Posted on 08/01/2012 5:43:55 AM PDT by BereanBrain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDuDN2FtrIo
Don't put your faith in Joel, rather put it in the scriptures, and God.
We don't need any more charismatic leaders who don't know the bible and tickle peoples' ears.
If you don't know what scripture the above statement is paraphrasing, you might be a Joel Olsteen supporter.
How can you really label a polemical thread to be “Devotional”?
God gives money to those he likes best (hey, it works for Joel!)
But I think it’s spelled Osteen, like the old LA Dodgers pitcher.
How can you other label Joels stuff as devotional so as to hide behind “no comments” on his bad theology?
thanks for posting
I’m with you on the idea of the prosperity gospel, but you shouldn’t hide behind the devotional tag when your whole purpose is to be critical of somebody else’s faith...regardless of how much I disagree with that faith.
I'm no advocate of the man's squishy theology, but if you're going to accuse someone of being a heretic, the least you can do is get the heretic's name right.
It's Joel Osteen. Not Joel Olsteen.
FINALLY. I am so sick of these stupid “Devotional” threads on this assclown. Remember...Osteen led the opening prayer at the inuguration of Houston’s Lesbian mayor Anise Parker - and then magically got city zoning approval for his new mega-”church”. I think FR should ban future “devotional” posts to this whore.
I’m no Osteen fan ...
... but Houston doesn’t have zoning, and his megachurch has been around a lot longer than Mayor Porker.
SnakeDoc
I love it! Vision posts that silly Osteen stuff every day like clockwork and gives it the devotional tag. His first comment is that, and I paraphrase, you can’t comment unless you agree with him because it’s “devotional”.
I never see it get any responses.
Agree ... this is a gross misuse of the “devotional” tag. An attack on somebody else’s theology can only be in an “open” thread.
—How can you other label Joels stuff as devotional so as to hide behind “no comments” on his bad theology?—
The whole purpose of the “devotional” label is to hide behind it. ;)
BTW, My favorite Genesis video: Jesus, He Knows Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EprQGmZ3Imw
When they performed it in their live concert they clarified that this is not about all preachers, but certain “you know who they are” ones.
I think a lot of folk are fed up with the daily “devotional” threads set up by Visions. He posts it but you are not allowed to join the thread and disagree.
It’s ridiculous for a site such as this. This is not a religious site, though most of us are Christian and love to discuss it.
If they don't like those threads, they are under no obligation to read those threads.
He posts it but you are not allowed to join the thread and disagree.
That is the nature of a "devotional" or "caucus" thread. Such threads exist so that folks who believe in a particular theology may discuss it amongst themselves without constant interference and disruption from those who disagree with that particular theology.
Unfortunately, FReepers in general are a very immature lot; without the shelter of "devotional" and "caucus" threads, polite discussion of theology is not possible on this forum. All threads become a food-fight.
—If they don’t like those threads, they are under no obligation to read those threads. —
I firmly agree. I think what is annoying is the same “spirit” that I killed when I dumped TV in 1997. Back then I would watch a news story and no matter how biased, the most I could do was throw a shoe at the TV.
With the internet, you can respond to BS when you see it - but not on “devotional” threads. Their very existence, especially once you have opened one and seen what is in it is a sort of in your face “nya, nya, nya, you can’t say anything I disagree with here”.
It’s a minor annoyance, but thanks to this thread I can vent. :-)
—...without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, polite discussion of theology is not possible...—
Actually, a more accurate way to put it is “without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, disagreement is not possible”
That is because you can’t even disagree. So what is the purpose of the thread in the first place but to pimp a blog or site? Why not just lock the thread as soon as it’s created?
—...without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, polite discussion of theology is not possible...—
Actually, a more accurate way to put it is “without the shelter of “devotional” and “caucus” threads, disagreement is not possible”
One of my annoyances is that one of the rules about “devotional” is that it is described as the thread is “as if it is a discussion behind church doors.” Well, let me tell you that at MY church we get into some pretty heated disagreements. We call it iron sharpening iron. If we all just agree on everything we’re sorta redundant and there is not much point in meeting other than to say how swell we all are and how swell all of our mutually agreed upon beliefs are.
But why even say that. It’s just a circle jerk at that point.
If someone is going to make some sort of theological claim, even behind the doors of a church, the members should have the right to discuss its veracity or lack thereof. I’d leave a church that doesn’t allow that in a new york minute.
The purpose of a "devotional" or "caucus" thread is for folks who generally agree with each other to discuss their theology without constant interference from those who disagree.
The purpose of an "open" thread is for folks who disagree with each other to compare and contrast their beliefs, air their disagreements, defend their beliefs, and attempt to disprove contrary beliefs.
Both are necessary. The labels are necessary because some FReepers seem to suffer from an obsessive compulsion to vent their spleens upon those with whom they disagree.
—The purpose of a “devotional” or “caucus” thread is for folks who generally agree with each other to discuss their theology without constant interference from those who disagree.—
The key word is also ridiculously squishy: generally.
So, If I profess to be a Christian and someone opens an Osteen thread or a Catholic thread, does that give me permission to go there and say that I generally agree with you that Christ is God in the Flesh and died for our sins, but your Mary worship is loopy or your Osteen Unitarianism denies the reason Christ needed to die?
What does “generally” mean in this context?
I’m not trying to be confrontational. I’d really like to understand this.
I was here before the "Religion Moderator" position was created, before the "Religion Forum" was created, and before the "caucus" etc. labels were devised.
In those days sane, rational, gracious, and polite theological discussion was almost impossible, and JR very nearly banned any such discussion from the entire site.
The situation is not perfect now, but it is immensely better than it was.
Well, let me tell you that at MY church we get into some pretty heated disagreements.
Yet those disagreements are still based on some common understanding of "life, the universe, and everything". That's what keeps your group together.
We call it iron sharpening iron.
With all respect to you and your group, most of what I have seen posted on this forum under the guise of "iron sharpening iron" has been polemical to the point of uncharity, factually deficient, and generally a disgrace to those who post it.
If someone is going to make some sort of theological claim, even behind the doors of a church, the members should have the right to discuss its veracity or lack thereof.
Emphasis added. "Devotional" and "Caucus" threads exist to keep the discussion among "the members".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.