SA Pastor is Sex Freak

[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'...

[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 en led 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 hes.

[Phenomanul]

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

I'm just sayin'...

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

[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 es.

[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 en led 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 en led 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 mul ude 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 bas ized 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 , 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 le 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 ac ulating 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 ac ulating 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 ac ulating 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 s bags, 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 en y 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.