Reply With Quote
Indeed. It's a big reason I have had trouble finding a church I'm comfortable in. Churches are so caught up in theological details and taking care of their own that they have forgotten what Jesus was really about.
It's really important to establish that Jesus was, in fact, wealthy. Otherwise, he wouldn't have had anything worthwhile to teach us.
Indeed. It's a big reason I have had trouble finding a church I'm comfortable in. Churches are so caught up in theological details and taking care of their own that they have forgotten what Jesus was really about.
Wrong again.......
Teaching camel/eye of needle parable = get fired
Teaching "prosperity gospel" = get paid
It's really that simple. The extremely wealthy don't want to hear that they have slim chances to get into heaven.
People will argue the Bible to death. In the end, interpret it the way you want. Have faith in what you yourself believe in.
The scammers hawking the prosperity gospel as this asshole from AZ does have as their primary goal to make themselves prosperous, pulling the rabble's (purse) strings as if they were(are?) sheeple dumb enough to be fleeced by prosperity pastors.
Actually, the sheeple minds are fertile grounds for the prosperity gospel, having been plowed and fertilized with undending, pervasive horse from corporations.
Supply-side Jesus is classic!
Through his gospel sessions and fellowships.
Very simple. Big donations come from rich people. Those donations are lost if richers don't feel like their soul gets re-saved every Sunday - and it's up to the preachers to make em feel that way.
Only richers had camels and needles back then, so this supports the prosperity gospel.
So he was a panhandler.
Cool.
Wine, loaves and fish derivatives.
The comments by the man in the article are pure garbage. First of all, in the Matthew (Chap. 2) account of Jesus' birth, it says:
1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."
These men brought treasures to worship what they thought would be an earthly KING. Their gifts weren't given because the baby was actually rich, they were given because the givers thought they were coming to worship a KING that would inherit an earthly kingdom.
Secondly, Anderson says that Joseph and Mary took a Cadillac, a donkey, to Bethlehem. None of the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) have any reference to how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem. The birth accounts of Jesus are found in Matthew and Luke and there is no mention of the method of transportation. They had to register for the census imposed by Caesar Augustus in Joseph's family's home town of Bethlehem. People assume Mary got there by some means other than walking, simply because she was pregnant and probably needed a ride.
Eating a donkey because you are poor? Please! Even if Joseph and Mary were to have travelled with a donkey, donkeys and oxen were beasts of burden and not a sign of wealth by any means. Horses and chariots were closer to a mode of transportation for the wealthy than a donkey was.
Why go any farther with the argument? Anderson's first two points are bogus.
Last edited by Solid D; 12-28-2009 at 04:12 AM.
I see that Anderson shows that he has a PhD from Friends International Christian University. I did a little checking and found that, for instance, in Texas...Friends International Christian University is on the list of "Ins utions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/apps/consumerinfo/notx.cfm
Mr. Anderson may be letting the point he is trying to make on behalf of Christian prosperity get in the way of his personal Bible study time.
Jesus came to earth to reconcile us to the Father and make abundant life available to everyone who would receive it. John 10:10.
The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. The Bible does not say money is evil but that the LOVE of it is.
Jesus made it clear that God provides for His children and promised that if we will seek first God's kindgom that things would be added unto us. Matthew 6:33
No one wants to take advice from someone who is doing poorly.
I think that God wants His people to prosper so that we will 1) be equipped with the practical means to help those in need and 2) so that Believers will stand out in the crowd. I believe God wants Believers to live in a way that people will take notice of Believer's lives and ask questions- thus opening the door for Believers to witness to the unsaved.
Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Matthew 8:20
" For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:10
I did not include text in my first post.
Angel, A perfectly content poor person is far more intriguing than an extravagantly dressed rich person. This idea that God wants believers to live in a way that others will take notice is just ridiculous. The only people that will be attracted by this are the same people who will flip God off when the next dazzling thing comes along. On the other hand, if there were those who, despite the idea that a rich person should not follow a poor person, listened to a poor man because his ideas made sense, and his tranquility flowed out of him, they would be far more likely to stick with this person. Case in point, When John Hagee, Joel Olstein, etc. etc. pass away, or at least out of social conciousness, I seriously doubt that I, or many others will even remember their name. Mother Teresa on the other hand won't slip my mind as long as I live. Why? Because she went about doing her work whether she had money or not, never made a big show out of what she was doing, yet made more of an impact on the entire world than any of these guys could ever hope to make even though they have access to many multiples of the amount of money that she had.
Islam
The Quran uses this phrase to express the idea of something that is unlikely to happen:
To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin. Al-Araf (The Heights) 7:40
I appreciate your point about Mother Theresa, but even Mother Theresa is in need of physical supplies in order to aid those she is reaching out to- food, blankets, medicine.
You cannot feed the poor without funding. Habitat for Humanity cannot build houses without funding. Scholarships for at risk youths are made possible by donations.
It is the nature of all mankind, whether devoted to God or atheist, to aim to succeed and to work hard to ac ulate wealth.
I would rather see large sums of money in the hands of those who desire first to serve God and their fellowman than to have it go only to self absorbed types who care only about themselves and who will waste both the money and their lives.
None of the programs that you mentioned ac ulate wealth. Mother Teresa never ac ulated wealth. It is this ac ulation of wealth that I have a problem with. I would rather see large sums of money leaving the hands of those who desire first to serve their fellow man.
Oh, as far as your "its in man's nature to . . ." comment, it would seem that many of religion's rules run counter to man's nature for (what I believe) to be his own good.
Last edited by Drachen; 12-28-2009 at 12:59 PM.
WOW AL is into the prosperity doctrine?!
surprised me too.
What I meant in regards to non profit programs is that people with profits- I.E. someone with money to spare, a person of abundance- has to donate in order for them to function.
The Bible teaches that when you give it shall be given unto you, so I think it is fitting that people who are blessing others are also blessed themselves.
"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." Luke 6:38
Ok, but that supports the donation of wealth rather than the ac ulation thereof. Also, many of those mentioned in this thread (Olsteen, Hagee, etc). Are wildly rich even after donations of their wealth. Their sole source of money is the donations of those in their congregations which could go toward helping the poor. In these cases wealth is being ac ulated rather than going to help those in need.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
