Larry N Moore

I agree. That's probably why I prefer not to step into that role of being a judge. I'll let God sort them all out in the end. It's much easier (and peaceable) that way imo.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. Matter of fact I get the feeling that John knows DWBH quite well. Anything's possible but, I see nothing in this thread to persuade me otherwise. Do you know what his motives and reasons are? Share them with me -- through PM email.

Btw, dooj, if you have a problem with Solomon then consider Job. Didn't God double all that he had after Satan took it all away from him?

Dooj, if I'm not mistaken it was God that gave Solomon his great wealth because all he asked for was wisdom to lead God's people. Yea -- one wears a crown and the other doesn't. Both are responsible to care for God's people -- so there's really not much difference.

Well, dooj -- I could also look at Solomon's lifestyle and conclude that God didn't have a problem with his great wealth so, I'm not sure God has a problem with Joyce's either.

Without a doubt. Now let's look at the definition you so kindly provided. I'll highlight in red the key elements I think should not go unnoticed. greed n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth There is nothing wrong to desire and seek to acquire wealth. When it becomes morally wrong is when it's an excessive desire. Remember the verse that says: The love of money is the root of all evil? What you need to determine is if Joyce Meyer or anyone else has an excessive desire to acquire more than she needs. But there's something else you need to determine. Does she willingly share her abundance with others? It makes no sense for you to share what you need to give to them that lack. That makes them without lack but then puts you in the position of having lack yourself. Also, another thing you need to consider is: To a person who only earns -- say -- $15,000 he/she might consider someone else that earns $50,000 having more than he/she needs and thinks you should give up a good portion of your income and give it to someone who really needs it -- like themselves. And then someone who earns only $5000 might think the one earning $15000 should give a portion of that income to someone who needs it -- like themselves. The scriptures you cited can also be looked at with greater scrutiny than looking at them and thinking they support your pov. In any case -- again -- you have to know and show evidence that Joyce's heart is only to get rich off of others in order for those scriptures to fit. I don't think you can.

Apology accepted.

There's always exceptions to the rule. I think monks pretty much fit the same description. The question is: Is it immoral for someone who preaches the gospel to be supported for doing so? And then the next question would be (if the answer is no) -- How much should they be paid? I'll consider what the Bible says on the issue. If it's silent then, I'll hold my tongue. But if it's not immoral then the amount they are paid is purely a subjective opinion. You're entitled to it but, on the flip side the opinion of those on the other side of the equation are entitled to theirs. In chess that would be considered a stalemate.

Aren't you paying attention? She clearly stated she wasn't angry. Oh, so sorry to rain on your parade but, the last time I checked this place is not an MBA board. If you only want those participating here that won't "ruin it for the rest of" you then I suggest you make it a campaign cause to turn this board into a MBA board only.

Well, I suppose some prefer to just pass the basket, while others prefer to ask you to support their ministry. Either way I don't see anything immoral about asking. It's not exactly as if those who contribute are being forced to donate. Maybe it's just a simple case that those who do support their ministry think it's a small thing to do in comparison to what they get out of those ministries. Most people won't give if there's nothing in it for them personally -- whatever that might be. I always did find it odd that people claimed their donations on their IRS forms -- How can you say you gave $10 if you got back $1?

Hmm . . . . it's going to be like that, huh cman? I didn't say you implied anything -- I asked you a question (without getting snotty with you or calling you names) and this is the way you respond. Good grief, my man. Pitiful -- truly pitiful.

Thanks Bumpy! It is soothing (almost to the point of putting me to sleep). Hmm . . . I think GS has been in business for about 7 years. Don't you recognize perfection when you see it?

Well, that's where you and the person who adviced me to use the search feature are wrong. Apparently neither of you understand the subtle difference between making a request and demanding something. In my previous posts I requested someone provide me with a link to where John had contributed to Greasespot and invited everyone here into his affairs. If I were to demand something I would need the authority to make you do what I wanted. I don't have such authority, but I can request someone to do something for me that at the time I didn't think was possible because it never crossed my mind that John was using his given name to make those TWO posts. Well, I would think anyone who is a long-standing member of GS should be familiar with John's TWO contributions to GS. With the initiation of this thread it would have been prudent for them to refresh their memory of what John actually did say. Seems to be the fair thing to do, imo, before jumping on the bandwagon to criticize John for not responding to this thread. Anyone who took the time to read his TWO contributions would (or should) understand then why he most likely will never respond to this thread. cman, I responded to this statement. Please don't spin what I said into something it's not. It's unbecoming of you.

I didn't make a statement cman -- I quoted a statement that John Lynn made that can be found on Greasespot. Do you also think he's "punking out"?

Not really cman -- I've read the two threads that John posted in (for a total of only two posts) and I know who were the unsatisfiable ones and who were gracious towards John. So I wasn't painting with a broad brush -- think of it in this way: If the shoe fits, wear it. Well, belle I was told by another that instead of "demanding" others to provide me with a link to posts where John invited the community into his affairs I should use the search feature and find it for myself. If you have trouble using that feature let me know and I'll reconsider posting it myself.

Cman, if it's the moral question that's the issue how do you deal with the scriptures that refer to supporting those who preach the word (and doesn't say we have a right to know how they steward it)? If it's immoral for them to ask for donations then every single Christian denomination is immoral in that I don't think a one of them doesn't ask for donations.

Eyes, the quote can be found here on Greasespot. I don't know if John has read this thread or not, nor would I bother writing to him about it -- I'm sure he has more important things to deal with in life than trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable.

Isn't it funny how we think alike. Is mind-reading another one of your Christian "fruits"? So say you but, I have it on a respected source that I'm not. Is it safe to say then that you've gotten "over it"? I think I asked you the question pertaining to this earlier in this thread and you ignored it then. :)

Au contraire! I don't have a problem dealing with people who make it their favorite past-time to insult and personally attack me. I prefer to handle it my own way but the rules state: In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. I assume that last sentence means to do so through one of two avenues 1. PM or Email the person or 2. report the abusive post. Since I can't do #1 I have no choice but to use #2. Not true. The feature is available to any member who objects to an inflammatory or personal attack. It's the rules and I'm just trying to follow them. You got yourself in trouble by posting the inflammatory comments. Don't blame me for bringing it to the moderator's attention. Don't make ME laugh. I'm quite certain you never gave me any credit in the first place.

Well, unlike certain other members I have no qualms about informing the person that I reported their post instead of hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. I think in the U.S. we have the right to know who are accusers are.

John Lynn's response: As to what is flying around cyberspace about me and my personal life, my email is jalces@aol.com and my home phone is 317-849-5707. If you know me and care about me, I’ll be glad to communicate with you. I will not, however, dialogue with anonymous people who lack the love and courage to identify themselves in interacting with me.

Yep! Exactly. You could be but, I would say your approach is reasonable and if it works for you then so be it.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Whether I report John or not is irrelevant to whether you should apologize or not. If you feel you've done nothing wrong then why did you edit your post?

I can stipulate agreement with your pov with the exception -- I know from first-hand experience (and studies) that the testimony of witnesses isn't always reliable or trustworthy. I can only call a spade a spade if I happen to see it for myself. I guess that means I have a lack of faith -- believing something to be true minus evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 I think). That is not the same as saying something is not true -- it very well could be -- but I can't reasonably say it is without seeing it for myself.

Yeah, I failed to see where you edited your previous comments from the post. Perhaps it had something to do with me reporting that particular post. Nevertheless, to simply delete the inflammatory comments without publicly apologizing and asking for forgiveness from the wounded party isn't much of an example of the Christian walk as far as I'm concerned. But that's just my opinion.