|
Post by showmedot on Sept 28, 2014 9:24:44 GMT -6
Oh, come now, Ken. You're judging us when you generalize that atheists "venerate" Dawkins and you refer to him as our leader. We've told you numerous times that neither is true of atheists in general, but you continue to broadcast that foolishness nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 28, 2014 10:24:17 GMT -6
Oh, come now, Ken. You're judging us when you generalize that atheists "venerate" Dawkins and you refer to him as our leader. We've told you numerous times that neither is true of atheists in general, but you continue to broadcast that foolishness nonetheless. Ken claims that he is [not] a PG preacher/supporter/advocate, so while he might claim to be different, he hasn't distinguished himself as different from the likes of Osteen, Hinn, Copeland, and Robertson. As long as these people are the faces of the PG movement, and in light of Ken's reluctance to criticize them, I have to believe he is or wants to be like them. I haven't discussed up to this point the fact that he affirms the same political and social beliefs/mores as they do. How can I not judge him as being a kindred spirit?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Sept 29, 2014 7:48:41 GMT -6
Well, Ken did make the valid point that we don't know how extensively any of those three supports charities or how many private good works they do.
Besides, most Christians quietly ignore Jesus's exhortation to sell all you have and follow him anyway.
That said, I was always given to understand that God blesses selflessness and good works spiritually and not materially. Thus, I have much less regard for those guys who claim God wants the faithful to enjoy ample material and spiritual riches.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 29, 2014 10:09:51 GMT -6
Well, Ken did make the valid point that we don't know how extensively any of those three supports charities or how many private good works they do. Besides, most Christians quietly ignore Jesus's exhortation to sell all you have and follow him anyway. That said, I was always given to understand that God blesses selflessness and good works spiritually and not materially. Thus, I have much less regard for those guys who claim God wants the faithful to enjoy ample material and spiritual riches. These are not the type of people who give anonymously. Everything they do is big and ostentatious, from their mansions, luxury cars, private jets, to their smiles. If they donated anything you would know it. I challenge anyone to find magnanimity in their actions. They hold telethons to drum up money from their supporters, but there's no accounting for the money. I see mansions, luxury cars, and private jets, and no accounting for millions taken in from their ministries. Put 2 + 2 together, there's no benefit of doubt when it comes to $$$ and showmanship.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 29, 2014 10:26:05 GMT -6
Oh, come now, Ken. You're judging us when you generalize that atheists "venerate" Dawkins and you refer to him as our leader. We've told you numerous times that neither is true of atheists in general, but you continue to broadcast that foolishness nonetheless. Ken claims that he is [not] a PG preacher/supporter/advocate, so while he might claim to be different, he hasn't distinguished himself as different from the likes of Osteen, Hinn, Copeland, and Robertson. As long as these people are the faces of the PG movement, and in light of Ken's reluctance to criticize them, I have to believe he is or wants to be like them. I haven't discussed up to this point the fact that he affirms the same political and social beliefs/mores as they do. How can I not judge him as being a kindred spirit? Dot, No, I meant what I said. Ken admits to being a PG preacher, just not like Hinn, Osteen, Copeland, and Robertson. My problem is that he won't make the effort to separate himself from them. They are the faces of PG, not Ken. The theological university Ken is affiliated with uses a book supposedly written by Copeland. As far as I'm concerned, if you claim to be an advocate of the PG, and you refuse to criticize those who misrepresent it, then you are part of the problem. Don't forget, he started this line of debate by claiming atheists follow Dawkins. I criticized Dawkins to show that I am not a follower , and now I expect Ken to follow suit and criticize his fellow PG preachers to show that he doesn't follow their codes of conduct.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Sept 29, 2014 11:04:51 GMT -6
We've wrangled this horse so many times that my recollection of Ken's stated views may be faulty, but I thought he's said he believes that biblical prosperity means being graced with spiritual bounty for doing good works and not material gain.
So, yes, he is a PG preacher in that sense but not in the one of believing Christians are entitled to worldly riches if they live righteously.
My mistake on the edit if I recall erroneously.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 29, 2014 11:26:22 GMT -6
We've wrangled this horse so many times that my recollection of Ken's stated views may be faulty, but I thought he's said he believes that biblical prosperity means being graced with spiritual bounty for doing good works and not material gain. So, yes, he is a PG preacher in that sense but not in the one of believing Christians are entitled to worldly riches if they live righteously. My mistake on the edit if I recall erroneously. He can clean it up, but he's made so many claims about my poverty gospel and wealthy ministers being entitled to enjoy their spoils, that there's little doubt which way he's leaning. I'd like to hear him say that he meant spiritual wealth only, not material wealth. He will combine the two, just as the other PG preachers do to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Sept 29, 2014 11:59:14 GMT -6
Well, sure, he may combine them to some extent as being evidence of God's having chosen to bless him and his family with more than absolutely necessary to sustain life.
I just don't recall that Ken has ever spoken favorably of what I regard as PG preachers--the likes of those who actually tell Christians that believers are rewarded with material wealth if they sincerely believe and live godly lives.
That he shares many of their values on issues such as gay marriage and abortion doesn't by any means indicate he agrees that all devout Christians are entitled to be millionaires.
I've known a good many "prosperity" ministers and Christians who regarded the NT as assuring them of manifold spiritual prosperity but not material wealth.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 29, 2014 15:10:02 GMT -6
Well, sure, he may combine them to some extent as being evidence of God's having chosen to bless him and his family with more than absolutely necessary to sustain life. I just don't recall that Ken has ever spoken favorably of what I regard as PG preachers--the likes of those who actually tell Christians that believers are rewarded with material wealth if they sincerely believe and live godly lives. That he shares many of their values on issues such as gay marriage and abortion doesn't by any means indicate he agrees that all devout Christians are entitled to be millionaires. I've known a good many "prosperity" ministers and Christians who regarded the NT as assuring them of manifold spiritual prosperity but not material wealth. Here's my problem with the situation. I follow the Christian newswire, and I've read a good number of evangelical opinions and blogs that, while they support spiritual prosperity, they despise the material prosperity angle. They never name names, and that's a shame. They couch their words and who they consider the worse offenders, and they allow those offenders to hide within their ranks. If no names are put forth, then nobody is made accountable. If Ken said, "those PG preachers are taking advantage of people and sharing a shallow spirituality of material wealth", then what major point is being made? He's not making anyone accountable, no one gets the spotlight put on him/her. It's like the Catholic Church issuing a statement - there are sexual predators in our ranks and we will take care of this internally. Big deal! - the sexual predators are still there, and people like Copeland, Hinn, and Robertson, all of whom have worked this con for decades, continue on business as usual. Years ago, Ken started a thread, "You Gotta Love This Guy", or words to that effect. It was a thread about Jesse Duplantis, the guy is your typical PG preacher scumbag. Duplantis was a washed up ex-rocker who needed a new gig, heard a PG preacher doing his thing, and realized that he could make a ton of bucks doing the same. All this without any religious instruction at all. Smile, perform, joke around, tell them what they'd like to hear, promise wealth(wink, wink), that's Jesse Duplantis. I understand why Ken can't express his opinion, I really do, but it would be refreshing to read nevertheless.
|
|