Larry N Moore

<snip> I do think that there is a point where greed takes over.

Can I define that point? NO. Does that mean it doesn't exist? NO.

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.

You're assuming of course that JAL doesn't know exactly who DWBH is...

No, I'm not assuming that at all. Matter of fact I get the feeling that John knows DWBH quite well.

Isn't it possible that you're mistaken concerning DWBH's motives and reasons?

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?

I thought that God did have a problem with Solomon's lifestyle.

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.

OTOH - there is a difference between being the King of a nation and being a minister.

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.

Could you not look at her lifestyle and see how she lives? There is comfortable and then there is very comfortable, then there is "got more money than sense."

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.

Greed is immoral, is it not? - I don't think the Bible is silent about that.

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.

<snip>

I am sorry that I played a part in making this sight argumentative and unpleasant.

Apology accepted.

Just a drive-by post here...

I once attended a church that never passed any kind of money-holding recepticle. No plate, basket, charger, horn - nothing.

There was a wooden mainbox looking thing at the back and people put in what they wanted to put it. There was no pressure and no requests for money.

There's always exceptions to the rule.

I also have a friend that attends a church in Kansas. The ministers keep their day jobs and trade off duties. On top of that, they live simply - no extravagance whatsoever. They feel like they need to let as much as much money as possible go to the church.

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.

Rascal,

Some people just like to stir up trouble, disagree, argue, debate etc. Best thing to do - don't even read their threads. Just jump right over the angst driven, disagreeable person, see them as invisible . Only respond to the people who have proven to you that they can engage in a legitimate adult conversation and who are mature enough to agree to disagree on subjects where they differ in opinions.

Makes me wonder if they are really one of "us". They are worth ignoring and they ruin the boards for everyone who does like to come here. Sometimes I wonder if they are plants just trying to shut GreaseSpot down by causing so much animosity that everyone quits coming here to read and post. An example: I was on the chat site the other night and there was a major argument going on. Two of them were so juvenile, sad, pathetic and ridiculous that everyone left the chat site. What's up with that??!!!

They can ruin it for the rest of us - IF WE LET THEM. If we don't engage in conversation with them then they have no one to argue with!!! And if we all quit conversing with them they won't have an audience.

It reminds me of leadership who would get you in a room and scream and accuse you for hours trying to rile you up and break you down. One of the nice things about this is they can't get us face-to-face - we CAN ignore them.

You can only engage in mature, adult conversations with people who are sane, rational, have sound minds, are functional on a social level, and can converse on an adult level and can play nice on the playground!

Don't get mad, get even - ignore them!!!

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.

I think cman was referring to _how_ said donations are acquired that determines whether or not it is moral.

But then again, I could be mistaken.

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?

sorry a$$hole, i didn't say anything you imply i said in post #145 of this thread.

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.

Sorry to interrupt...but THIS is a podcast you can put on as background music to soothe your emotions!

Thanks Bumpy! It is soothing (almost to the point of putting me to sleep).

<snip> Can someone please tell me how long or how much practice does it take to get this all down so perfectly?

Hmm . . . I think GS has been in business for about 7 years. Don't you recognize perfection when you see it?

Since you demand it of others, I would expect that you would set the example and provide it without being asked.

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.

The way you presented the post is mis-leading - first it appears as though you received that communication directly from John Lynn personally, then you say it's a quote from here, but there is no context around the quote and I do believe it has nothing to do with this thread.

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.

Liar.

"the unsatisfiable"

and stick your shoe

cman, I responded to this statement. Please don't spin what I said into something it's not. It's unbecoming of you.

you make a statement,

then when someone calls you on it you punk out and run

i've seen your posts on other forums too

same crap

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"?

another shot at everyone here but you again Larry

that's why you are not reliable

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.

Please provide a link to the quote so that we can see it in context.

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.

That was Dragnet, not Hawaii 5-0.

And it's not illegal to solicit donations.

It's the morals in question.

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.

So...Larry, are you implying that John actually read the thread and he asked you to post his answer? Or did you simply tell him about the questions and this is his reply to you?

I am pretty certain that John still has a profile here. He used it to post those letters and other stuff some time back. Why would he ask someone else to post his answer?

Just asking.

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.

Larry, your actions no matter how you try to justify yourself are contemptible.

Isn't it funny how we think alike.

You don`t give a damn one way or another what I said to john, it was just your opportunity to stir up trouble.

In your certainty, you are entirely mistaken.

So say you but, I have it on a respected source that I'm not.

I am done with your disruption and attempted distractions that appear to be for no other reason than the enormous chip on your shoulder.

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. :)

Accuser? Don`t make me laugh.....You whine and snivel to the moderators about the person who`s pov you don`t like and ignore the repeated insults of the one who supports your pov.

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.

If john was offended by my post them by all means, it was his place to report it.

For you to do it because it served your purpose to get a poster you personally dislike in trouble is sneaky, low down and mean.

You got yourself in trouble by posting the inflammatory comments. Don't blame me for bringing it to the moderator's attention.

I gave you WAY too much credit Larry.

Don't make ME laugh. I'm quite certain you never gave me any credit in the first place.

<snip>

Reporting me and not john certainly is not irrelevent to me...seems pretty low down, as a matter of fact

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.

GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN, JEFF BLACKBURN AND JOHN LYNN!...........................ANOTHER CHECK TO SEE IF YOU GUYS POSTED ANYTHING!........LOOKS LIKE YOU DID NOT!!!.................

FROM YOUR ARTICLE, "OUR VIEW OF CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY"........

Proverbs 28:13

He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.

This honest accounting is often a painful process involving “godly sorrow” and brokenness before the Lord (2 Cor. 7:8-11). Time and again we find ourselves without excuse for our disobedience, for God has provided all that we need to live in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24). From this place of brokenness and humility God begins a work in us that forgives, heals, covers, and restores. A new vision evolves. One receives a new sense of comfort in God’s goodness and power, and experiences a restoration of faith, and the joy of greater intimacy with the Lord. Transformation ends in a renewed commitment to obey God from the heart, and shows up in new and consistent behavior patterns. Insofar as we are living in Christ, all things are become new, and we walk in a “new life” (Rom. 6:4).

I NEVER ASKED YOU FOR A PUBLIC DISPLAY OF "GODLY SORROW", OR, "BROKENESS BEFORE THE LORD"!!.........ALL I'VE ASKED FOR IS ANSWERS TO SOME HONEST, PERTINENT, QUESTIONS!!................HAVE YOU AND YOUR MINISTRY EXPERIENCED "A RESTORATION OF FAITH"??............."GREATER INTIMACY WITH THE LORD"??..................HAVE YOU UNDERGONE "TRANSFORMATION", ENDING "IN A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO OBEY GOD FROM THE HEART"??........SHOULD WE EXPECT TO SEE "NEW AND CONSISTENT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS" FROM YOU CES/STFI "SERVANT/LEADERS"??.............A POST FROM YOU GUYS HERE IN YOUR FORUM, WOULD SURE GO A LONG WAY TOWARD ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS!!.......STILL EAGERLY ANTICIPATING REPLIES FROM YOU GUYS!!............THANK YOU!..............................PEACE.

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.

Almost an agnostic way of thinking...kinda...well it works for me. :unsure:

Yep! Exactly.

<snip>Based on what I know, how I know it, my experience, the testimonies themselves and the person(s) that testified I have come to the conclusion that I believe the testimony. I could be wrong...but of course I dont think so. :)

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

Awww Larry, I might a known :)

John has indicated that I am of the flesh...IN the context of galatians and fruit of the flesh. When he can provide incidents of such, THEN I will withdraw my objections and apologize profusely.

He also called me dense in the post before that...I notice you didn`t whine to the moderators about that .. pretty hypocritical when you are being so diligent about reporting name calling I think :).

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?

<snip>

I dont have all the information, God has all the information. That's why He is the Judge. We are witnesses to what we know, as such we are expected to tell and sometimes warn by sharing what we know. Sometimes that sounds like persecution, but only if the witnesses testamony is not believed. If it is believed then is sounds like evidence.

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.

I edited my post to not be so mean....before I saw yours....I also edited my post calling John a liar a lot earlier.

If ones actions line up with those of someone of the flesh...then sorry dude, that is how you are going to be percieved....and will lack of credibility as a christian. If your actions line up as someone of the spirit then you gain respect as being a christian.

Thats how it works...that is how we identify one another.

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.