Televangelists

[The Ugly]

Examples of the OT God being a wrathful bastard and examples of Jesus being so much more loving would be helpful.

Then we can dive into context.

Further, I'd assume any examples wouldn't be based on the following:

1) God passing judgment upon the evil and reprobate who had centuries to repent.
2) Confusing the evil choices of men with the righteous actions of God.
3) God working within the confines of peoples' lives slowly guiding them out of their sinful practices.

... and their unborn or young children he drowned in the Flood. Aside from the Original, what sin could they possibly commit?

[TuHolmes]

Where is the line drawn on televangelists?   How does someone discern the fake from the phony?  If an evangelist is selling a book he wrote does that make the person a swindler or scoundrel?   Is it unbiblical for an evangelist to earn a living?   Do most folks that criticize televangelists have any understanding of the ministries beyond the generic objection posed or do they simply lump all ministers on television as crooks?

Me personally, I dislike the current "prosperity gospel" of a Creflo Dollar or Joel Osteen.   I find Osteen's teachings to be heretical at best.   The gospel is a not a pathway to lining your pockets.

If a televangelist doesn't align with scripture I don't listen to them.  How do you determine that?  You validate their teachings via scripture (provided they even utilize scripture.....I'm lookin at you Joel Osteen).  You study independently and inconjunction with other believers.  You hold your leaders accountable.

If a televangelist attempts to sell you a "special cross", "a scroll of blessings and prophecies" or a "blessed vile of holy water" I'm done with them.

If a televangelist stands opposed to the deity of Christ I'm instantly done with them.

Now, if a televangelist hosts a fundraiser or sells a book he wrote I have no problem with this provided their base teachings are scriptural and accurate.

To lump all televangelists into the same bucket of "charlatans" is just lazy and untrue.  It's a generic copout for those who'd never waste more than a few seconds of googling to "make their case" against the whole of televangelism.  

Now the lavish, ultra excess lifestyles of some televangelists is counter intuitive to the message of scripture, but the majority of time it's also aligned with a "prosperity gospel" ministry.

It's absolutely appropriate for a televangelist to earn a good living and even if some are blessed with a great deal of wealth I firmly believe that wealth should be keep quiet and out of the public eye.   I think about Job, David and Solomon.....all amassed a ton of wealth and were blessed by God.  Then I see the apostles and these were average Joes who had next to nothing and even gave up what little they had and eventually their lives in pursuit of the great commission of Christ.

Is Billy Graham a charlatan?  Doubtful.  Is the man perfect?  No frickin way.  
Is Charles Stanley a charlatan?  Doubtful.  is the man perfect?  No frickin way.  Endured a public divorce that rocked his ministry.

What about current evangelists like Tullian Tchividjian?  This man is a tremendous orator and speaks passionately for God.  He's also the grandson of Billy Graham.  Although, he recently resigned from his ministry because of an adulterous relationship he had with a woman in his congregation.  Does that make him a charlatan?  The anti-Godders would immediately say "yes, there you go!"  No, it makes him human and confirms he's fallible.  Should he be allowed to preach again?  Absolutely, but I believe he should be counciled and reviewed by the church first and slowly work his way back into a position of leadership and trust.  

Everyone remembers Jimmy Swaggart crying out on tv in the 80s exclaiming "I have sinned!!"  Tears and snot and all that mess.  People aren't perfect, but if you're that high profile you need to lead by example every second of everyday.....sorry but you do IMHO.  If you're a high-ranking, highly recognizable religious leader, a representative of Christ, then you need to be Christlike....that simple.  

Odd...

'and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.' - Matthew 19:24

[The Ugly]

Also, faith healers are unequivocally detestable. This stuff is downright evil.

[Man of Steel]

Who was do the guiding over multiple generations? Who was doing the preaching? God spoke to such and such and people believed him and thus it is taken as the word of God. Maybe it is, maybe not, or maybe alot of the divine inspiration is filtered through unconscious minds. Either way the God of the old testament does not sound more evolved than the people that are being preached too.

I hope you are not calling me God hater.

I hope by now you know I don't consider you a God hater.    

I think we can disagree and still be cool enough that afterwards you climb on my back for some sets of donkey calf raises....at least that's how I picture it in my mind.

The guidance was provided in the same manner.....via God's law.  From OT to NT Christ is that word....he is that guidance.....he is that law.

Psalms 119:142  “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.”

Deuteronomy 28:15 “But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you”

Proverbs 6:23 “For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light and reproofs for discipline are the way of life.”

Isaiah 8:20 “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 8:32  “and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

John 14:66 "Jesus *said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'”

Galatians 3:24 "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith."

[Al Doggity]

I enjoy Al Doggity's threads, seems like a principled, thoughtful fellow

LOL this is a feeling most get over rather quickly 

[Man of Steel]

... and their unborn or young children he drowned in the Flood. Aside from the Original, what sin could they possibly commit?

Ok, let's stay with the Christian worldview then.

So the children of the flood....the innocents.....why were they harmed.....why were they taken?

First off, we don't know for certain that they did experience pain and harm in the flood....we don't know.

We do know that given their innocence they immediately left this life and went to dwell with the Lord forever in his kingdom.

What if that final generation of reprobate and their innocent chidren had been allowed to continue on?  The same innocent would've been lead into reprobation and evil by their forefathers exactly like the generations before them and the generations before them, etc.....The Lord allowed the world's sin to come into it's fullness before judgment was passed.  If the older, reprobate generations were taken and the innocent children left behind they would've experienced a miserable existence in which they have to contend with everything on their own while dealing with deaths of everyone they ever knew (regards of how evil they were).  And God would be criticized for that situation as well.

The children of the flood were spared eternal separation from God because of their innocence and spared an earthly existence in which they would have to fend for themselves with nothing at their disposal.

If you criticize God yet stop at the point of human death you've invented a non-Christian worldview to play off of.  You have to allow the entirety of the situation to be considered in order to represent the Christian worldview correctly and that entails stepping into God's eternity.

[SF1900]

"We do know that given their innocence they immediately left this life and went to dwell with the Lord forever in his kingdom."

But I thought it was mandatory to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior to get into heaven?  Children can't do this.

[Man of Steel]

Odd...

'and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.' - Matthew 19:24

The notion of oddness vanishes when you put the passage in context.

Here were have a wealthy young ruler that asked how to attain eternal life.  Christ told him to him to sell all he had and give it the poor and follow him.  The rich, young ruler could not give up his vast materialism and wealth and opted to remain without Christ.

The passage speaks of those that put their wealth above Christ and make their money an idol.  Hence, it's easier for camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.

There are many God-fearing, God-loving believers in Christ that are wealthy and use their resources to honor and glorify the Lord.   We see examples of wealthy, God-fearing men in scripture such as Job, David and Solomon that despite their wealth and shortcomings followed the Lord.  They weren't always successful, but yet they followed the Lord. 

[Man of Steel]

"We do know that given their innocence they immediately left this life and went to dwell with the Lord forever in his kingdom."

But I thought it was mandatory to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior to get into heaven?   Children can't do this.

When I read about King David’s child with Bathsheba passing away and David suggesting that as a believer he would he see his child again in God’s kingdom it affirmed for me the innocence of children and others with disabilities that prevent them from making an honest choice about sin and Christ in their lives.  They don’t need salvation because being saved by grace through faith in Christ means we are saved from the wrath/judgment of God.  The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.  

“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.  So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”

Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged.  The children are lead into sin and out of innocence.  

As believers in Christ we are saved by grace through faith and thereby justified and deemed righteous….like the innocents who are inherently righteous we become like the them through Christ.  Anyone who comes to God and desires forgivenessness and righteousness will be deemed as such.  

[BigRo]

If children are innocent in the eyes of God why are they baptized?

[SF1900]

When I read about King David’s child with Bathsheba passing away and David suggesting that as a believer he would he see his child again in God’s kingdom it affirmed for me the innocence of children and others with disabilities that prevent them from making an honest choice about sin and Christ in their lives.  They don’t need salvation because being saved by grace through faith in Christ means we are saved from the wrath/judgment of God.  The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.  

“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.  So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”

Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged.  The children are lead into sin and out of innocence.  

As believers in Christ we are saved by grace through faith and thereby justified and deemed righteous….like the innocents who are inherently righteous we become like the them through Christ.  Anyone who comes to God and desires forgivenessness and righteousness will be deemed as such.  

WOAH, hey, now, no where does it say people with developmental disabilities get a free pass. You're just inserting your own interpretation into their. As most theists do. Its all up for interpretation. Those stories discuss children, no where does it say anything about adults with developmental disabilities. Please, point to the passage? You just don't get to make up interpretations, and include people with "developmental disabilities" because it fits your narrative. No where in any of your posts does it talk about people with developmental disabilities. Not in one spot.

[Man of Steel]

If children are innocent in the eyes of God why are they baptized?

Infant baptism is an invention of the Catholic church. 

Baptism, for believers, is an outward, public expression of an inward, personal relationship with Christ.

[BigRo]

so in your circle there is no infant baptism among evangelicals? are children pressured in to being saved once they come of a certain age?

[El Diablo Blanco]

If children are innocent in the eyes of God why are they baptized?

Just go to a burn ward at a children's hospital and see how much God loves them.

[SF1900]

Just go to a burn ward at a children's hospital and see how much God loves them.

MOS and other theists will just say, "Its part of his divine plan."  We are just mere mortals and cannot understand why God would let a 4 year old suffer day in and day out with endless surgeries and chemotherapies. You know, its just part of his plan.

Or go to any cancer childrens ward.

[TuHolmes]

The notion of oddness vanishes when you put the passage in context.

Here were have a wealthy young ruler that asked how to attain eternal life.  Christ told him to him to sell all he had and give it the poor and follow him.  The rich, young ruler could not give up his vast materialism and wealth and opted to remain without Christ.

The passage speaks of those that put their wealth above Christ and make their money an idol.  Hence, it's easier for camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.

There are many God-fearing, God-loving believers in Christ that are wealthy and use their resources to honor and glorify the Lord.   We see examples of wealthy, God-fearing men in scripture such as Job, David and Solomon that despite their wealth and shortcomings followed the Lord.  They weren't always successful, but yet they followed the Lord. 

You're saying that the scripture is a metaphor. I would say it should be a statement.

People see what they want to see I suppose.

[The Ugly]

Ok, let's stay with the Christian worldview then.

So the children of the flood....the innocents.....why were they harmed.....why were they taken?

First off, we don't know for certain that they did experience pain and harm in the flood....we don't know.

We do know that given their innocence they immediately left this life and went to dwell with the Lord forever in his kingdom.

What if that final generation of reprobate and their innocent chidren had been allowed to continue on?  The same innocent would've been lead into reprobation and evil by their forefathers exactly like the generations before them and the generations before them, etc.....The Lord allowed the world's sin to come into it's fullness before judgment was passed.  If the older, reprobate generations were taken and the innocent children left behind they would've experienced a miserable existence in which they have to contend with everything on their own while dealing with deaths of everyone they ever knew (regards of how evil they were).  And God would be criticized for that situation as well.

The children of the flood were spared eternal separation from God because of their innocence and spared an earthly existence in which they would have to fend for themselves with nothing at their disposal.

If you criticize God yet stop at the point of human death you've invented a non-Christian worldview to play off of.  You have to allow the entirety of the situation to be considered in order to represent the Christian worldview correctly and that entails stepping into God's eternity.

I'm not good with multi-quote, so this'll have to do:

1) Similar argument Pro-Choicers use, yet Lifers vilify them for it. Only God can play God - I assume this is what we must accept. Troubling.

2) Similar argument for more modern genocidal endeavors, so we just can't go there. He can, though, I know. Troubling.

3) This is the strange ambiguity that ultimately enters all death/religion debate. But how is it not a cop-out? 'Life is sacred' when convenient; 'Life is temporary, heaven is everything' when the first doesn't work. So which is it?

Seems inconsistent at best.

[Man of Steel]

WOAH, hey, now, no where does it say people with developmental disabilities get a free pass. You're just inserting your own interpretation into their. As most theists do. Its all up for interpretation. Those stories discuss children, no where does it say anything about adults with developmental disabilities. Please, point to the passage? You just don't get to make up interpretations, and include people with "developmental disabilities" because it fits your narrative. No where in any of your posts does it talk about people with developmental disabilities. Not in one spot.

There is no specific scripture that calls out adults with developmental disabilities.  There is also no specific scripture about pizza delivery guys that molest young girls, but we know that isn't right either.  Regardless, the concepts of the innocence children and the just nature of God are demonstrated.  

Scripture says we understand the word precept upon precept:

Isaiah 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little"

We also know that adults with developmental disabilties are almost the same (and in some cases possess less than) the intellects of children.  Like children they can't comprehend the idea of sin in a manner which would make them accountable.  We have to trust in the just nature of God that each individual case will be handled appropriately.  This is an element of faith, but it isn't a flawed, eisegetical interpretation of scripture as you suggest.

[SF1900]

There is no specific scripture that calls out adults with developmental disabilities.  There is also no specific scripture about pizza delivery guys that molest young girls, but we know that isn't right either.  Regardless, the concepts of the innocence children and the just nature of God are demonstrated.  

Scripture says we understand the word precept upon precept:

Isaiah 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little"

We also know that adults with developmental disabilties are almost the same (and in some cases possess less than) the intellects of children.  Like children they can't comprehend the idea of sin in a manner which would make them accountable.  We have to trust in the just nature of God that each individual case will be handled appropriately.  This is an element of faith, but it isn't a flawed, eisegetical interpretation of scripture as you suggest.

Yes, but there is enough "evidence" in the bible that molesting children is wrong. So, we don't need a direct scripture for that.

But why isn't there a scripture that reads something like, "Thy Lord said and deemed those incapable of worshipping Him for lack of mind, shall still be brought into the kingdom of heaven." If God is all powerful and all-knowing, then he would be able to foresee the millions and millions of people who have a developmental disability. If I was God, I would definitely include a line like that above, knowing how many people will suffer from DDs. Seems irresponsible to leave it out. Not to mention leaving out the whole, "not owning slaves" thing. That could have probably prevented millions of people from ever becoming slaves.

Sorry, but all of your answers sound like rhetoric, a lot of "beating around the bush" with no straight answer. In my opinion, your bible fails in that regard.

[El Diablo Blanco]

MOS and other theists will just say, "Its part of his divine plan."  We are just mere mortals and cannot understand why God would let a 4 year old suffer day in and day out with endless surgeries and chemotherapies. You know, its just part of his plan.

Or go to any cancer childrens ward.

Christians have it all figured out.  if shit goes wrong, it's in God's plan or God is testing us, if shit works out well it's because God loves them.

[El Diablo Blanco]

What percentage of prayers get answered?  Is God a Dallas Cowboys fan?  God must love sports.

[SF1900]

Christians have it all figured out.  if shit goes wrong, it's in God's plan or God is testing us, if shit works out well it's because God loves them.

The funny thing is that MOS and other religious people always say atheists are arrogant.

Its the total opposite. MOS has had an answer for every reply. You will hardly ever hear any theist say, "I don't know." And who is more arrogant? I have never ever heard MOS or another theist say, "Hey, I dont know, but thats a good question. Let me think about it."

Even with respect to God, most atheists, such as myself, take the stance of, "A God does not exist, but I can be wrong with evidence."

A religious person, "God exists. I dont care what the evidence says."

And who is more close minded and arrogant?  

[El Diablo Blanco]

The funny thing is that MOS and other religious people always say atheists are arrogant.

Its the total opposite. MOS has had an answer for every reply. You will hardly ever hear any theist say, "I don't know." And who is more arrogant? I have never ever heard MOS or another theist say, "Hey, I dont know, but thats a good question. Let me think about it."

Even with respect to God, most atheists, such as myself, take the stance of, "A God does not exist, but I can be wrong with evidence."

A religious person, "God exists. I dont care what the evidence says."

And who is more close minded and arrogant? 

My favorite is how Christians are the expert on God.  They proclaim shit like "God would have wanted that"  Really?  How the fuck would you know what God would have wanted or not wanted?

[The Ugly]

Many atheists are arrogant as fuck. Goes both ways, for sure.

[TuHolmes]

My favorite is how Christians are the expert on God.  They proclaim shit like "God would have wanted that"  Really?  How the fuck would you know what God would have wanted or not wanted?

They know what he wants when it suits them.

It's hypocritical to say it's what he wants, then when it doesn't go in a way that makes any sense, it's "No one understands gods plan".

Can't have it both ways.