woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.

9:17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed to me.

9:18. What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

9:19. For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more.
In other words, Paul is saying that while it is entirely acceptable for a minister to earn his living by ministry, he himself goes further than what is required and preaches free of charge.

Similarly, while it is acceptable to be married, it is going further not to marry but to remain celibate. Paul says that later in the same epistle.

[peewee's lovechild]

In other words, Paul is saying that while it is entirely acceptable for a minister to earn his living by ministry, he himself goes further than what is required and preaches free of charge.

Similarly, while it is acceptable to be married, it is going further not to marry but to remain celibate. Paul says that later in the same epistle.

True, Paul does go beyond. But, nowhere on the 9th chapter of the 1st letter to the Corinthians does he say that it's okay or proper to charge for preaching.

[Phenomanul]

Wealth is not the same thing as a life based upon the pursuit of material luxury.

That said... remember the lesson about the poor woman who gave her last two pennies to the temple.


BTW I am familiar with that passage. And while it may apply to many rich Christians, it certainly does not describe them all. Only GOD can see through men's hearts.

These people I mentioned earlier are a couple, both doctors, who frequently visit the Patch Adams Institute, and travel the world 'working for free'. Their wealth allows them to subsist while providing their services in impoverished nations free of charge (often times providing medicines for free as well). Unless they went completely broke, they would have neither the time or the money to be used in this manner.

[Extra Stout]

True, Paul does go beyond. But, nowhere on the 9th chapter of the 1st letter to the Corinthians does he say that it's okay or proper to charge for preaching.
Rather, most of the chapter is exactly about how it is OK to earn one's living from preaching. He compares it to a soldier getting paid, a vintner eating of the fruit of his own vineyard, and a shepherd drinking the milk of his own flock. He references an OT verse about not muzzling the ox who threshes, and says that God is talking more about men than oxen in that verse. He says that it is not too much to reap material things from those in whom one has sowed spiritual things. He refers to the Levites, who earned their living from serving in the Temple.

He says that even as much as other preachers have that right, he has it even more, but he chooses not to exercise it.

Referencing the sermon on this passage by John Chrysostom, a fourth-century church father whose everyday language was the Greek of the Bible, the images used here imply moderation. Paul says the solider is paid, not that he receives booty. The vintner here eats of the fruit; he does not hoard up the full crop or receive gold for it. The shepherd here drinks the milk; he does not feast on the meat of the lamb. The preacher lives from the Gospel; he does not build up a treasure from it.

So it is entirely reasonable and proper for a pastor to make a modest living from preaching the Gospel; it is contra-Scriptural for him to earn such a large salary as to live luxuriously.

[td4mvp21]

I think some Christians can be some of the worst hypocrites ever, and that they can put themselves on a throne and therefore be intolerant of other people, but some people on this board (i.e peewee's lovechild) are way too fucking intolerant towards Christianity, especially toward Phenomanual. So much hate is thrown in his face constantly for his beliefs-kind of sounds like intolerance to me.

[clambake]

I think some Christians can be some of the worst hypocrites ever, and that they can put themselves on a throne and therefore be intolerant of other people, but some people on this board (i.e peewee's lovechild) are way too fucking intolerant towards Christianity, especially toward Phenomanual. So much hate is thrown in his face constantly for his beliefs-kind of sounds like intolerance to me.
this is what happens when religion is used as a tool.

[Extra Stout]

BTW I am familiar with that passage. And while it may apply to many rich Christians, it certainly does not describe them all. Only GOD can see through men's hearts.

These people I mentioned earlier are a couple, both doctors, who frequently visit the Patch Adams Institute, and travel the world 'working for free'. Their wealth allows them to subsist while providing their services in impoverished nations free of charge (often times providing medicines for free as well). Unless they went completely broke, they would have neither the time or the money to be used in this manner.
So they use their resources for ministry. That's good.

If they also live a luxurious lifestyle, that is an obstacle to grace.

I do not want to say that removing such obstacles is simple. Christian perfection is not simple. Remaining steadfast in selfless love is hard. Living a perfect thought life without ever condemning or judging another person (as opposed to his actions) is very difficult. Never so much as casting a second glance at an attractive woman who is not your wife is hard. Letting go of indignations against your person is hard. Never lashing out in frustration is hard. Keeping your trust in God throughout trials is hard. Avoiding the moral pollution of secular culture is hard. Always focusing on God and others and claiming nothing for yourself is hard. Always staying on task and never wasting time, but resting only in the appointed time, is hard. Partaking of your own resources only so far as is necessary to subsist, and forsaking luxuries is hard. But while all of that is hard, it is also what we are commanded to do. That is our goal on this earth. It does not earn us salvation, which is by grace alone, but it is what God saved us to become, because that is what being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ is.

[Phenomanul]

So they use their resources for ministry. That's good.

If they also live a luxurious lifestyle, that is an obstacle to grace.

I do not want to say that removing such obstacles is simple. Christian perfection is not simple. Remaining steadfast in selfless love is hard. Living a perfect thought life without ever condemning or judging another person (as opposed to his actions) is very difficult. Never so much as casting a second glance at an attractive woman who is not your wife is hard. Letting go of indignations against your person is hard. Never lashing out in frustration is hard. Keeping your trust in God throughout trials is hard. Avoiding the moral pollution of secular culture is hard. Always focusing on God and others and claiming nothing for yourself is hard. Always staying on task and never wasting time, but resting only in the appointed time, is hard. Partaking of your own resources only so far as is necessary to subsist, and forsaking luxuries is hard. But while all of that is hard, it is also what we are commanded to do. That is our goal on this earth. It does not earn us salvation, which is by grace alone, but it is what God saved us to become, because that is what being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ is.

Well said. :tu

I agree... that is the life we are called to embrace.

[anakha]

I think some Christians can be some of the worst hypocrites ever, and that they can put themselves on a throne and therefore be intolerant of other people, but some people on this board (i.e peewee's lovechild) are way too fucking intolerant towards Christianity, especially toward Phenomanual. So much hate is thrown in his face constantly for his beliefs-kind of sounds like intolerance to me.

To be fair, I think it's safe to say hypocrisy transcends religious differences - even atheists have their fair share of people who say one thing and do another. :p:

And just to throw my hat into this whole discussion...

For me, religion is, and always should be, a personal thing. We each must carefully interpret those things which are written in those books we consider sources of our faith, as it was only men who did the writing. I consider myself Roman Catholic because I feel comfort and connection in the rituals of that religion, but I say people should be free to choose what to believe in. We do not all live our lives in the same way.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Besides enriching themselves through their "ministries" most of these hucksters promote a bastardized version of the Gospel. Accepting Christ is not about enriching yourself and/or having an easier life here on Earth.

Of all the many posts in this thread, your's hits the bullseye. This is exactly what this post is about: a lying, cheating hypocritical huckster conning a bunch of naive people by promoting (not preaching) a bastardized version of the Gospel to enrich themselves. Hawkins isn't the only one doing it.

The thread was based on a well researched investigation by WOAI. Had that article been libelous, Hawkins would have had a press conference and been in court today. This post was not about condeming good men like Billy Graham, Buckner Fanning, and the other honest men and women that promote Christianity. The thread hopefully will open the eyes of naive others to the lies and deceit offered up by many of the current Christian ministers getting rich off their own brand of Prosperity Christianity.

I am amazed at the tangents and diatribes that some of the other posters slammed in here. I suggest they read all about Mystery Babylon in Revelation which is about the prostituted version of Christianity.

[peewee's lovechild]

Rather, most of the chapter is exactly about how it is OK to earn one's living from preaching. He compares it to a soldier getting paid, a vintner eating of the fruit of his own vineyard, and a shepherd drinking the milk of his own flock. He references an OT verse about not muzzling the ox who threshes, and says that God is talking more about men than oxen in that verse. He says that it is not too much to reap material things from those in whom one has sowed spiritual things. He refers to the Levites, who earned their living from serving in the Temple.

He says that even as much as other preachers have that right, he has it even more, but he chooses not to exercise it.

Referencing the sermon on this passage by John Chrysostom, a fourth-century church father whose everyday language was the Greek of the Bible, the images used here imply moderation. Paul says the solider is paid, not that he receives booty. The vintner here eats of the fruit; he does not hoard up the full crop or receive gold for it. The shepherd here drinks the milk; he does not feast on the meat of the lamb. The preacher lives from the Gospel; he does not build up a treasure from it.

So it is entirely reasonable and proper for a pastor to make a modest living from preaching the Gospel; it is contra-Scriptural for him to earn such a large salary as to live luxuriously.

The Levites were not paid in currency, at least not until the Jewish leaders became corrupt.

I can see your point, and I can see how one might interpret just as you have. But, I don't think Paul was advocating for ministers to get paid. You must remember that most, if not all, of the early christians had professions of their own. They had no reason to get paid for ministering.

Paul was using analogies to explain that a minister would get paid with treasures in heaven for doing god's will.

I will, however, respect your arguement.

[peewee's lovechild]

I think some Christians can be some of the worst hypocrites ever, and that they can put themselves on a throne and therefore be intolerant of other people, but some people on this board (i.e peewee's lovechild) are way too fucking intolerant towards Christianity, especially toward Phenomanual. So much hate is thrown in his face constantly for his beliefs-kind of sounds like intolerance to me.

I respect people who have real opinions and back them up with actual proof, such as Extra Stout. I may not always agree with what he has to say, but he presents a plausible arguement. He knows what he's talking about.

Phenomanual, however, just brought up that King Solomon was rich . . . like that somehow closes the arguement. I can't stand people who feel the need to "defend" christianity when they can't even provide a solid arguement.

[Phenomanul]

I respect people who have real opinions and back them up with actual proof, such as Extra Stout. I may not always agree with what he has to say, but he presents a plausible arguement. He knows what he's talking about.

Phenomanul, however, just brought up that King Solomon was rich . . . like that somehow closes the arguement. I can't stand people who feel the need to "defend" christianity when they can't even provide a solid arguement.

And I can't stand liars and distorters like yourself... Besides you are filled with way too much negativity. It's difficult to have a discussion with people when they are constantly inventing arguments for the other side, only to balk at them, and then claim that they've somehow made a point.

GOD blessed King Solomon.
GOD blessed Job, stripped him of everything he had, and then blessed him even more abundantly.

I was trying to make a point that not all of GOD's children were called to be poor.... It's only when people value their possessions and money more than GOD Himself that He has an issue with it. I thought I made that CRYSTAL CLEAR. Apparently the context I provided for the story of the rich man who could not give up his wealth to follow Jesus wasn't clear enough then. And apparently your silence on my observation that Jesus Himself casted some wealthy men in positive light didn't fit your billing either. For that matter, it's not my problem that you are choosing to disregard the entire Old Testament to suit your argument. Nor is it my fault that you don't believe in a Triune GOD. Or that you somehow equate the Christian calling to a complete and utter denial of any material possessions. Not every Christian is called to be a pastor. That is a divinely ordained role not extended to everyone. Also, don't forget that I brought up the point about the Levites (before ES mentioned it), and how the tithes of the rest of the tribes of Israel helped support their ministry (and helped sustain their families). This was established during the days of the Tabernacle; Read

Numbers 18:21

" I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve me in the tabernacle of the covenant."

Your claim then that this occurred only after priests became corrupt is erroneous. Another lie. No surprise here.

I also made it perfectly clear that I wasn't condoning the actions of any sniveling televangelist. I was asking that you not lump them all together, since you couldn't possibly prove that all of them were loathing in excess riches... YOU INSISTED on JUDGING ALL OF THEM (and then you still had the audacity to come in here suggesting that I was the one with distorted views :rolleyes )

I repeatedly told you that such generalizations should not be made but you ignored this request time, and time again. Instead you felt the need to suggest that any argument that supported a minister's entitlement to a living was tantamount to supporting televangelists. :wtf Talk about a leap of logic. But don't let that keep you from propagating an eroneous recount of the thread.

[Duff McCartney]

JESUS was a Jew as well. And ummmm... He is also GOD.

Well...that's open to interpretation.

[AlamoSpursFan]

You should believe the Corinthians. They got rich making leather for the seats in Chrysler Cordobas.

:lol

And while we're breaking down what is and isn't in the red words, WTF is up with THIS? (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/)

[tlongII]

You should believe the Corinthians. They got rich making leather for the seats in Chrysler Cordobas.

:lol

And while we're breaking down what is and isn't in the red words, WTF is up with THIS? (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/)

:lmao

I am eagerly awaiting the christian comments on that!

[Phenomanul]

:lmao

I am eagerly awaiting the christian comments on that!

No need to post any new material... simply go back to post #2:

Don't judge the many by the actions of a few...




Besides that website appears to be a parody site... "the name BUBBA shall be anthema" :lol Surely they can't be serious.








The real question is; would it have bothered you if GOD hated ewes? :p:

[peewee's lovechild]

And I can't stand liars and distorters like yourself... Besides you are filled with way too much negativity. It's difficult to have a discussion with people when they are constantly inventing arguments for the other side, only to balk at them, and then claim that they've somehow made a point.

GOD blessed King Solomon.
GOD blessed Job, stripped him of everything he had, and then blessed him even more abundantly.

I was trying to make a point that not all of GOD's children were called to be poor.... It's only when people value their possessions and money more than GOD Himself that He has an issue with it. I thought I made that CRYSTAL CLEAR. Apparently the context I provided for the story of the rich man who could not give up his wealth to follow Jesus wasn't clear enough then. And apparently your silence on my observation that Jesus Himself casted some wealthy men in positive light didn't fit your billing either. For that matter, it's not my problem that you are choosing to disregard the entire Old Testament to suit your argument. Nor is it my fault that you don't believe in a Triune GOD. Or that you somehow equate the Christian calling to a complete and utter denial of any material possessions. Not every Christian is called to be a pastor. That is a divinely ordained role not extended to everyone. Also, don't forget that I brought up the point about the Levites (before ES mentioned it), and how the tithes of the rest of the tribes of Israel helped support their ministry (and helped sustain their families). This was established during the days of the Tabernacle; Read

Numbers 18:21

" I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve me in the tabernacle of the covenant."

Your claim then that this occurred only after priests became corrupt is erroneous. Another lie. No surprise here.

I also made it perfectly clear that I wasn't condoning the actions of any sniveling televangelist. I was asking that you not lump them all together, since you couldn't possibly prove that all of them were loathing in excess riches... YOU INSISTED on JUDGING ALL OF THEM (and then you still had the audacity to come in here suggesting that I was the one with distorted views :rolleyes )

I repeatedly told you that such generalizations should not be made but you ignored this request time, and time again. Instead you felt the need to suggest that any argument that supported a minister's entitlement to a living was tantamount to supporting televangelists. :wtf Talk about a leap of logic. But don't let that keep you from propagating an eroneous recount of the thread.


You are still using the OT?

I thought you were done arguing with me??

God's little soldier couldn't resist?

[peewee's lovechild]

And while we're breaking down what is and isn't in the red words, WTF is up with THIS? (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/)

That's what happens when christians get mixed up with the Old Testament (OT).

It's ridiculous.

[tlongII]

No need to post any new material... simply go back to post #2:

Don't judge the many by the actions of a few...




Besides that website appears to be a parody site... "the name BUBBA shall be anthema" :lol Surely they can't be serious.








The real question is; would it have bothered you if GOD hated ewes? :p:


Actually I'm more interested in what you think of the following passages...



Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

[tlongII]

Oh, so those are Old Testament verses?

[peewee's lovechild]

No need to post any new material... simply go back to post #2:

Don't judge the many by the actions of a few...




Besides that website appears to be a parody site... "the name BUBBA shall be anthema" :lol Surely they can't be serious.


The real question is; would it have bothered you if GOD hated ewes? :p:


BUT IT'S IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!!!!!

Surely, we can get to know God better by banning shellfish.

[Phenomanul]

You are still using the OT?




So rather than back off you still insist on making a complete fool of yourself. :lmao :lmao

I've already proven you are a backpeddaling liar. You've got nothing on me.

But if you want to continue down that path be my guest.

Besides, for all your bold banter who says you get to make the rules around here.? Yes, I believe the Old Testament is still part of the equation. It is still a fundamental piece in understanding our place with GOD. If you don't like it, tough, you don't have to agree with me. I'm not here trying to convince you of anything. But by the same token you can't just say the argument is null simply cause that suits your argument better.


I thought you were done arguing with me??

God's little soldier couldn't resist?

I simply didn't want to embarrass you further... Furthermore I didn't want to be accused of acting belligerently... One of my favorite cop out arguments for people who can't handle their discussion with a Christian.

But if you insist....

[peewee's lovechild]

" I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve me in the tabernacle of the covenant." [/COLOR] [/SIZE]

Your claim then that this occurred only after priests became corrupt is erroneous. Another lie. No surprise here.


I said they weren't paid in currency.

Tithe means "10%".

A "tithe" of land was set aside for widows and orphans to use. A "tithe" of food was set aside for those who worked in the Temple. And so on, and so on.

But, once again, these were Jewish traditions. They have nothing to do with Christian philosophy/doctrine.

[Phenomanul]

BUT IT'S IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!!!!!

Surely, we can get to know God better by banning shellfish.

Yet another instance where you feel the need to make an argument for me.

In case you missed it the first time around.

It is difficult to have a discussion with people when they are constantly inventing arguments for the other side, only to balk at them, and then claim that they've somehow made a point.

[peewee's lovechild]

So rather than back off you still insist on making a complete fool of yourself. :lmao :lmao

I've already proven you are a backpeddaling liar. You've got nothing on me.

But if you want to continue down that path be my guest.

Besides, for all your bold banter who says you get to make the rules around here.? Yes, I believe the Old Testament is still part of the equation. It is still a fundamental piece in understanding our place with GOD. If you don't like it, tough, you don't have to agree with me. I'm not here trying to convince you of anything. But by the same token you can't just say the argument is null simply cause that suits your argument better.



I simply didn't want to embarrass you further... Furthermore I didn't want to be accused of acting belligerently... One of my favorite cop out arguments for people who can't handle their discussion with a Christian.

But if you insist....

You have yet to prove anything at all.

And, you keep using the OT on a Christian arguement.

I think you're Jewish at heart.

[Phenomanul]

I said they weren't paid in currency.

Tithe means "10%".

A "tithe" of land was set aside for widows and orphans to use. A "tithe" of food was set aside for those who worked in the Temple. And so on, and so on.

But, once again, these were Jewish traditions. They have nothing to do with Christian philosophy/doctrine.


Except for the little fact that GOD still has His ministers....

[peewee's lovechild]

Yet another instance where you feel the need to make an argument for me.

In case you missed it the first time around.

It is difficult to have a discussion with people when they are constantly inventing arguments for the other side, only to balk at them, and then claim that they've somehow made a point.

My point is that you're using the OT on a Christian arguement.

You have not given me any text on the NT to back up any of your arguements.

Extra Stout has. He makes sense. You don't.

How can a supposed Christian try to make a case on Christian principles using the OT????

In case you missed it, or slept through most of your father's sermons, Christianity is based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!!!

And, that can only be found in the NT.

Jesus Christ, in human form, was around in the OT.

[Phenomanul]

You have yet to prove anything at all.

And, you keep using the OT on a Christian arguement.

I think you're Jewish at heart.


I believe you don't even remember what the argument was? You keep harping on the tangents.

Your lie:

I didn't say I was judging all pastors. [what I meant to say, was that I was judging all conniving televangelists, even though when someone pointed out that they weren't the topic... I stuck to my guns]

[peewee's lovechild]

Except for the little fact that GOD still has His ministers....

But, they weren't paid in currency . . . which was my point.

A point that flew right past you.

[Phenomanul]

My point is that you're using the OT on a Christian arguement.

You have not given me any text on the NT to back up any of your arguements.

Extra Stout has. He makes sense. You don't.

How can a supposed Christian try to make a case on Christian principles using the OT????

In case you missed it, or slept through most of your father's sermons, Christianity is based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!!!

And, that can only be found in the NT.

Jesus Christ, in human form, was around in the OT.

I'm not going to discuss theology with you because it obviously you don't believe JESUS is GOD.

Jesus was around since the Creation of the world. He walked with Adam. He visited Abraham. Rescued Lot out of Sodom. He rescued Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego from the fiery furnace.

You clearly don't understand Christ's role at all.

[peewee's lovechild]

I believe you don't even remember what the argument was? You keep harping on the tangents.

Your lie:

I didn't say I was judging all pastors. [what I meant to say, was that I was judging all conniving televangelists, even though when someone pointed out that they weren't the topic... I stuck to my guns]

This was my original quote, and I stand by it:


Since god has no need for human currency, I'll judge them all I want.

They lead a life of luxury while those who hold on to faith live in misery.

If you need help understanding that, let me know.

[Phenomanul]

But, they weren't paid in currency . . . which was my point.

A point that flew right past you.


No it didn't by that time ES made it very clear. [You know some of us work, and can't sit by the computer all day long arguing with a brick wall like yourself].

There was no point to repeating what ES had already stated.

[Phenomanul]

This was my original quote, and I stand by it:



If you need help understanding that, let me know.


No... you need help admitting when you've made an error, and moving on.

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm not going to discuss theology with you because it obviously you don't believe JESUS is GOD.

Jesus was around since the Creation of the world. He walked with Adam. He visited Abraham. Rescued Lot out of Sodom. He rescued Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego from the fiery furnace.

You clearly don't understand Christ's role at all.

You clearly don't understand either, becuase Jesus is the SON of God.

He was God's first creation.


"God so love the world, that he gave his only begotten son." - John 3:16.

You know, the whole concept of God giving his only son as sacrifice to redeem humanity.

You know, the entire basis of Christianity.

(I'm still waiting for you to back up any arguement you may have with actual text from the NT)

[Phenomanul]

Oh, so those are Old Testament verses?


To clear this up with you....


Yes they are.

But they are only relevant in the context of the Hebrew law... which is no longer relevant to us.

The tithing practice was instituted by GOD going back to Genesis. It was officially established during the days of the Tabernacle. It was later used as a means of supporting ministers (the apostles) and early church pastors like Timothy. Unlike tithing under law, tithing now is an act of faith - one that shows our dependence on GOD, and one that allows his faithful ministers to subsist.

[Phenomanul]

You clearly don't understand either, becuase Jesus is the SON of God.

He was God's first creation.


"God so love the world, that he gave his only begotten son." - John 3:16.

You know, the whole concept of God giving his only son as sacrifice to redeem humanity.

You know, the entire basis of Christianity.

(I'm still waiting for you to back up any arguement you may have with actual text from the NT)

I'm not here to convince you that JESUS is GOD. But obviously this is your main point of contention. The fact that I do, however gives you no right to assert that I am wrong.

And since I actually have to work. You'll just have to wait until I get out of work for the 20+ passages that reveal this Truth.

Also I made several NT references you just plainly chose to ignore... but who's counting. And consider this: Who financially supported Jesus' ministry, Paul's, Peter's, Timothy's? Ah yes... people willing to obey GOD with MONETARY donations, food and hospitality allowing the work of theses ministers to continue. No, these ministers didn't loath in excess, but 1) I never 'defended' that side of the argument and 2) they nevertheless made a living by their role. A fact which took you 5 pages to finally accept.

[peewee's lovechild]

No it didn't by that time ES made it very clear. [You know some of us work, and can't sit by the computer all day long arguing with a brick wall like yourself].

There was no point to repeating what ES had already stated.

I like how you hide behind someone else.

ES made a point by using NT text, but I had already been asking you that way before he did it.

Don't hide underneath skirts.

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm not here to convince you that JESUS is GOD. But obviously this is your main point of contention. The fact that I do, however gives you no right to assert that I am wrong.

And since I actually have to work. You'll just have to wait until I get out of work for the 20+ passages that reveal this Truth.

Also I made several NT references you just plainly chose to ignore... but who's counting. And consider this: Who financially supported Jesus' ministry, Paul's, Peter's, Timothy's? Ah yes... people willing to obey GOD with MONETARY donations, food and hospitality allowing the work of theses ministers to continue. No, these ministers didn't loath in excess, but 1) I never 'defended' that side of the argument and 2) they nevertheless made a living by their role. A fact which took you 5 pages to finally accept.

You've NEVER given any text from the NT.

And, why wait???

I'm at work too, and I gave you text from the NT. Why can't you do the same??

What's going to happen is that you're going to go to daddy so he can give you the textual evidence you seek. Then you're going to come back her to attempt to prove a point.

I've done it all on my own.

That's what I hate about people like you. You call yourself a Christian, but all you do is sit down in church and listen to what some random person is telling you. You've never studied the bible. You don't know it. And yet, you try to defend whatever faith you have.

Good luck with all that.

[Phenomanul]

I like how you hide behind someone else.

ES made a point by using NT text, but I had already been asking you that way before he did it.

Don't hide underneath skirts.


Nice of you to twist the facts yet again.


Oh and keep ignoring all the tidbits that never suited your argument.

You are one SORE debater.

Now if you please I must go back to work.


cue: One final jab by PeeWee. :rolleyes

[peewee's lovechild]

"God so love the world, that he gave his only begotten son." - John 3:16.

I'm posting it again, for your benefit.

You can find it in any version of the bible.

[tlongII]

Interesting thread. I'm glad I'm not religious.

[peewee's lovechild]

Nice of you to twist the facts yet again.


Oh and keep ignoring all the tidbits that never suited your argument.

You are one SORE debater.

Now if you please I must go back to work.


cue: One final jab by PeeWee. :rolleyes

Twisting the facts??

You've never posted any text from the NT to prove your arguement!!

That's a fact.

And, you posted a lame excuse that ES had already posted one . . . eventhough I had been asking you to do that way before he did.

But, good try.

[peewee's lovechild]

Cue the 5 hour wait so Phenomanul can get his dad's help and then come post a couple of sermons.

[lebomb]

Peewee sounds like a Jehovahs witness and Phenom sound like a christian that believes in the trinity......father, son and the holy spirit......3 beings in one. GOD.

Amarite?

IF so, you two will NEVER agree on each other theology......so yall might as well quit bickering now.

[lebomb]

Jehovahs......"in the begging was A god.........

Christian........"in the begging was god........


Its all different thinking from this point on.

[Extra Stout]

To clear this up with you....


Yes they are.

But they are only relevant in the context of the Hebrew law... which is no longer relevant to us.

The tithing practice was instituted by GOD going back to Genesis. It was officially established during the days of the Tabernacle. It was later used as a means of supporting ministers (the apostles) and early church pastors like Timothy. Unlike tithing under law, tithing now is an act of faith - one that shows our dependence on GOD, and one that allows his faithful ministers to subsist.
The Christian adoption of the tithe occurred after the legalization of the Church in A.D. 313. Prior to that time, since the Church was an underground movement whose members lived more or less communally out of necessity, the concept of the tithe would not have made sense -- they regarded all their resources as common to the church.

The Ante-Nicene fathers do not refer to the tithe specifically, but they do refer to the giving of "firstfruits" to the clergy and to the poor. Several proclaim that the rich are obligated to give more generously than the poor.

It should be noted that both the Hebrew tithe and the Christian tithe through medieval times were in kind, since until recent times, farmers and craftsmen made up the bulk of the population.

The practice of the tithe is not uniform throughout Christendom. Especially in countries where there is no separation of church and state, the church will receive funding from the tax rolls. This is how it is in Russia, and is part of the reason the Russian Orthodox Church is the U.S. is always strapped for cash -- its parishioners are not accustomed to giving.

In some European countries, registered church members are required to pay a tax between 1% and 2.5% of their income to the church. If they want to stop paying the tax, they must petition to be removed from the church rolls, in which case they will no longer be allowed to take comminion.

In sum, I cannot say definitively that the tithe is binding upon Christians. However, it pays to notice that the Southern Baptists, who are just about the most faithful tithers out there, can fund several Christian colleges, and have one of the most potent international missions organizations in all of Christendom, while the Orthodox, who are just about the worst, have virtually no profile whatsoever outside of the traditionally Orthodox nations.

I've been in (and subsequently left) a church that squandered millions of dollars of tithes and offerings on pointless remodeling. In a church like that which has way too much money to begin with, I don't see the point of giving them the tithe. Better to send that money directly to missions or to a struggling young church that can use the money. I also question building a 10,000-seat megachurch complex complete with theater seats, a surround-sound A/V system, and a restaurant. But who can argue against the faithful stewardship to resources to promote the spread of the gospel and the discipleship of church members, and to help those in need?

[peewee's lovechild]

Peewee sounds like a Jehovahs witness and Phenom sound like a christian that believes in the trinity......father, son and the holy spirit......3 beings in one. GOD.

Amarite?

IF so, you two will NEVER agree on each other theology......so yall might as well quit bickering now.

The trinity was incorportated by the Catholic Church as a way to please the pagans that they tried to convert all over Europe. This is historical fact. The pagans of Europe, prior to the arrival of Jesus, had already developed the concept of a tri-god. Implementing the concept of the trinity to the Christian faith made for a smoother transition in terms of converting the pagans.

[lebomb]

The trinity was incorportated by the Catholic Church as a way to please the pagans that they tried to convert all over Europe. This is historical fact. The pagans of Europe, prior to the arrival of Jesus, had already developed the concept of a tri-god. Implementing the concept of the trinity to the Christian faith made for a smoother transition in terms of converting the pagans.


Are you a Jehovah or not.......

[peewee's lovechild]

The Christian adoption of the tithe occurred after the legalization of the Church in A.D. 313. Prior to that time, since the Church was an underground movement whose members lived more or less communally out of necessity, the concept of the tithe would not have made sense -- they regarded all their resources as common to the church.

The Ante-Nicene fathers do not refer to the tithe specifically, but they do refer to the giving of "firstfruits" to the clergy and to the poor. Several proclaim that the rich are obligated to give more generously than the poor.

It should be noted that both the Hebrew tithe and the Christian tithe through medieval times were in kind, since until recent times, farmers and craftsmen made up the bulk of the population.

The practice of the tithe is not uniform throughout Christendom. Especially in countries where there is no separation of church and state, the church will receive funding from the tax rolls. This is how it is in Russia, and is part of the reason the Russian Orthodox Church is the U.S. is always strapped for cash -- its parishioners are not accustomed to giving.

In some European countries, registered church members are required to pay a tax between 1% and 2.5% of their income to the church. If they want to stop paying the tax, they must petition to be removed from the church rolls, in which case they will no longer be allowed to take comminion.

In sum, I cannot say definitively that the tithe is binding upon Christians. However, it pays to notice that the Southern Baptists, who are just about the most faithful tithers out there, can fund several Christian colleges, and have one of the most potent international missions organizations in all of Christendom, while the Orthodox, who are just about the worst, have virtually no profile whatsoever outside of the traditionally Orthodox nations.

I've been in (and subsequently left) a church that squandered millions of dollars of tithes and offerings on pointless remodeling. In a church like that which has way too much money to begin with, I don't see the point of giving them the tithe. Better to send that money directly to missions or to a struggling young church that can use the money. I also question building a 10,000-seat megachurch complex complete with theater seats, a surround-sound A/V system, and a restaurant. But who can argue against the faithful stewardship to resources to promote the spread of the gospel and the discipleship of church members, and to help those in need?

Damn ES, I'm impressed.

[lebomb]

PeeWee.....are you a Witness??? Im guessing you are.......

[peewee's lovechild]

Are you a Jehovah or not.......

Jehovah is the name of god, regardless of what sect your in.

It's in the bible, every bible.

So, no, I'm not Jehovah.

But, to answer a previous question.
I belong to no particular sect or christian faith.

I was raised a "Jehovah's Witness" on one side of the family and Catholic on the other side. There was also a heavy Episcopalian and 7th Day Adventist influence in my family.

So, while I had a chance to choose from any of them . . . I chose neither of them.

[lebomb]

Jehovah is the name of god, regardless of what sect your in.

It's in the bible, every bible.

So, no, I'm not Jehovah.

But, to answer a previous question.
I belong to no particular sect or christian faith.

I was raised a "Jehovah's Witness" on one side of the family and Catholic on the other side. There was also a heavy Episcopalian and 7th Day Adventist influence in my family.

So, while I had a chance to choose from any of that . . . I chose neither of them.


Thanks for answering my question honestly. I feel the 7th day adventist and Witness are kind of shady as well, since they were created when an original church faith split because of the pastor being a false prophet. He kept predicting the world was going to end. I read up on the whole situation......and of all religions, these are just as shady as all.

:(

[peewee's lovechild]

Thanks for answering my question honestly. I feel the 7th day adventist and Witness are kind of shady as well, since they were created when an original church faith split because of the pastor being a false prophet. He kept predicting the world was going to end. I read up on the whole situation......and of all religions, these are just as shady as all.

:(

When God is taken out of the equation, all religions are dubious.

I especially hate when religions/faiths whore themselves to politics.

[peewee's lovechild]

My old boss told me that his Baptist pastor gave a sermon after 9/11 where he said that it was time to "ignore Christ" and "not turn the other cheek".

What the hell?

[Extra Stout]

The trinity was incorportated by the Catholic Church as a way to please the pagans that they tried to convert all over Europe. This is historical fact. The pagans of Europe, prior to the arrival of Jesus, had already developed the concept of a tri-god. Implementing the concept of the trinity to the Christian faith made for a smoother transition in terms of converting the pagans.
The word "Trinity" dates from the second century, when there was no "Catholic Church." It is simply the orthodox resolution of the seeming contradiction between the Mishnah and the testimony of the NT, a theology best expressed by Justin Martyr, c. 150.

Keep in mind there was no legal institutional church in the Empire until 313.

[peewee's lovechild]

The word "Trinity" dates from the second century, when there was no "Catholic Church." It is simply the orthodox resolution of the seeming contradiction between the Mishnah and the testimony of the NT, a theology best expressed by Justin Martyr, c. 150.

Keep in mind there was no legal institutional church in the Empire until 313.

There is actually a Greek word for Trinity, so it dates back way before that date.

I don't remember exactly well, but there was a trinity god in the Greek/Roman traditional "religion". I think the god "Janus" was part of that trinity.

There is also a trinity of gods in Hinduism, which predates Christ, and there are other examples that I can't think of right now. I don't have the time to research that.

[Extra Stout]

Jehovah is the name of god, regardless of what sect your in.

It's in the bible, every bible.

So, no, I'm not Jehovah.

But, to answer a previous question.
I belong to no particular sect or christian faith.

I was raised a "Jehovah's Witness" on one side of the family and Catholic on the other side. There was also a heavy Episcopalian and 7th Day Adventist influence in my family.

So, while I had a chance to choose from any of them . . . I chose neither of them.
His name is YHWH. Jehovah is an Anglicized form of a Germanicized form of a Latinized form of the Hebrew term, with the vowels from 'Adonai' mixed in, so that the Jews would never have to utter God's name, since they thought such an utterance was blasphemous.

And YHWH just means, as best can be expressed in English, "I am that I am." It is this name that Jesus called himself in the Gospel of John, "Before Abraham was born, I AM," which caused the Jews to pick up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

[Extra Stout]

There is actually a Greek word for Trinity, so it dates back way before that date.

I don't remember exactly well, but there was a trinity god in the Greek/Roman traditional "religion". I think the god "Janus" was part of that trinity.

There is also a trinity of gods in Hinduism, which predates Christ, and there are other examples that I can't think of right now. I don't have the time to research that.
You're thinking of the Egyptian triad.

[Duff McCartney]

But they are only relevant in the context of the Hebrew law... which is no longer relevant to us.

So you're saying the Old Testament is no longer relevant? Why is that?

[Extra Stout]

So you're saying the Old Testament is no longer relevant? Why is that?
The Old Testament is still relevant because of its testimony of salvation history. It contains important narrative theology and prophecy. The Alexandrian school of theology was built around allegorical interpretation of the Old Testmant to teach Christianity.

However, from the teachings of Jesus Christ, from the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts, from Paul's teachings on Law versus Grace, and from the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christian theologians understand that the requirements of the Law are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and the Old Covenant has been completed and abrogated in favor of the New Covenant (to which the old one alluded in the first place) which is superior and based upon better promises. Christians are not required to observe the civil and ceremonial aspects of Jewish law, but rather are obligated only to observe its moral aspects, i.e. the Ten Commandments, the Mishnah, and the loving of one's neighbor as oneself, and to abstain from sexual immorality as defined in the Old Testament.

[peewee's lovechild]

His name is YHWH. Jehovah is an Anglicized form of a Germanicized form of a Latinized form of the Hebrew term, with the vowels from 'Adonai' mixed in, so that the Jews would never have to utter God's name, since they thought such an utterance was blasphemous.

And YHWH just means, as best can be expressed in English, "I am that I am." It is this name that Jesus called himself in the Gospel of John, "Before Abraham was born, I AM," which caused the Jews to pick up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

You are right.
It's the Latinized version of YHWH (Yaweh).

Just like "Jesus" (Iesus) is the Latinized version of his true name, "Yeshua".

[peewee's lovechild]

The Old Testament is still relevant because of its testimony of salvation history. It contains important narrative theology and prophecy. The Alexandrian school of theology was built around allegorical interpretation of the Old Testmant to teach Christianity.

However, from the teachings of Jesus Christ, from the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts, from Paul's teachings on Law versus Grace, and from the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christian theologians understand that the requirements of the Law are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and the Old Covenant has been completed and abrogated in favor of the New Covenant (to which the old one alluded in the first place) which is superior and based upon better promises. Christians are not required to observe the civil and ceremonial aspects of Jewish law, but rather are obligated only to observe its moral aspects, i.e. the Ten Commandments, the Mishnah, and the loving of one's neighbor as oneself, and to abstain from sexual immorality as defined in the Old Testament.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Fillmoe]

I guess its better than sleeping with little children.

[Phenomanul]

You've NEVER given any text from the NT.

And, why wait???

I'm at work too, and I gave you text from the NT. Why can't you do the same??


I talked about Jesus' conversation with the rich man in Matthew 19.

I also mentioned the parable of the talents, and the prodigal son.

You either didn't see them, or ignored them... either way you can't claim my whole argument revolved around using the Old Testament. So your point was moot.


What's going to happen is that you're going to go to daddy so he can give you the textual evidence you seek. Then you're going to come back her to attempt to prove a point.

I've done it all on my own.

I've never professed to be infallible on doctrinal matters or ever suggested it. So yes I always seek counsel.

Unfortunately for your attempt to deride my position:

1) My father is in California at the moment.
2) I've posted on the Trinitarian concept more than once on this forum - way before you were even a member. This is a doctrine implicitly supported by GOD's Word.

Scriptural texts cited as implicit support for the doctrine of the Trinity
This is a partial list.

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." together with John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." and John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

John 8:23-24: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

John 8:58 "'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I Am!'"

John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

John 12:41: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." - As the context shows, this implied the Tetragrammaton in Isaiah 6:1 refers to Jesus.

Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." This is seen as significant when viewed with Isaiah 44:6: "This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

and one of my favorites:

Zachariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

This last reference, found in the Old Testament, is a prophecy about Christ's eventual cruxifixion... except it is GOD who is talking. GOD, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three facets of the same entity.



That's what I hate about people like you. You call yourself a Christian, but all you do is sit down in church and listen to what some random person is telling you. You've never studied the bible. You don't know it. And yet, you try to defend whatever faith you have.

Good luck with all that.

Hate is such as strong word. I would comment, but your comment alone speaks volumes about your mischaracterization of my position.

And look PeeWee.... I don't want to 'bicker' any more, frankly I'm sorry if I've offended you.

My central message: "don't judge many by the actions of the few" should still stand.

[lebomb]

You know what.....its all BS......I do NOT care about religions or church doctrines.....that is why I chose not to to join a particular church today......everyone gets caught up in the religion which is man made, and which is completly sinful.....I just know one thing....Im saved, believe that jesus is my lord an savior and that is it. PERIOD.

Go Spurs Go.

[Extra Stout]

You know what.....its all BS......I do NOT care about religions or church doctrines.....that is why I chose not to to join a particular church today......everyone gets caught up in the religion which is man made, and which is completly sinful.....I just know one thing....Im saved, believe that jesus is my lord an savior and that is it. PERIOD.

Go Spurs Go.
But who is this Jesus whom you call your lord and savior? I mean, one could claim that he is lord because his great moral teachings are worth following, and savior becaused he has delivered his followers from erroneous thinking.

[lebomb]

But who is this Jesus whom you call your lord and savior? I mean, one could claim that he is lord because his great moral teachings are worth following, and savior becaused he has delivered his followers from erroneous thinking.


Its called faith....you have to just believe.....If Im wrong....no harm done, if not, that could mean my soul. Everyone knows about Jesus....yet, its that persons choice to accept him or not. Free will my friend. :toast

[Ronaldo McDonald]

(marys and josephs house)

Mary walks in looking a bit heavy...
Joseph gives her a curious stare... he then inquires about her weight.
Mary stammers as she shuffles through her list of excuses, when suddenly she's struck with an ingenious idea...

and the rest is history...
I'm convinced there are letters written somehwhere by the guy who got mary pregnant.
mary probably kept a diary but threw it in the fire one night when she caught Joseph looking through her shit.

christianity is one big fucking cover up

[Extra Stout]

Its called faith....you have to just believe.....If Im wrong....no harm done, if not, that could mean my soul. Everyone knows about Jesus....yet, its that persons choice to accept him or not. Free will my friend. :toast
Faith? Faith in what? What do you believe?

Do you have faith that Jesus will make you materially wealthy?

Do you have faith simply that his moral teachings are worth following?

Do you have faith that Jesus (PBUH) was a great prophet born of the Virgin Mary, and that he will return at the end times to judge all non-Muslims?

Do you believe that Jesus is the first of Jehovah's spirit children and that if you obey his teachings, you will become the god of your own planet?

Do you believe that Jesus shows us that the material world is an illusion and that by receiving that knowledge, you are saved from that illusion?

Do you believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael, the first and greatest of God's creation?

Do you believe that Jesus was primarily a social reformer who was crucified because he espoused liberal values?

What does "Lord" mean? Does it mean he rules or has dominion over something? Over what? Is he a member of British Parliament? Is he one of the lords a-leaping from the 12 Days of Christmas? What does "Savior" mean? Did he save you from spending too much on car insurance? Did he save you into some kind of special knowledge, or gnosis? Did he save you from unethical or illiberal thinking?

[Extra Stout]

(marys and josephs house)

Mary walks in looking a bit heavy...
Joseph gives her a curious stare... he then inquires about her weight.
Mary stammers as she shuffles through her list of excuses, when suddenly she's struck with an ingenious idea...

and the rest is history...
I'm convinced there are letters written somehwhere by the guy who got mary pregnant.
mary probably kept a diary but threw it in the fire one night when she caught Joseph looking through her shit.

christianity is one big fucking cover up
Yes, that makes perfect sense. A 13-year-old uneducated Jewish girl tricked everybody in the eastern Mediterranean.

[Phenomanul]

Faith? Faith in what? What do you believe?

Do you have faith that Jesus will make you materially wealthy?

Do you have faith simply that his moral teachings are worth following?

Do you have faith that Jesus (PBUH) was a great prophet born of the Virgin Mary, and that he will return at the end times to judge all non-Muslims?

Do you believe that Jesus is the first of Jehovah's spirit children and that if you obey his teachings, you will become the god of your own planet?

Do you believe that Jesus shows us that the material world is an illusion and that by receiving that knowledge, you are saved from that illusion?

Do you believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael, the first and greatest of God's creation?

Do you believe that Jesus was primarily a social reformer who was crucified because he espoused liberal values?

What does "Lord" mean? Does it mean he rules or has dominion over something? Over what? Is he a member of British Parliament? Is he one of the lords a-leaping from the 12 Days of Christmas? What does "Savior" mean? Did he save you from spending too much on car insurance? Did he save you into some kind of special knowledge, or gnosis? Did he save you from unethical or illiberal thinking?

:lol @ lords-a-leaping....

BTW those are good summaries for what several of the major 'religions' say about Jesus.

[Phenomanul]

(marys and josephs house)

Mary walks in looking a bit heavy...
Joseph gives her a curious stare... he then inquires about her weight.
Mary stammers as she shuffles through her list of excuses, when suddenly she's struck with an ingenious idea...

and the rest is history...
I'm convinced there are letters written somehwhere by the guy who got mary pregnant.
mary probably kept a diary but threw it in the fire one night when she caught Joseph looking through her shit.

christianity is one big fucking cover up


Thanks for clearing it up.... :dizzy

I can't believe I was duped my entire lifetime....

Belief in GOD is about faith. But since I wouldn't be very successful proving His existence to you or any other doubter with concrete evidence you'll just have to rely on some of my own life changing experiences. Coincidence alone cannot explain these events - especially when given the context. At one point or another these events revealed GOD's purpose for my life and allowed me to reflect about the wonders of His Love, Grace, protection, and provision.

I firmly believe it was GOD that saved me from a car accident in Mexico when I was 7 - one where 4 people lost their lives (precisely on a day I was complaining about my height. Had I been 2 inches taller my head would have been severed off.)

It was HE who intervened and prevented some real-estate scammer from trying to steal our church property (my father ran into the real owner of the property and the rest is history, at ACE Hardware no less... my dad never, ever shopped there). He recalls that he just had a sudden impulse to go there looking for a hammer.

It was GOD who protected my father when he was held up by a random car-jacker in El Salvador. A truck traveling in front of my father's vehicle threw a rock through the windshield. It came in so sudden and struck the gunman on the head rendering him unconscious. My dad simply drove the assailant to the police station.

It was GOD who placed the sudden schedule conflict that kept me out of my planned trip to the World Trade Center observation deck on September 11th, 2001 (looking at my planner still gives me the chills).

It was GOD that provided for our family of five when my father's meager salary could only go so far. We rarely got sick. Our car seldom broke down. We never went hungry. All of us (my two siblings and I), obtained a college degree on full ride scholarships. GOD gave my parents the wisdom of proper stewardship. As a family we were obedient on the question of tithes, and He was always more than faithful (keeping His promises according to Malachi 3). While it could be said that our lifestyle choices had much to do with this 'feat', we encountered way too many families who earned 3 or 4 times more than my father but always struggled to remain financially afloat. Really it was GOD who provided.

This again is all tangible. But it touched my life at all the right moments to reveal that GOD has always been there for us.... as promised.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I don't exepect anyone who's been as fortunate as you to see things in a different light.

but i can point out many situations that have occured in which he is, unfortunately, absent.

[Duff McCartney]

Faith? Faith in what? What do you believe?

Do you have faith that Jesus will make you materially wealthy?

Do you have faith simply that his moral teachings are worth following?

Do you have faith that Jesus (PBUH) was a great prophet born of the Virgin Mary, and that he will return at the end times to judge all non-Muslims?

Do you believe that Jesus is the first of Jehovah's spirit children and that if you obey his teachings, you will become the god of your own planet?

Do you believe that Jesus shows us that the material world is an illusion and that by receiving that knowledge, you are saved from that illusion?

Do you believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael, the first and greatest of God's creation?

Do you believe that Jesus was primarily a social reformer who was crucified because he espoused liberal values?

What does "Lord" mean? Does it mean he rules or has dominion over something? Over what? Is he a member of British Parliament? Is he one of the lords a-leaping from the 12 Days of Christmas? What does "Savior" mean? Did he save you from spending too much on car insurance? Did he save you into some kind of special knowledge, or gnosis? Did he save you from unethical or illiberal thinking?

It means whatever he wants it to mean. That's the beauty of it...he could have it be whatever he wants it to be...and in a way he'd be right.

[Duff McCartney]

Thanks for clearing it up.... :dizzy

I can't believe I was duped my entire lifetime....

Belief in GOD is about faith. But since I wouldn't be very successful proving His existence to you or any other doubter with concrete evidence you'll just have to rely on some of my own life changing experiences. Coincidence alone cannot explain these events - especially when given the context. At one point or another these events revealed GOD's purpose for my life and allowed me to reflect about the wonders of His Love, Grace, protection, and provision.

I firmly believe it was GOD that saved me from a car accident in Mexico when I was 7 - one where 4 people lost their lives (precisely on a day I was complaining about my height. Had I been 2 inches taller my head would have been severed off.)

It was HE who intervened and prevented some real-estate scammer from trying to steal our church property (my father ran into the real owner of the property and the rest is history, at ACE Hardware no less... my dad never, ever shopped there). He recalls that he just had a sudden impulse to go there looking for a hammer.

It was GOD who protected my father when he was held up by a random car-jacker in El Salvador. A truck traveling in front of my father's vehicle threw a rock through the windshield. It came in so sudden and struck the gunman on the head rendering him unconscious. My dad simply drove the assailant to the police station.

It was GOD who placed the sudden schedule conflict that kept me out of my planned trip to the World Trade Center observation deck on September 11th, 2001 (looking at my planner still gives me the chills).

It was GOD that provided for our family of five when my father's meager salary could only go so far. We rarely got sick. Our car seldom broke down. We never went hungry. All of us (my two siblings and I), obtained a college degree on full ride scholarships. GOD gave my parents the wisdom of proper stewardship. As a family we were obedient on the question of tithes, and He was always more than faithful (keeping His promises according to Malachi 3). While it could be said that our lifestyle choices had much to do with this 'feat', we encountered way too many families who earned 3 or 4 times more than my father but always struggled to remain financially afloat. Really it was GOD who provided.

This again is all tangible. But it touched my life at all the right moments to reveal that GOD has always been there for us.... as promised.

Seems like an awful lot of caring for someone who matters very little...and I mean that with sincerity. In a way to me..it seems very arrogant...like god would actually care about a spurstalk poster.

[Phenomanul]

Seems like an awful lot of caring for someone who matters very little...and I mean that with sincerity. In a way to me..it seems very arrogant...like god would actually care about a spurstalk poster.


Arrogance??? :wtf


If anything, that's the wonder of it all.... In our physical and magisterial insignificance, GOD actually cares for His children...


I can't remember off the top of my head who here has that animated gif signature with the astronomical progression of Earth to the largest known star. To me it is awestriking, that GOD, the Master and Creator of the universe would love us enough on such a personal level.

[Duff McCartney]

Arrogance??? :wtf


If anything, that's the wonder of it all.... In our physical and magisterial insignificance, GOD actually cares for His children...

Well I gues that's where we can disagree because I personally don't think he does care about you. I don't really think he cares about any of us like that...not on a personal level.

[lebomb]

Well I gues that's where we can disagree because I personally don't think he does care about you. I don't really think he cares about any of us like that...not on a personal level.


.....Like I said....If Im wrong.....no harm done, and Ive tried to live a better life......If Im right???, well the unbeliever is in serious trouble. :depressed

[Kandy is Dandy]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Again, you are generalizing. When did believing in GOD require one to be poor? Wasn't King Solomon the richest man in recorded history?

While the financial spectrum for Christians is all over the board (from very poor to very rich), there is no rule that dictates that GOD can't financially bless people. He blesses some much, and others less. If you think about about it, it's not that hard to figure out; if GOD blessed certain people with more than they could manage they then would lose their dependence on Him. Obviously, that's not something He would want. And while that may be the case for many, even that is not a rule.

Besides (for the second time) many of these people give away far more money, both percentage-wise and absolute value-wise than the majority of those that criticize them. It's a two way street.

So yes... while it is true that many early Christians gave away all their earthly possessions in pursuit of Christ's calling many seem to forget that it was other Christians who helped financially support them.

To each their own.

And again re-read the very first thing I wrote in this thread.



That point continues to be ignored.


This has got to be the most assine thing I have read on the net to date.

Modern Religion is nothing more than a money grab. Each religion if paid enough cayshe will absolve you of your sins.

Since when can a Catholic Priest hear your confession and give you a penance in order for your sins to be forgiven?

In God's own commandments he said thou shall not bow down to any other God. The only God these TV wannabe Pastors know is money. They kneel down and pray before every show that they will take in a huge haul that day. Tammy Faye herself owned more makeup than my family consumed food in one year is proof enough. Not once did I see her on TV without her hair perfectly done and a pound of makeup on each side of her face. She was also sporting very fine jewels and top of the line lables.

Oh puhleeeease. All those schmucks who were giving their last dollars to those scam artists in hopes of a better life those crooks were rubbing their noses in their fancy big homes, fast cars, yachts, trips, etc.

Here is a quarter go buy a clue, because you need it the most.

[anakha]

Since when can a Catholic Priest hear your confession and give you a penance in order for your sins to be forgiven?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Well, the first Catholic Church documentation of this can be found in the declarations of the 1551 Council of Trent, so if you want to get technical about it, we can use that date.

Also, the following notions about Catholic Confession should be clarified:

- That penance is not a mere human invention devised by the Church to secure power over consciences or to relieve the emotional strain of troubled souls; it is the ordinary means appointed by Christ for the remission of sin. Man indeed is free to obey or disobey, but once he has sinned, he must seek pardon not on conditions of his own choosing but on those which God has determined, and these for the Christian are embodied in the Sacrament of Penance.

- No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.

- It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.

- While this sacrament as a dispensation of Divine mercy facilitates the pardoning of sin, it by no means renders sin less hateful or its consequences less dreadful to the Christian mind; much less does it imply permission to commit sin in the future. In paying ordinary debts, as e.g., by monthly settlements, the intention of contracting new debts with the same creditor is perfectly legitimate; a similar intention on the part of him who confesses his sins would not only be wrong in itself but would nullify the sacrament and prevent the forgiveness of sins then and there confessed.

Just wanted to clear that up.

I happen to agree with you on televangelists, though. :spin

[peewee's lovechild]

Faith? Faith in what? What do you believe?

Do you have faith that Jesus will make you materially wealthy?

Do you have faith simply that his moral teachings are worth following?

Do you have faith that Jesus (PBUH) was a great prophet born of the Virgin Mary, and that he will return at the end times to judge all non-Muslims?

Do you believe that Jesus is the first of Jehovah's spirit children and that if you obey his teachings, you will become the god of your own planet?

Do you believe that Jesus shows us that the material world is an illusion and that by receiving that knowledge, you are saved from that illusion?

Do you believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael, the first and greatest of God's creation?

Do you believe that Jesus was primarily a social reformer who was crucified because he espoused liberal values?

What does "Lord" mean? Does it mean he rules or has dominion over something? Over what? Is he a member of British Parliament? Is he one of the lords a-leaping from the 12 Days of Christmas? What does "Savior" mean? Did he save you from spending too much on car insurance? Did he save you into some kind of special knowledge, or gnosis? Did he save you from unethical or illiberal thinking?

Great questions.

We should talk it over some beers sometime.

[peewee's lovechild]

Thanks for clearing it up.... :dizzy

I can't believe I was duped my entire lifetime....

Belief in GOD is about faith. But since I wouldn't be very successful proving His existence to you or any other doubter with concrete evidence you'll just have to rely on some of my own life changing experiences. Coincidence alone cannot explain these events - especially when given the context. At one point or another these events revealed GOD's purpose for my life and allowed me to reflect about the wonders of His Love, Grace, protection, and provision.

I firmly believe it was GOD that saved me from a car accident in Mexico when I was 7 - one where 4 people lost their lives (precisely on a day I was complaining about my height. Had I been 2 inches taller my head would have been severed off.)

It was HE who intervened and prevented some real-estate scammer from trying to steal our church property (my father ran into the real owner of the property and the rest is history, at ACE Hardware no less... my dad never, ever shopped there). He recalls that he just had a sudden impulse to go there looking for a hammer.

It was GOD who protected my father when he was held up by a random car-jacker in El Salvador. A truck traveling in front of my father's vehicle threw a rock through the windshield. It came in so sudden and struck the gunman on the head rendering him unconscious. My dad simply drove the assailant to the police station.

It was GOD who placed the sudden schedule conflict that kept me out of my planned trip to the World Trade Center observation deck on September 11th, 2001 (looking at my planner still gives me the chills).

It was GOD that provided for our family of five when my father's meager salary could only go so far. We rarely got sick. Our car seldom broke down. We never went hungry. All of us (my two siblings and I), obtained a college degree on full ride scholarships. GOD gave my parents the wisdom of proper stewardship. As a family we were obedient on the question of tithes, and He was always more than faithful (keeping His promises according to Malachi 3). While it could be said that our lifestyle choices had much to do with this 'feat', we encountered way too many families who earned 3 or 4 times more than my father but always struggled to remain financially afloat. Really it was GOD who provided.

This again is all tangible. But it touched my life at all the right moments to reveal that GOD has always been there for us.... as promised.

It seems that your god hates all of Africa and 3/4 of Asia.

[peewee's lovechild]

Oh, and he has no particular love for New Orleans either.

[peewee's lovechild]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Well, the first Catholic Church documentation of this can be found in the declarations of the 1551 Council of Trent, so if you want to get technical about it, we can use that date.


So, the whole confession thing came up about 1,520 years after the death of Jesus Christ??

So, it didn't come from Christ.

Interesting.

[Extra Stout]

That penance is not a mere human invention devised by the Church to secure power over consciences or to relieve the emotional strain of troubled souls; it is the ordinary means appointed by Christ for the remission of sin. Man indeed is free to obey or disobey, but once he has sinned, he must seek pardon not on conditions of his own choosing but on those which God has determined, and these for the Christian are embodied in the Sacrament of Penance.

- No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.

- It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.

- While this sacrament as a dispensation of Divine mercy facilitates the pardoning of sin, it by no means renders sin less hateful or its consequences less dreadful to the Christian mind; much less does it imply permission to commit sin in the future. In paying ordinary debts, as e.g., by monthly settlements, the intention of contracting new debts with the same creditor is perfectly legitimate; a similar intention on the part of him who confesses his sins would not only be wrong in itself but would nullify the sacrament and prevent the forgiveness of sins then and there confessed.
Confession in its current form is a fourth-century innovation. Originally, a Christian would stand before the entire congregation and confess all his sins. However, once the church was legalized by Constantine, everybody's grandma started joining, so rather than confessing to a small and intimate group of friends in a safe and private environment, a believer would be confessing in front of hundreds of people, many of whom he didn't know very well.

So confession to the priest was invented as a substitute for confession to the entire congregation.

[Extra Stout]

Oh, and he has no particular love for New Orleans either.
Personally, I have never seen the church mobilize for relief the way it did following Katrina.

[peewee's lovechild]

Personally, I have never seen the church mobilize for relief the way it did following Katrina.

That wasn't my point.

My father's religion is REAL good about that. Anytime there's some kind of disaster, they send legions of people to help. As a matter of fact, one of my uncles went to New Orleans and help to rebuild many of the homes that had been damaged by the hurricane. All free of charge.

What I was being facetious about was that phenomenul thinks that god gets personally involved with people and he looks after them to make sure no harm comes to them. Millions of people die in Africa and Asia each year. Where's god there if he's supposed to be so interested.

I threw in New Orleans in the arguement for the same reason.

[Kandy is Dandy]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Well, the first Catholic Church documentation of this can be found in the declarations of the 1551 Council of Trent, so if you want to get technical about it, we can use that date.

Also, the following notions about Catholic Confession should be clarified:

- That penance is not a mere human invention devised by the Church to secure power over consciences or to relieve the emotional strain of troubled souls; it is the ordinary means appointed by Christ for the remission of sin. Man indeed is free to obey or disobey, but once he has sinned, he must seek pardon not on conditions of his own choosing but on those which God has determined, and these for the Christian are embodied in the Sacrament of Penance.

- No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.

- It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.

- While this sacrament as a dispensation of Divine mercy facilitates the pardoning of sin, it by no means renders sin less hateful or its consequences less dreadful to the Christian mind; much less does it imply permission to commit sin in the future. In paying ordinary debts, as e.g., by monthly settlements, the intention of contracting new debts with the same creditor is perfectly legitimate; a similar intention on the part of him who confesses his sins would not only be wrong in itself but would nullify the sacrament and prevent the forgiveness of sins then and there confessed.

Just wanted to clear that up.

I happen to agree with you on televangelists, though. :spin

I happen to be Catholic, and I call bullshit. You get in the confessional, and the priest listens to your sins, you confess your sins to him. Then he tells you to say ten hail mary's and you will be forgiven.

Tell me did God slip him an email and tell him to say that?

Go fuck yourself. Unless you have practiced the religion, do not preach it to me. I have studied religion all my life in various capacities and religions.

[anakha]

Forgot to check back on this thread for a while...


I happen to be Catholic, and I call bullshit.

You get in the confessional, and the priest listens to your sins, you confess your sins to him. Then he tells you to say ten hail mary's and you will be forgiven.

*shrugs* If you want to trivialize it that way...


Tell me did God slip him an email and tell him to say that?

Like I said earlier in this thread:


For me, religion is, and always should be, a personal thing. We each must carefully interpret those things which are written in those books we consider sources of our faith, as it was only men who did the writing. I consider myself Roman Catholic because I feel comfort and connection in the rituals of that religion, but I say people should be free to choose what to believe in. We do not all live our lives in the same way.



Go fuck yourself. Unless you have practiced the religion, do not preach it to me. I have studied religion all my life in various capacities and religions.

Born, raised, and practicing for 25 years.

Remember your initial question?


Since when can a Catholic Priest hear your confession and give you a penance in order for your sins to be forgiven?


I simply tried to give you an answer to that. No need to get so defensive about it.