Skip to comments.Joel Osteen Doesn’t Want Anti-Gay Stance To Define His Ministry
Posted on 06/03/2014 5:26:52 AM PDT by goodwithagun
Pastor Joel Osteen is open about his disapproval of gay marriage, but he does not want his opinion to define his whole ministry. During a talk with Osteen and his wife Victoria, HuffPost Lives Marc Lamont Hill asked him if gay marriage goes against the rules of Christianity.
(Excerpt) Read more at webpronews.com ...
His whole ministry appears to be not wanting to not be liked. I recall something in Scripture about bringing a sword...
Are we allowed to talk about this, or is this “behind the closed doors of a church.”?
He’s pretty popular and wants to remain that way.
Unlike other Osteen threads, this one is open.
I also remember something about being luke-warm. Not a good thing.
However, he can have a big role. He is so non-threatening that he appeals to a lot of non-Christians and can help them find Jesus. Once they do and read the Bible, they may discover the whole truth by themselves, or they may hear it from another minister.
Not when the lesbian married mayor gave him a sweetheart hookup deal on pwnership of the civic funded Summit.
He may not have a choice. It’s a sign of the times that some radical gay organization can make a target out of him. As long as he doesn’t capitulate he’ll do fine.
Good ol “Money Cometh” prosperity gospel Joel. you want the lite-lite version of anything Christian you go to Joel.
its not as if it is a new position for the church anyway
So in this instance "open" mean he never ever talks about it, right?
Or they may stop with Osteen's 'buddy Jesus' - and not only never open a Bible but also dismiss any hard truths about the need for holiness are 'unloving' and 'judgmental.'
Marc Lamont Hill asked him if gay marriage goes against the rules of Christianity.
Osteen told Hill, It would be, but I dont really focus on a lot of those things...
I am not a huge fan of Joel's (disclosure, my brother knows him), but saying 'it (gay marriage) would be (against the rules of christianity)' is what I see being said. I think he answered the question, and better than I expected...
When somebody uses “but,” it means everything before the word isn’t true. If he truly believes it, he does not need to qualify it with an explanation. He should just state, “It would be.”
As I said, he answered it better than I thought he would. I was pleasantly surprised in the second video, but I did have low expectations. (I used ‘but’ there, but I didn’t mean to imply that everything before it wasn’t true - dang I did it again...)
Too bad it wasn’t good enough for you.
“disapproval of same sex ‘marriage’” is NOT “anti-gay”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.