Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joel Olsteen, Heretic
vanity

Posted on 08/01/2012 5:43:55 AM PDT by BereanBrain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDuDN2FtrIo


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: olsteen; osteen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
See this link. Google Joel Olsteen Heretical views. Find out that Joel is a false leader.

Don't put your faith in Joel, rather put it in the scriptures, and God.

We don't need any more charismatic leaders who don't know the bible and tickle peoples' ears.

If you don't know what scripture the above statement is paraphrasing, you might be a Joel Olsteen supporter.

1 posted on 08/01/2012 5:44:02 AM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

How can you really label a polemical thread to be “Devotional”?


2 posted on 08/01/2012 5:54:55 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

God gives money to those he likes best (hey, it works for Joel!)

But I think it’s spelled Osteen, like the old LA Dodgers pitcher.


3 posted on 08/01/2012 5:56:32 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

How can you other label Joels stuff as devotional so as to hide behind “no comments” on his bad theology?


4 posted on 08/01/2012 6:01:19 AM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

thanks for posting


5 posted on 08/01/2012 6:05:07 AM PDT by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain; Religion Moderator

I’m with you on the idea of the prosperity gospel, but you shouldn’t hide behind the devotional tag when your whole purpose is to be critical of somebody else’s faith...regardless of how much I disagree with that faith.


6 posted on 08/01/2012 6:17:36 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain
See this link. Google Joel Olsteen Heretical views. Find out that Joel is a false leader.

I'm no advocate of the man's squishy theology, but if you're going to accuse someone of being a heretic, the least you can do is get the heretic's name right.

It's Joel Osteen. Not Joel Olsteen.

7 posted on 08/01/2012 6:32:47 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2898271/posts?page=119#119)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

FINALLY. I am so sick of these stupid “Devotional” threads on this assclown. Remember...Osteen led the opening prayer at the inuguration of Houston’s Lesbian mayor Anise Parker - and then magically got city zoning approval for his new mega-”church”. I think FR should ban future “devotional” posts to this whore.


8 posted on 08/01/2012 6:45:16 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

I’m no Osteen fan ...

... but Houston doesn’t have zoning, and his megachurch has been around a lot longer than Mayor Porker.

SnakeDoc


9 posted on 08/01/2012 6:49:24 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens, Justified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

I love it! Vision posts that silly Osteen stuff every day like clockwork and gives it the devotional tag. His first comment is that, and I paraphrase, you can’t comment unless you agree with him because it’s “devotional”.

I never see it get any responses.


10 posted on 08/01/2012 6:54:02 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Agree ... this is a gross misuse of the “devotional” tag. An attack on somebody else’s theology can only be in an “open” thread.


11 posted on 08/01/2012 6:54:54 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

—How can you other label Joels stuff as devotional so as to hide behind “no comments” on his bad theology?—

The whole purpose of the “devotional” label is to hide behind it. ;)

BTW, My favorite Genesis video: Jesus, He Knows Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EprQGmZ3Imw

When they performed it in their live concert they clarified that this is not about all preachers, but certain “you know who they are” ones.


12 posted on 08/01/2012 6:57:33 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

I think a lot of folk are fed up with the daily “devotional” threads set up by Visions. He posts it but you are not allowed to join the thread and disagree.

It’s ridiculous for a site such as this. This is not a religious site, though most of us are Christian and love to discuss it.


13 posted on 08/01/2012 7:00:57 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I think a lot of folk are fed up with the daily “devotional” threads set up by Visions.

If they don't like those threads, they are under no obligation to read those threads.

He posts it but you are not allowed to join the thread and disagree.

That is the nature of a "devotional" or "caucus" thread. Such threads exist so that folks who believe in a particular theology may discuss it amongst themselves without constant interference and disruption from those who disagree with that particular theology.

Unfortunately, FReepers in general are a very immature lot; without the shelter of "devotional" and "caucus" threads, polite discussion of theology is not possible on this forum. All threads become a food-fight.

14 posted on 08/01/2012 7:07:38 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

—If they don’t like those threads, they are under no obligation to read those threads. —

I firmly agree. I think what is annoying is the same “spirit” that I killed when I dumped TV in 1997. Back then I would watch a news story and no matter how biased, the most I could do was throw a shoe at the TV.

With the internet, you can respond to BS when you see it - but not on “devotional” threads. Their very existence, especially once you have opened one and seen what is in it is a sort of in your face “nya, nya, nya, you can’t say anything I disagree with here”.

It’s a minor annoyance, but thanks to this thread I can vent. :-)


15 posted on 08/01/2012 7:12:53 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

—...without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, polite discussion of theology is not possible...—

Actually, a more accurate way to put it is “without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, disagreement is not possible”

That is because you can’t even disagree. So what is the purpose of the thread in the first place but to pimp a blog or site? Why not just lock the thread as soon as it’s created?


16 posted on 08/01/2012 7:15:01 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

—...without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, polite discussion of theology is not possible...—

Actually, a more accurate way to put it is “without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, disagreement is not possible”

One of my annoyances is that one of the rules about “devotional” is that it is described as the thread is “as if it is a discussion behind church doors.” Well, let me tell you that at MY church we get into some pretty heated disagreements. We call it iron sharpening iron. If we all just agree on everything we’re sorta redundant and there is not much point in meeting other than to say how swell we all are and how swell all of our mutually agreed upon beliefs are.

But why even say that. It’s just a circle jerk at that point.

If someone is going to make some sort of theological claim, even behind the doors of a church, the members should have the right to discuss its veracity or lack thereof. I’d leave a church that doesn’t allow that in a new york minute.


17 posted on 08/01/2012 7:18:21 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
So what is the purpose of the thread in the first place but to pimp a blog or site?

The purpose of a "devotional" or "caucus" thread is for folks who generally agree with each other to discuss their theology without constant interference from those who disagree.

The purpose of an "open" thread is for folks who disagree with each other to compare and contrast their beliefs, air their disagreements, defend their beliefs, and attempt to disprove contrary beliefs.

Both are necessary. The labels are necessary because some FReepers seem to suffer from an obsessive compulsion to vent their spleens upon those with whom they disagree.

18 posted on 08/01/2012 7:19:24 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

—The purpose of a “devotional” or “caucus” thread is for folks who generally agree with each other to discuss their theology without constant interference from those who disagree.—

The key word is also ridiculously squishy: generally.

So, If I profess to be a Christian and someone opens an Osteen thread or a Catholic thread, does that give me permission to go there and say that I generally agree with you that Christ is God in the Flesh and died for our sins, but your Mary worship is loopy or your Osteen Unitarianism denies the reason Christ needed to die?

What does “generally” mean in this context?

I’m not trying to be confrontational. I’d really like to understand this.


19 posted on 08/01/2012 7:24:22 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I see that you have been here since 2011. I have been here since 2000.

I was here before the "Religion Moderator" position was created, before the "Religion Forum" was created, and before the "caucus" etc. labels were devised.

In those days sane, rational, gracious, and polite theological discussion was almost impossible, and JR very nearly banned any such discussion from the entire site.

The situation is not perfect now, but it is immensely better than it was.

Well, let me tell you that at MY church we get into some pretty heated disagreements.

Yet those disagreements are still based on some common understanding of "life, the universe, and everything". That's what keeps your group together.

We call it iron sharpening iron.

With all respect to you and your group, most of what I have seen posted on this forum under the guise of "iron sharpening iron" has been polemical to the point of uncharity, factually deficient, and generally a disgrace to those who post it.

If someone is going to make some sort of theological claim, even behind the doors of a church, the members should have the right to discuss its veracity or lack thereof.

Emphasis added. "Devotional" and "Caucus" threads exist to keep the discussion among "the members".

20 posted on 08/01/2012 7:29:40 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

—I see that you have been here since 2011. I have been here since 2000.—

To be honest, I’ve been here since November of 1998. I lost my old ID and created a new one.

Still reading the rest of your post...


21 posted on 08/01/2012 7:34:15 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
If a thread is labeled "Rastafarian Caucus", and you are not a professing and practicing Rastafarian, you'd do well to avoid it.

BTW, I find the occasional protestant "caucus" threads very educational ... even though I consider much of the theology discussed therein to be rank heresy. If you wish to understand what folks really believe and practice, watching and listening without interfering can shed a lot of light and dispel a lot of heat.

22 posted on 08/01/2012 7:35:45 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I’ve been here since November of 1998

Then you remember the bad old days of incessant food-fights, you remember JR nearly banning theological discussion, and this whole conversation is pointless.

23 posted on 08/01/2012 7:37:57 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

OK, as I mentioned before, this is really a minor annoyance. And it came from me trying to argue with an Osteen premise a couple of years ago and I was told it was “devotional” and to butt out. So I did. But now I am in eastern time and those things pop up just as I’m logging in and I remember that apparently “member” means you agree kinda like two pre-tribulationists agree but a Mid-tribulationist would not be a “member” of that devotional.

And yes, I get you regarding the immaturity. I came from Seattle to a “southern Babdis” church that I now attend and while I was teaching a class we got on the subject of my belief that hell means annihilation, one of the “leaders” started thumping his bible, disagreeing with me becuase he believes “what his bible sez” and that settled it. When I tried to show what the bible DOES say about it he became a brick wall. I finally had to say that what he was standing behind is his interpretation of what the bible said. I inched my way into it but it got ugly and I backed off.

Meanwhile, the pastor loved it. He said people’s beliefs need to be challenged so they can more understand their own beliefs and their origin. Not to mention their veracity.

It’s why I discuss religion on liberal sites. Talk about having to know why you believe what you believe! And that is why so many people that ONLY go to devotional threads or talk with people they agree with end up, frankly, narrow minded and completely unable to articulate why they believe what they believe.

And when tested, they wither.


24 posted on 08/01/2012 7:42:44 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
one of the “leaders” started thumping his bible, disagreeing with me becuase he believes “what his bible sez” and that settled it. When I tried to show what the bible DOES say about it he became a brick wall. I finally had to say that what he was standing behind is his interpretation of what the bible said

ROFL!!!!

I wonder if you realize just how riotously funny I find that particular exchange.

25 posted on 08/01/2012 7:46:06 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain
I notice that Vision has not shown up yet. Here is more info on the false teacher Osteen:

http://www.forgottenword.org/osteen.html

26 posted on 08/01/2012 7:51:34 AM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

I have that question as well. Osteen’s views are not always devotional. I think it should be an open thread.


27 posted on 08/01/2012 8:05:27 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain; Religion Moderator

It needs to go either off the forum or the devotional tag needs to come off. My opinion.


28 posted on 08/01/2012 8:07:39 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

—Then you remember the bad old days of incessant food-fights, you remember JR nearly banning theological discussion, and this whole conversation is pointless. —

No, because I avoided them. The ones I DO remember are the anti-mormon stuff. I participated in those at every turn. I almost became one after my tour of the Bellevue Temple right after its completion.


29 posted on 08/01/2012 8:25:51 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

No debate of any kind is allowed on Religion Forum threads labeled “devotional.” The title alone is argumentative and therefore in no way qualifies as a devotional. The tag has been removed.


30 posted on 08/01/2012 8:27:20 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain
"How can you other label Joels stuff as devotional so as to hide behind “no comments” on his bad theology?"

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding Joel's bad theology, I'm just saying a polemical thread doesn't fit the definition of a "Devotional" designation as I've seen it defined by the mods before.

31 posted on 08/01/2012 8:31:51 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

—I wonder if you realize just how riotously funny I find that particular exchange.—

I thought it was funny at the time, though I didn’t dare crack a smile. The whole reason I brought it up was to give an example of a bit of theology that reasonable Christians can disagree on because both sides have merit.

That guy would have none of it. It was LITERALLY like arguing with a liberal. I’ve got him in my sights if, for no other reason, than to use him as an example to the rest of the congregation. Hopefully he may change his mind on some of this stuff. I’m not talking about him changing his position but, rather, on “non bullet doctrines” realizing that his interpretation is not necessarily the equivalent of God’s divine inspiration. This is especially true when he refuses to consider what scripture actually says. He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons and is one of those “King James Only” believers. I hate to pigeon hole him and fought it for months, but man, he fits it to a T.

I hope we can be friends some day. Seriously. If only he can figure out that I’m not trying to attack his position, but only his “my way or the highway” attitude about it.


32 posted on 08/01/2012 8:31:51 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
The [food fights] I DO remember are the anti-mormon stuff. I participated in those at every turn. I almost became one after my tour of the Bellevue Temple right after its completion.

Which explains a lot, honestly.

33 posted on 08/01/2012 8:42:17 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2898271/posts?page=119#119)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

Anyone who preaches the feel-goodism that Joel does is a flim flam artist.

God’s promises are not for this world, but the next. Do you really think the devout Christian in say North Korea is suffering in some dank cell getting beaten because he isn’t devout enough???? The very idea that belief and following of Christ will give you happiness on earth is BLASPHEMY. Yet this is the drivel this guy and far more preach every day, and its offensive and repugnant.


34 posted on 08/01/2012 8:48:07 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

UMMM YOU ARE WRONG! Lakewood Church purchased(by whatever means) the old Compaq Center(where the Houston Rockets(NBA) used to play) and made it into an Osteen Worship “Center”. Get your FACTS straight.


35 posted on 08/01/2012 11:13:15 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

John 15:18 If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.


36 posted on 08/01/2012 11:18:37 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Bellevue Washington? Are you refering to the “Bellevue Flasher?” :>)


37 posted on 08/01/2012 12:58:19 PM PDT by irishtenor (Everything in moderation, however, too much whiskey is just enough... Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain
Why would anyhone listen to John MacArthur, whose statement of doctrinal beliefs is a false doctrine: "We teach, in this respect, that God the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the bestowing of all His gifts for the perfecting of the saints today and that speaking in tongues and the working of sign miracles in the beginning days of the church were for the purpose of pointing to and authenticating the apostles as revealers of divine truth, and were never intended to be characteristic of the lives of believers". (Emphasis added)

This is incorrect. While this guy may do some good, in this area he is off base. I suspect a large part of his opinion of Osteen is in error as well.

By the way, it's worth noting that MacArthur's response was in 2010, following Osteen's event at Dodger's Stadium. Rather than piggyback on someone else's success in a derogatory manner, MacArthur would do better himself speaking words of eternal life to those in need.

38 posted on 08/01/2012 4:04:47 PM PDT by The Truth Will Make You Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
“But I think it’s spelled Osteen, like the old LA Dodgers pitcher”

Yep Claude Osteen, he lived in my Hometown for a few years (Brea California) while with the Dodgers. I have his autograph around her somewhere from when I was a little tweeter.

39 posted on 08/01/2012 4:40:03 PM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Though I do not bother to read the Osteen devotionals, nor agree with the man's theology, those who post his daily devotionals are just as entitled to do so as the dozen or so Catholic threads that pop up here on a daily basis. Do we really need a Catholic Word of the Day or Catholic Daily Mass postings? If someone new was looking at this site and went to the Religion forum threads, I suspect he would go away thinking this WAS a Catholic religion only promoting site. Is this stuff not available any other place on the net that someone feels obligated to make sure it gets put up here? I wouldn't mind if the Religion Forum was a place where we go to discuss CURRENT news that have a religious bent and I don't think I'm alone in this.
40 posted on 08/01/2012 9:56:12 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I hope we can be friends some day. Seriously. If only he can figure out that I’m not trying to attack his position, but only his “my way or the highway” attitude about it.

It sounds like your fellow church member is not the only one with a "my way or the highway" attitude.

41 posted on 08/01/2012 10:06:23 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
It has been told to me of my father, that when his own attended Southern Baptist Seminary, he was taught to refrain from too rigidly projecting the attitude;

But rather

I offer this as information, not instruction.

Now as to my own grandfather being successful or not in carrying that sort of thing forward, I do not know for certainty, for I seldom heard him or much anyone else sermonize, myself not being brought up in religious instruction and church attendance.

42 posted on 08/01/2012 11:24:01 PM PDT by BlueDragon (i searched, the world over-and-i-thought-i-found-true-love, she met another and...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

My only problem is the inability to rationally discuss once the stuff IS posted. However, I see why they have to create the devotional category “rule”.

After all, the less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws (rules). If people can’t respectfully discuss on these threads, a rule is needed.


43 posted on 08/02/2012 4:28:21 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

—It sounds like your fellow church member is not the only one with a “my way or the highway” attitude.—

From what post did you glean that? I ask because my whole premise was that neither of us KNOWS for sure and that both sides have good arguments. His position is that he is right regarding his position.

And even the pastor liked that I was challenging it. i.e. I was not saying I am right and he is wrong. Rather, I was saying that he may not be as right as he thinks he is and that he just may want to re-evaluate his take on the scripture he uses as proofs.

In no way did I ever suggest in that conversation that I am right and he is wrong, regarding the final conclusion of our belief. In fact, all I ever really did was propose another option and ask questions.

So, I ask again, from where did you get your impression?


44 posted on 08/02/2012 4:32:41 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

—”This is what the bible says” “and this is what it means to me”—

This is EXACTLY where I was trying to go. It failed with this particular guy. He was a brick wall, just as liberals can be regarding political issues.

In that one statement above is the spirit of what I was trying to get across from my position and trying to get him to add the last two words to his.

It failed. It never got into a heated discussion, but it was clear that he believed it. When I asked him what do all the passages that speak of “eternal life for one, and death and destruction for the other” mean, regarding the eternal experience of the latter. He got very obstinant.

The reason was simple: He lives in the bible belt with people that agree with him. I come from Seattle, arguably the most unchurched part of the country - not to mention I debate it incessantly with non-believers on the internet in an attempt to sharpen my knowledge and, hopefully, bring some into the fold. His views have never been challenged. Mine are all the time. I can’t just “believe what I believe”. I have to back it up - and do on a daily or at least weekly basis.

I’m hoping that my presence there will challenge some of the folk to revisit why they believe what they believe and maybe even change some of their views. Which ones, I don’t know. But if your only response to someone that challenges your viewpoint is “the bible sez it”, you are not really wearing the full armor of God. You only think you are.


45 posted on 08/02/2012 4:41:37 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

Probably the part that rubs me the wrong way regarding Vision’s Osteen “devotional” every day is the very first post that all of them contain:

“Debate of any kind is not appropriate on a devotional thread. They are closed, i.e. to be treated as if they are occurring behind the closed doors of a church.” -Religion Moderator

I remember contemplating that the first time I saw it. I backed out and have never entered one of those threads again except to enter todays to cut and paste that.

My take: With that caveot, the presence of the thread here is pointless and negates the whole reason this site exists and is compelling to visit.

One can go to the Osteen site for all the “devotional” discussion of Osteen they want.


46 posted on 08/02/2012 5:00:25 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay; allmendream
The very idea that belief and following of Christ will give you happiness on earth is BLASPHEMY.

Agreed. Sometimes christians preach that if you become a christian then everything is grand. Not true. In fact, it could get bad for us. What we have when we put our faith in God and become His, is peace from the mayhem. We know that whatever happens, we have Christ. If we die, we have Christ. If we lose our job, we have Christ. If a spouse is unfaithful, we have Christ. Putting our successes and faith in worldly things will only let us down. Christ will not. That is our hope and our peace.

47 posted on 08/02/2012 5:37:57 AM PDT by justice14 ("stand up defend or lay down and die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
In no way did I ever suggest in that conversation that I am right and he is wrong, regarding the final conclusion of our belief. In fact, all I ever really did was propose another option and ask questions. So, I ask again, from where did you get your impression?

I got it from what you said:

I thought it was funny at the time, though I didn’t dare crack a smile. The whole reason I brought it up was to give an example of a bit of theology that reasonable Christians can disagree on because both sides have merit. That guy would have none of it. It was LITERALLY like arguing with a liberal. I’ve got him in my sights if, for no other reason, than to use him as an example to the rest of the congregation. Hopefully he may change his mind on some of this stuff. I’m not talking about him changing his position but, rather, on “non bullet doctrines” realizing that his interpretation is not necessarily the equivalent of God’s divine inspiration. This is especially true when he refuses to consider what scripture actually says. He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons and is one of those “King James Only” believers. I hate to pigeon hole him and fought it for months, but man, he fits it to a T. I hope we can be friends some day. Seriously. If only he can figure out that I’m not trying to attack his position, but only his “my way or the highway” attitude about it.

Maybe if you read it again, you would understand my point. I happen to agree with the "other" guy that Hell IS a real AND eternal place that the condemned will suffer in eternity. It isn't a pleasant thing to comprehend and some people refuse to believe such a place exists, preferring the idea of "annihilation" instead. I believe this IS one of the major tenets of the Christian faith that CAN be proved by Scripture.

My comment had to do with your assertion that you were the one showing tolerance. The words you used to describe the other guy did not sound all that tolerant to me. Words like:

reasonable Christians can disagree

LITERALLY like arguing with a liberal

use him as an example to the rest of the congregation

“non bullet doctrines” realizing that his interpretation is not necessarily the equivalent of God’s divine inspiration

is one of those “King James Only” believers

he refuses to consider what scripture actually says

He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons

I just read those and didn't see such a tolerant attitude as you claimed. I'm not attacking you, just trying to demonstrate that a tolerant person would not use some of the terms you did for someone who disagreed with him. That's all.

48 posted on 08/02/2012 2:20:59 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: justice14

I agree! As Paul said, “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21)


49 posted on 08/02/2012 2:30:38 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

—The words you used to describe the other guy did not sound all that tolerant to me. Words like:

reasonable Christians can disagree

LITERALLY like arguing with a liberal

use him as an example to the rest of the congregation

“non bullet doctrines” realizing that his interpretation is not necessarily the equivalent of God’s divine inspiration

is one of those “King James Only” believers

he refuses to consider what scripture actually says

He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons

I just read those and didn’t see such a tolerant attitude as you claimed. I’m not attacking you, just trying to demonstrate that a tolerant person would not use some of the terms you did for someone who disagreed with him. That’s all.—

I should start by sharing my feelings about the word “tolerance”. I believe that the most religiously intolerant man that ever lived was Jesus.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I don’t consider Tolerance to be good or bad. It depends on the situation. I tolerate people having an opinion different than mine. What I don’t tolerate is when they DON’T tolerate it. ;-)

You see, reasonable Christians CAN disagree. Remember Paul and Barnabus? And in this case I described, it really WAS like arguing with a liberal - In essence, completely ignoring anything I said, regardless of the merit, AS IF I HAD NOT SPOKEN.

Regarding the “example” comment, it was way too brief to communicate what I meant, which, as I reread it, did not mean at all what I said. Sorry about that. What I meant was that others saw the discussion we had, my quiet attempts to share scripture and the meaning of English words, and his bull nosed “the bible sez there is iternal suffering, period.” responses, complete with lifting and patting his bible. IOW, let the observer determine which is the more compelling viewpoint.

Regarding my “bullet doctrines” statement: I don’t see what your problem is with that one. I was trying to be tolerant of our disagreement.

Regarding the “King James only” comment. Yep. I stand by it. I can get the word from any version and have enough understanding of the original languages to know that all versions are flawed. I don’t hold any version up as the one ordained by God. And when anyone else claims one is, I challenge them on it. I “tolerate” all versions to one degree or another. “King James only” people don’t. FWIW, the bible I use in church is King James. :-)

Regarding “he refuses to consider what scripture actually says”, I stand by that one too. He has so enjoined himself to the particular viewpoint that when you ask simple questions about the meaning of words he clams up and goes back to “the bible sez it’s eternal suffering and that settles it” mode. The liberal thing I spoke of earlier.

Regarding : He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons, my point was that he is using his King James bible and, more importantly, his personal interpretation of what it means (on some very controversial subjects) to be the final word. He appears to have done what I consider to be anathema to a Christian believer: He has stopped learning. I pray I never get there, though it is a concern.

Just to reiterate, I think there are places for tolerance and places for intolerance. I am tolerant of opinions different than mine, but I am intolerant of those who disagree being intolerant of me disagreeing with them.

Sorta sounds like a twisting of words, but it does get to what is a real meme in the world today: When is it the high road to tolerate a thing and when is it the high road to not tolerate a thing?

BTW a friend of mine who is a pastor and author says this: Most Christians spend the first year or two of their Christian life reading the bible and learning who God is and what their relationship with him should be. They then spend the rest of their life defending that particular viewpoint, no matter how “dumb” a serious bible scholar may find some aspects of it. They can be like adults that stopped going to school in fourth grade and refuse to believe anything that contradicts what they had been taught up to that point.

I moved from Seattle and now live in the bible belt. The guy I bought my house from became a pastor at a church in my area where people attend religiously their entire life and have very, VERY strong opinions on what the bible says. In that church he discovered that many of the elderly members did not know the difference between the old and new testaments!

He tried to preach from the bible and after a year was fired. They knew better than him. They were using the understanding they acquired in Vacation Bible School and never grew beyond that. And they were ALL OVER the fire and brimstone thing.

BTW, I was a believer in that theology as well, until about two years ago. I’m constantly fascinated by how much I discover I DIDN’T know about a biblical concept on which I’ve had an opinion for many years until I go into deep study of it. This has resulted in a 180 degree turnaround in some cases and a significant tweeking of details in others.

But in all cases it solidifies my understanding of, and belief in the grace message, which is the singularly unique cornerstone of Christianity. Or, should I say, Capstone.


50 posted on 08/02/2012 3:41:42 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson