SA Pastor is Sex Freak

[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 Ins ute, 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 ing 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 ing 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 Ins ute, 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.

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 ing 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.

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 bas ized 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 bas ized 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 pros uted 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 ing 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 hes 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 hes 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 )

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 en lement to a living was tantamount to supporting televangelists. 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.



And while we're breaking down what is and isn't in the red words, WTF is up with THIS?

[tlongII]

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



And while we're breaking down what is and isn't in the red words, WTF is up with THIS?

I am eagerly awaiting the christian comments on that!

[Phenomanul]

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" Surely they can't be serious.








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

[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 hes 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 hes 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 )

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 en lement to a living was tantamount to supporting televangelists. 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?

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" Surely they can't be serious.








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

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" Surely they can't be serious.


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

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

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

[Phenomanul]

You are still using the OT?

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

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....