sky4it

Watered garden: The only maddening thing is when predestinationists go off and create a doctrine which circumvents God's commandments. Like John Calvin, (see the John Calvin thread) We are free will beings. That fact that God can know what we will choose, in no way diminishes our responsiblity for our own choices. The other thing is, what if God choses not to foreknow some things? Its certainly a possibility, because just because he knows what we will choose DOES NOT make him accountable for our choices. (This is what the Calvinists would say, they think since God foreknows things ;that that makes him accountable for their CHOICES, NO IT DOES NOT.)

Great teachers/preachers: k (Sadhu) Sundar Sing, Watchmen Nee, and Americans Bill Gothard (Basic only) and Dobson....... Mother Theresa, and Catherine Kuhlman. these were all Biblical greats.................. <_< cant beat these peoples goods.....................

You ever wonder WHY Ananias and Saphira dropped over dead when they sold their stuff and gave HALF to the first church? IMO, it wasnt about the money (although the apostles may have had a policy of ALL or you cant be a leader) It was about the fact they lied about what they did. Perhaps it speaks a tad in HOW people should develop theology and money in the gospel.

Oldiesman: Do you know Joyce Meyers personally? If you know her personally do you know her really really really well? Sometimes getting the boat out of the boathouse is the way to solve the problems.

Remember tho, it was a spinster named VPW who taught that Job's problem was his faith was inapprobrate, thus VPW wrecked the entie book of Job. I aint saying either Bramble that others dont teach similar stuff (I dunno about Joyce, I doubt it tho that Joyce teaches that from what I have seen) Typically, IMO , similar doctrines teach prosperity in combo with some believing philosophy. You are correct tho, telling people they are sick and deserving tis a bit shameful. Yea, but, in my NT, the obedience issues are related to principals , not an established presence of people of have all the goods. I agree with your principal however, that having "leaders" who substitute themselves for ones own personal experience is where the real problem is. Hey guys, quit being so hard on Belle, she did make the obvious comparison between Billy Graham's salary and Joyces', which was a valid point.

Belle: And that's what I pretty much do myself. I dont depend on others for that. I think Belle, there has been so much insistence of dependence and attendance by organized what not, that if I make a remark to the reverse, you automatically think I am suggesting its a prerequisite to a better tuned life. I am not. I once asked an evanglical pastors wife, ( who is a real nice woman) the following question when she asked me if I was attending church. Who is more justified the one who attends one time and does everything he heard or the person who goes 100 times and does not of it? She smiled and winced a tad, and didnt really answer. I think she was expecting me to say that I was doing it (whatever her response would have been); anyway, I think she got the point. I would be willing to bet I attended in younger years enough if one added them it would be more than most attended in there lifetime. still, ya dont get extra credit so you can play hookey, later down the road. The skinny is I never feel guilty anymore if i dont go, it doesnt add up if I have other things to do. peace, :)

Garth; I hope you scrolled up and saw I was going to start a political thread. I dont disagree much with what you indicated as experince in your last post. The things I remember with experiences as Christians that were either funny or a good experience, had nothing to do with arguementative ideology. One time, I was with a Pentacostal group in Minneapolis who went down to the University of Minnesota, in a common area where 200 students were gathered. All of a sudden out of the blue a guy in the group I was with says Thus saith the Lord, and he starts bellering and prophecying. Sufficient to say, my eyes were bulging out of my head as much as the students, I was in a little shock myself. Some people are just immature Bramble. Still, I think you are right, the idea of Christianity is to address issues of compassion at a better level than a humanitarian. Selfish things get in the way, things digress. I think my Christianity in order to be effective for myself it has to become part of my nature. I dont think it is possible to ideologically think yourself into change. Healthy principles should produce heathy results. You know, I never have thought that I "preached" to anyone. Yet sometimes I have heard someone say, quit preaching. If a point is valid and it has reason, I guess that would make anyone with such a thought a preacher, regardless of what the ideology is. The whole point of Christianity is to find some Liberty. If what one finds is condemnation, control and vices, I agree with you, the best place for finding liberty and peace is privacy.

Me either, I agree and thanks. In fact, I would be willing to bet I have fewer friends than you do. :( I tend to gavitate toward people who talk TO me not AT me. I think there is a difference. When somebody is talking to you they engage what you say, and have some interest in your person. They are not trying to change you, just show you there view with a smile. I think that would be people like you, Abi, Belle and Garth, IMO. Let me give you an example of talking at some one in this thread. Basically out of the blue someone came on this thread, pretty much ignored the content of the thread about Joyce Meyers, and started hammering Garth for a root of bitterness. That is talking at someone where your only interest is exulting your view in a conquest sort of way. It's not the view itself toward Garth that was offensive to Mwaaa, it is the fact that somehow someone feels that someone else is "under" them. I mean if one truly feels they are right and the other party wrong, wouldnt one feel empathy towards someone else? I think so. As much as I think sometimes I am "right" about a topic, well, doesn't everyone? I mean doesnt everyone feel there basis of view is good otherwise they would feel terrible about themselves? The point is talking to people should be more fun than talking about ideologies. Ideologies, they are just things that give us passion for living. It's (interest in other people) what makes us as people; better in nature than animals. I think this also speaks volumes to the way people use the bible or any law or other concept. What is said, sometimes is not nearly as relevant as the context or how you are saying it.

Dont worry about it too much Garth. If some nutcase cultists grabs you and attempts brainwashing? Well if you have a friend like me, Abi, Bramble and Belle, all you have to do is call out we will fetch you back and deprogram you. I was thinking of starting a thread in the political heading. I do so much enjoy your views. If I start one I will let you know. Perhaps under politics we can discuss less digressing things. Anyway, have a good one. Doesnt this leave you feeling isolated and seperated from almost everybody.? Since I too am by and large a loner, healthy sceptism does leave one isolated no? I mean, it doesn't matter what area of peoples views you are talking about. There are a few nutcase Democrats and Republicans as well. Their are a few nutcase people in everyarea of views. If everytime we find a few in one area of belief we disregard the whole, dont we kind of limit our access to the good? As there are some good Democrats and Republicans as well? (I am NOT saying Joyce is a nutcase, but she does have some issues) Chances are there are some nutcase Wiccans as well? An old man when I was a kid once said your lucky if you find five good friends in a lifetime. I think he was right.

Abigail: Excellent post, the website you quoted was fresh information too. I didnt catch until a few posts into this thread, that the original information on this thread goes back to November 2003, pretty old news. Cheers :)

I think the point Dot is that she is living rather large. I personally dont have a problem with that, unless they are teaching messages on tithing at the same time. I think then, its inapprobriate, because some of the people sending money in, are living paycheck to paycheck. I think the problem people like Joyce Meyers have, is taking care of to many friends and relatives, and thinking thats the right thing to do. I think Joyce has a good heart, and means well. Also it is not uncommon in the industry for others to do this, so perhaps Joyce felt she should too (I dunno) Joyce Meyers seems to teach in her messages that sometimes its good to say NO, I think she needs to do this perhaps to somepeople around her. I think Jesus said if people do things for purely financial gain, they have there reward. I'm not saying that statement applies 100 percent to Joyce Meyers, I dunno, thats up to you know who. I do however think that statement speaks volumes to the people who have labored under tyrants like VPW and others who have labored for absolutely no reward. The simple point being someday there will be an equalizer for all. :)

horseshead: I havent heard from you in over a month, I am hoping you are doing fine.

Thats 100 percent the same reason, how I became familiar with Joyce Meyers. I never really listened to a her as in a lot, as, I was too busy most of the time. Nope, I am certainly not an expert on Joyce Meyers so I shouldnt have commented on her. Or as I look at it, lifes better on the bottom, there is a clearer view to the top. If what part of Joyce preaches is prosperity (as in finances) (I dunno , I really havent read her stuff) maybe I am better off where or just as good where I am at!

LMAO Garth, Hey Garth, I was wrong on Joycey Meyers aren't you going to rub it in a little or better yet a lot?

Belle: I agree. You and Bramble are correct. Garths comments have merit also. I apoleeeeergize. It's distaseful and wrong. Its stunning a bit, because I listened to mostly sound bites and peices while others had her tuned in. I thought I had a good fix on her and I didn't Come to think of it, she is a tad demanding. Anyway, I certainly will put her under the micoscope in the future. I think she has earned that. Belle did you know that a cat, never makes the same mistake twice? I try to learn from them in that. Yeah, I will be listening to these people a little closer than I was for the real message. Thanks

Bramble: I think I might be wrong then about Joyce Meyers. If so I will apolgize to Garth and Belle. Its really a bit amazing to me Bramble and I will tell you why. I have heard bits and pieces of her messages of probably 15 or so, when someone else had her tuned in. she talks a lot. But I reviewed one thing that was a bit disturbing. She was teaching a message on tithing from Ephesians , and about how God had brought her through trials, and she kept tithing and after the fire God increased and increased. I think its inapprobriate to talk about tithing as a doctrine, if you husband has a 100 grand car, and your house compound is that luzurious. I was not aware, that Joyce Meyers was doing this. Thus, on this basis , things do not look entirely approbriate. The one thing that is very distrubing, is the comments about lack of disclosure of the finances by the one independent monitoring agency. Ministers ought to have some accountability in this regard and if she doesnt (I am not sure) Yeah, I think Belle and others are right, this is not good. I apologize, I am not usually that sloppy in viewing people and commenting. BTW Bramble, I was not aware of that stipulation about tax-exempt organizations, thank you. :) Its hard for me Bramble, too see some of these people that I thought were better than that in there behavior doing such things.

Belle and Garth: See above comments

Trinue God: Yes welcome and do stick around. Yours is a heartbreaking story. Misfits, such as myself, while perhaps not being able to 'blend" have never been rejected here at GS. (well at least not yet) Civil virtue is alive and well in America, but if not, it is still here at GS. In fact, there is so much diversity here, if someone didn't know why we posted, they would probably think we were all univeralists.

Hey Belle: I deleted my comments on this topic to you and Garth. Some of this stuff does look a tad unusual, thus I think unless I studied her more I should not have commented. Even tho I have heard her several times, I am going to check her out further before issuing anymore commentary. I think ministers should be open about there finances, and if she is not, (I am not sure wether) perhaps there could be problems here so I will withhold my view. Greetings and Regards Sky4it

Garth: I deleted my comments on this topic because after reading some other stuff on Meyers, I think I need to study what she is doing more before commenting. Regards

I think that might be a tad excessive Garth. I have listened to Joyce several times. Joyce Meyers resonates with people because she challenges people to plug themselves in, on a personal level. She really doesnt seem to at all attempt to control people. Joyce is a very positive person, she looks for reasons people should succeed, instead of gloating in the past. She is Oprah Winfrey like in communcating well with people of different stripes. In the times I have listened to Joyce, (more than a handful) I don't recall her anyone time degrading, critizing or berating unbelievers or those who disapprove of Christianity. Neither do I ever recall her at one time politicizing her message. (Thus I think the Anti-Wall of Seperation clause is incorrect) In the times I have listened to Joyce, I dont recall her making appeals for money. I think Joyce is a pretty cool cup of coffee. Oh, and as for the weblink knocking her financial gains, it looks like pretty standard protocol these days to rip anyone who is successful financially in preaching. I dont see the big deal. Nobody knocks CEO's or other organization leaders, who need to move around a lots with security, but preachers arent entitled to it right? thats hogwash and BS If people of non-faith want to criticize someone, pick on the ones who politicize their message, because they want to make those kind of argrments. But picking on Joyce Meyers who has never said a bad thing towards people of non-faith? GET A LIFE!

After reconsidering some of this McStuff, in particular John’s comments, I’d have to say there is some merit to what people like Garth, Geo, Bramble and others are saying. I emphasize the word SOME and it is directed towards the morality issue. In fact, John its even biblical, and you partially made the argument yourself. It’s about Romans 2, which says if the “uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law shall not his uncirucmcision be accounted for circumcision?” The problem your dealing with is ; is it possible? I don’t think the Bible would have mentioned it if it was not possible. Still, you would say, well they know the word, thus should be on this side of the fence right? Yeah, well maybe, but for one reason it is not up to you and I to judge that. That reasons name is VPW. You would probably say, John, that having the Bible and God is a better way. I agree, but it becomes a hard sell when someone like VPW has massacred the scripture. I still agree however that a prayer closet is a place for finding more answers then what ever some people have chosen. Since my involvement was not as extensive as some in TWI, its hard to be the judge even on that issue alone. The more important matter it would seem, would be to clarify moral issues. The other thing is John, when you tell someone they are immoral, essentially what you are telling them in a politically correct way is, You’re a pervert. The other issue is and someone brought it up, this seems to bring out the worst of all the scrum. With me its more about issues of courage faith conviction, and the nature of God. Perhaps these guys wouldnt get so excited about all that, if you werent calling them immoral. Again, if someone says they have moral values, isnt it a little simpler to presume that they do? I think so. Since they said it, certainly only the true Judge, can no all the facts, and that is not up to me and you. The upsetting issues to me is not this one. The fact they (atheists) implicitly say they have morality, means that they are accountable for them. The disturbing issues are the Bart Ehrman’s of the world, who seem to want to make scripture look like it was copied by dinglings, derilects and the unemployed, principally in an effort to eradicate the virtuous of the text. It is bad because it attempts to destroy the foundation of our principals. Erhman, illustrates examples of extremely bad copies of biblical manuscripts, but does not mention better copied manuscripts with less error. He’s very subtle in his methods and for this reason I think very devious. It is odd, that even in intellectual circles, one can still find the same pigeon holing going on that all of us here at GS despise. You know, like picking the poorest examples of each others side, and drawing conclusions which are not typical of the group as a whole. Erhman does this with jawdropping efficient speech. He is almost like a better version of VPW. Lastly John, is why is it, I feel like I could sit down with Oak or Garth or Bramble and slam down a few beers and have some fun, but I would be more "guarded" around someone like you. By saying this I am making some presumptions about you, from your speech that may not be true. It's about peoples involvement and what there interest level is. Its about feeling that smoking a cigarette or having a beer or using some slang, or some other stupid thing, which are not really even Christian issues in my view. I for one, am tired of hearing some ding dong preacher talking about why its a sin to have a smoke or why he doesnt ever have a few glasses of wine. It's about being henpecked, and I dont like that about some people of faith either. Notice I used the word some.

I absolutely understand. I went through a time when 4 or 5 passages of the Bible, I couldnt even read them, because of how VPW massacred them. (Thankfully it was just limited to a few passages that VPW had smashed) When I came accross them, I couldn't think rationaly about them. And that is probably so with some. You know I have faced rejection based on some things from Christians too, but in actuality, I think it has helped me. It makes me get out and meet other people for general dialogue. If there is one thing about doctines that is not beneficial, it is that people of a certain belief tend to hang only on those who see life like them. This closes us off to other views. The sad thing is Belle,( I have always found that from most people I can learn something,) so I think if people dont get counterpoints from others, it sort of hurts their expansion of knowledge. I think that is so true you could cut it in stone, patent it and sell it. Neither am I. I like the rhubarb, the blend and an interest in what makes other people tick. I like people to point out the flaw in an argument, because about some stuff, I cant find one. I believe you do know more than a little, I believe you know a lot. Your right about studies too. The real annoying stuff is when they use big adjectives to color the argument more intellectual. But getting at that is fun stuff too! I hope your right, I really do. I hope we don't have to find out that we were, when its too late. I heard someone I respected very much one time who has since passed on, who wasn't a preacher or an evangelist say "If God didnt judge America he would have to apologize to Sodom and Gommorah" It has stuck with me and disturbed me. True, America doesnt tolerate rape and/or lawlessness of its citizens, perhaps she was wrong and there is hope. Still, even that premise is not altogether without merit, after I read a book about Bill Clinton. Oddly, I feel I must apologize since you apologized. No apology was necessary. You did not offend me one bit. (In fact your so nice I dont think you could) I dont know how to speak, without sounding cross sometimes. Being direct and honest, sometimes causes that, I wasn't trying to dig on you k? Please dont be careful. I wanna know exactly what your thinking. It makes for interesting convo. Otherwise Belle we just get boring all of us. Passion for something drives us to use strong words like hate, and love and discipline, without which we just become stale. You got me there Belle and and i must plead guilty I didnt read "all" of John's posts. Being honest sometimes has its downside,,,, oooops did I say that. (but I had read Johns last two of his posts) This is edited one hour later as i have read all of John's posts. would I say anything different? No I wouldnt have. The bridge he built with the Newsweek article is at least interesting. Note to John: you will not make any progress on that topic here without mega-research. If you did, someone would find it pretentious anyway. In addition, (as many atheists have alluded) many atheists do not say they are in soceity (because they say they would get retribution) Thus, one might not be able to conclude such a study. anyway Belle, thank you for an engaging conversation, appreciated.

Belle: Sometimes what you perceive as "hate" may in fact just be disrepect for another ones beliefs. Also, some people may feel threatened by atheists. As a matter of my own experience, there certainly seem to be far fewer Christians concerned about atheism than the other way around. I think it is meaniful also, that the recent stripe of atheism ( not all but more than a few) seem very bent on attacking meaningful Christian values. I personally, have a difficult time hearing such talk without responding. I mean God and Jesus are not here, I think they are deserving of having there integrity defended. You know, (as much as I disagreed with some of Jerry Fallwell's views) Jerry wasnt standing around degrading people when he was visciously attacked by Larry Flynt. (I am not saying Flynt is an atheist i dunno no) There have been some real degrading speeches that have came out of the atheist camp in recent years. Isnt it only fair to call this hate speech? I mean, to talk about wars that occurred 4,000 years ago, when not all the facts are specifically known, but not mention one thing of the recent slaughter of children in other "civilized" wars, shows the flavor to be real biased. In 1945 we firebombed countless Japanese cities in order to reduce American casualties. Apparently some cities were warned with leaflets. If you know anything about napalm firebombing, it is hellacious. The loss of life had to be staggering to say the least. Doubless there were thousands of children who were incinerated. http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/fire.html I agree with your general tone of your comments. Back in the 70's I recall there were many doctinal disputations (between Christians) and between what mainstream considered cults that were real rhubarbs that you dont see so much today. I remember a young Penacostal women correcting me at one point and showing me from the Bible how it's not what you say that matters so much but what you are doing with it. It really changed my life what she said. Perhaps, we could all use a much needed correction in the current debate also. I think it would be well if the rhetoric was ratched down a few notches , from both sides. Still, this is a problem way different than debating Christian theology. (Christians, and even those of other faiths can find harmony in the rather obvious subset of values which we share) This stuff is an entirely different stroke. It's like when they want to blast Catholics they go find some screwball for comparison purposes. Why not talk about Mother Theresa or the 100's of Catholic missions that have fed the poor? Because it doesnt fit the dismissive axe that is why. Most Christians dont even respond to atheists. From that particular shake, this is how they try and win. Its like if they can say stuff over and over and no one says anything, in there brains it must be true. Thus, I think the civilized portion of dialogue should be fine, but only to a point. I for one aint going to stand around while people shout epithets at the Almighty all the time. For me its just to personally degrading. Neither is it even about evangelism "of them" anymore. Its like they want to obliterate Christian beliefs, which I think is a wholesale attack on Christians dignity. Its simply wrong, and it is hate.

About all I can say Oak, is that I never at all considered it a topic until atheists brought it up. My reflection on the Old Testament, was always that it reflected well on the serious nature of God in New Testament dynamics. I also dont really understand, why there isnt a progression of thought on Jesus of the New Testament, from old Testament dynamics, which clearly was the authors intention all along. the other issue and more lately ( and I think this is good) is that the you know who of the old testament, can never be mistaken for a girl scout, I think this is heathy, from the standpoint that some flavors of view, tend to reflect miserably on the goodness and kindness issues of the gospel. I wont reflect on your other commentary in general, because I believe I have already done this. Anyways greetings and regards,