Doesnt this leave you feeling isolated and seperated from almost everybody.? Since I too am by and large a loner, healthy sceptism does leave one isolated no? I mean, it doesn't matter what area of peoples views you are talking about.
There are a few nutcase Democrats and Republicans as well. Their are a few nutcase people in everyarea of views. If everytime we find a few in one area of belief we disregard the whole, dont we kind of limit our access to the good? As there are some good Democrats and Republicans as well? (I am NOT saying Joyce is a nutcase, but she does have some issues) Chances are there are some nutcase Wiccans as well?
An old man when I was a kid once said your lucky if you find five good friends in a lifetime. I think he was right.
Sky, I agree with Bramble that the "Christian" attitude exhibited on this thread and the ilk like it that seems to be so prevalent in society today is an incredible turn off to all things "Christ" related. In my experience, the Wicca, Pagan, Unitarian and other belief systems are not so condemning, exclusionist and unloving. Yes, there are nutcases associated with anything, but in my personal experience Christianity seems to have more than its fair share of 'em. Part of it, I believe is due to the doctrinal belief and teachings about Hell and condemnation and judgments to come down on those who don't believe like they do.
But, that's all the more reason why it should be a personal, private thing, no? It's when we look outside ourselves and expect others to guide us that we get into trouble. If, as the Bible says, holy spirit will guide you, then there's no need to submit, pay or depend on someone else for guidance. Other cultures and religions believe the same thing, they just use different words.
And, no, I don't feel separated or lonely in that regard. I do think a lot of "spirituality", "beliefs", whatever one calls it, is personal, unique and individual even though there are similarities and connections to a whole. It's getting quiet with yourself, meditating, prayer, whatever so that you can know, experience and hear that still, small voice - getting to that peaceful place with yourself, personally.
The "fellowship", if you will, is beneficial for learning and sharing and friendship - for personal enrichment and enjoyment. I don't need a whole congregation of hundreds of people for that. Just a few close friends and some acquaintances with whom I really enjoy spending time and sharing ideas and what we're learning.
I started attending "classes" at a couple of the metaphysical bookstores here in town and met a few people that way - I also signed up for a couple of groups at www.meetup.com - I visited a few groups and picked the ones that that resonated with me and have made some friends that way. With both of those, I choose how involved I get, how often I do stuff and how much money I spend - most all of these are free or very cheap because the genuine heart behind it is to share knowledge and make friends. What a concept, eh?
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
2 Pet 2:1, 3
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
Seems to me that having enough non-profit dollars to purchase a multi-million dollar compound means someone has been made merchandise of..... seems to be Janice's goal, too, especially since she's got pleas for donations or purchases of her book on every page of her website, yet no teachings or other information. <_<
Heck, even on Dot's thread in the Open section one woman says Joyce is her "Mother in the word" - gag me! -
Matt 23:9
And call no [man]your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Jude 1
v11 - Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
v16 - These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
There's plenty in the Bible that warns of people like this for those who want to see it.
— The tax-exempt purpose of items purchased for her ministry's headquarters, such as a $23,000 marble-topped commode, a $30,000 conference table and an $11,219 French clock. :blink:
Meyer and her second husband, David Meyer, started her nonprofit ministry in 1985; by 1999, they had moved into a $20 million headquarters in Fenton.
Now, her "Enjoying Everyday Life" TV show airs in 46 states and reaches two-thirds of the world, according to her website. Meyer has written more than 70 books, and sells videotapes and audiotapes. JMM employs more than 600 people at the Fenton office.
Meyer has never apologized for her financial success. In the 2003 series, Meyer said everything she has — the $10 million corporate jet, her $2 million home, her family's fleet of fancy cars — were blessings straight from God.
Meyer preaches the "prosperity gospel" and uses blunt pitches to get her followers to open their wallets.
Sounds to me like she's way beyond "non profit" status and can afford to pay taxes and should be paying taxes. Imagine how many government programs could benefit from the taxes on her business.
If, as the Bible says, holy spirit will guide you, then there's no need to submit, pay or depend on someone else for guidance. Other cultures and religions believe the same thing, they just use different words.
Belle: And that's what I pretty much do myself. I dont depend on others for that. I think Belle, there has been so much insistence of dependence and attendance by organized what not, that if I make a remark to the reverse, you automatically think I am suggesting its a prerequisite to a better tuned life. I am not.
I once asked an evanglical pastors wife, ( who is a real nice woman) the following question when she asked me if I was attending church. Who is more justified the one who attends one time and does everything he heard or the person who goes 100 times and does not of it? She smiled and winced a tad, and didnt really answer. I think she was expecting me to say that I was doing it (whatever her response would have been); anyway, I think she got the point.
I would be willing to bet I attended in younger years enough if one added them it would be more than most attended in there lifetime. still, ya dont get extra credit so you can play hookey, later down the road.
The skinny is I never feel guilty anymore if i dont go, it doesnt add up if I have other things to do.
Seems to me that having enough non-profit dollars to purchase a multi-million dollar compound means someone has been made merchandise of..... seems to be Janice's goal, too, especially since she's got pleas for donations or purchases of her book on every page of her website, yet no teachings or other information.
In comparison to Eagle's book $8.00 is rather cheap. Somebody should warn others of people like him, right?
Or you can check out Billy Graham's books here or here or here.
There's plenty in the Bible that warns of people like this for those who want to see it.
Oh, I imagine there's plenty in the Bible that warns of people just like yourself as well. I know -- I've seen it.
This post (and Belle's) has been reported as a personal attack on another member of GS. It commits the following fallacy.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of the person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Larry, good point and I agree. A posters occupation or even personal bias, has nothing to do with discussion and debate of the issues. Keeping the debate about the issues and not getting personal makes for much better and fairer posting.
"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
On the other hand, where the person taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
(this in-depth research was culled from - I believe - the same source as Mr. Moore used, Wikipedia)
When simply giving one's opinion, I think that showing the bias of the source of that opinion is fair game, sorry...
"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
On the other hand, where the person taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
(this in-depth research was culled from - I believe - the same source as Mr. Moore used, Wikipedia)
When simply giving one's opinion, I think that showing the bias of the source of that opinion is fair game, sorry...
The bias or lack of bias of a poster is not the issue. I don't care. The point is one doesn't (and I believe shouldn't) have to invoke anything personal about the poster in order to engage in a debate about the issues.
Some people are immature, yes, but there are whole churches that accept the doctrine that the poor and sick deserve it because they are not doing something right. There was a thread on OPEN not too long ago about a class the poster was taking, which dealt with just this issue.
Remember tho, it was a spinster named VPW who taught that Job's problem was his faith was inapprobrate, thus VPW wrecked the entie book of Job. I aint saying either Bramble that others dont teach similar stuff (I dunno about Joyce, I doubt it tho that Joyce teaches that from what I have seen) Typically, IMO , similar doctrines teach prosperity in combo with some believing philosophy. You are correct tho, telling people they are sick and deserving tis a bit shameful.
Some would say the whole point of Christianity is obedience, and God set up rulers in the Church...those who don't follow the leadership become 'greasespots by midnight.'.
Yea, but, in my NT, the obedience issues are related to principals , not an established presence of people of have all the goods. I agree with your principal however, that having "leaders" who substitute themselves for ones own personal experience is where the real problem is.
Hey guys, quit being so hard on Belle, she did make the obvious comparison between Billy Graham's salary and Joyces', which was a valid point.
Belle: And that's what I pretty much do myself. I dont depend on others for that. I think Belle, there has been so much insistence of dependence and attendance by organized what not, that if I make a remark to the reverse, you automatically think I am suggesting its a prerequisite to a better tuned life. I am not.
Sky, I was responding primarily to your comment about feeling isolated:
Doesnt this leave you feeling isolated and seperated from almost everybody.? Since I too am by and large a loner, healthy sceptism does leave one isolated no? I mean, it doesn't matter what area of peoples views you are talking about.
Maybe I mis-understood and for that I am sorry. :) I do not think regular attendance at any sort of meeting, church or gathering is necessary for a person's spiritual vitality. In fact I believe that most of the "spiritual work" should be done privately, personally and alone. I do, however, see the benefit of getting together with others to discuss, learn, question and share - including those with diverse beliefs in addition to those on the same sort of path. I enjoy and learn a great deal from it - I've also made some pretty cool friends in the process.
I once asked an evanglical pastors wife, ( who is a real nice woman) the following question when she asked me if I was attending church. Who is more justified the one who attends one time and does everything he heard or the person who goes 100 times and does not of it? She smiled and winced a tad, and didnt really answer. I think she was expecting me to say that I was doing it (whatever her response would have been); anyway, I think she got the point.
I would be willing to bet I attended in younger years enough if one added them it would be more than most attended in there lifetime. still, ya dont get extra credit so you can play hookey, later down the road.
I hear ya! This lady was raised in a Southern Baptist family and was at the church every time the doors were open....there was handbells, choir, youth group, Sunday school, GAs, etc. etc. etc.... you name it - I actually enjoyed it, too. :P Not to mention the fact that it was good for keeping this wild child out of trouble. Would that TWI had been that much fun....
A posters occupation or even personal bias, has nothing to do with discussion and debate of the issues. Keeping the debate about the issues and not getting personal makes for much better and fairer posting.
I disagree.
Personal bias and occupation have quite a bit to do with some discussions/debates. It can affect the credibility of the data presented or left out. It can have even more relevance when the poster is using strawman argumets, red herrings, misdirection, etc, when it is also known that the debater could reap financial gains as a result of their position.
It is interesting that Oldies and Larry only protest the so called ad hominem fallacy, and do not protest the strawmans, misdirection, and many others.
George Posted
When simply giving one's opinion, I think that showing the bias of the source of that opinion is fair game, sorry...
I agree.
And .... when a poster uses strawman arguments, misdirection, and almost never directly addresses what was actually stated, I think the poster's motives/bias become suspect and therfore fair game as well.
I object! --- It goes to credibility your honor. --- Allowed.
Bias is the reason a Judge or potential juror should recuse himself from the trial of a close friend or family member. While the judge or juror may be sure that he can rule objectively, history has proven that it seldom the case.
Another term that might apply is conflict of interest.
It asks posters right on the forums page "please don't make it personal".
These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
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. ...
The meaning of "please don't make it personal" is very simple. It means that posters should be able to communicate opinions without adding personal details about or insults against another poster.
If you have a personal opinion about a poster and want to say something about them that is of a personal nature, why not PM them directly? My PM is always open to anyone here.
The meaning of "please don't make it personal" is very simple. It means that posters should be able to communicate opinions without adding personal details about or insults against another poster.
Show where personal details were added and show the "insults".
And while you are at it, explain how it is NOT personal in suggesting that those who question Joyce Meyer's salary & lifestyle have a "spirit of jealousy". And then explain why are you are not complaining about that also.
I was just speaking generically about unnecessary personal details (a whole lot of stuff including a persons occupation applies here) and personal insults against a poster which is unnecessary and detracts from the discussion.
I agree that accusing a poster of having a spirit of jealousy is a personal insult and should be avoided as it detracts from the issue being discussed.
I agree that accusing a poster of having a spirit of jealousy is a personal insult and should be avoided as it detracts from the issue being discussed.
Ok then, we agree that it was personal. But what if that person actually believes that another really does have a "spirit of jealousy" based upon what they beleive to be an honest understanding of the Bible for example. Would it be fair to prohibit them from expressing that belief? -- In a Doctrinal forum ?
I think so. I think it's so much better not getting personal in the public forums. It takes work, but in the long run makes for better discussion. One may use PM if needed to communicate personal issues.
Seems to me that having enough non-profit dollars to purchase a multi-million dollar compound means someone has been made merchandise of..... seems to be Janice's goal, too, especially since she's got pleas for donations or purchases of her book on every page of her website, yet no teachings or other information. <_<
Well, Belle, then you must tell me which field that God is raining down pennies from heaven and I'll go there. I do not know of any charity that runs on air. But perhaps you have some new and improved ideas for those attempting to serve the Lord Jesus Christ.
Heck, even on Dot's thread in the Open section one woman says Joyce is her "Mother in the word" - gag me! -
There's plenty in the Bible that warns of people like this for those who want to see it.
Sounds to me like she's way beyond "non profit" status and can afford to pay taxes and should be paying taxes. Imagine how many government programs could benefit from the taxes on her business.
Again, how do you know they will be spit out? What if you are? My Bible says that the ones that will be spit out are the Christians who are lukewarm. What are you doing for the Lord, if I may ask?
Wow, your God is going to spit out his own family members? Niiice.
And people don't get why the wicked unbelievers don't see the all powerful love of God.
Please see Revelation 3, but if you're burning hot for the Lord there is no worry, eh?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
17
20
26
Popular Days
Nov 10
26
Nov 7
18
Nov 13
15
Nov 1
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 18 posts
sky4it 17 posts
Larry N Moore 20 posts
brideofjc 26 posts
Popular Days
Nov 10 2007
26 posts
Nov 7 2007
18 posts
Nov 13 2007
15 posts
Nov 1 2007
14 posts
Belle
Sky, I agree with Bramble that the "Christian" attitude exhibited on this thread and the ilk like it that seems to be so prevalent in society today is an incredible turn off to all things "Christ" related. In my experience, the Wicca, Pagan, Unitarian and other belief systems are not so condemning, exclusionist and unloving. Yes, there are nutcases associated with anything, but in my personal experience Christianity seems to have more than its fair share of 'em. Part of it, I believe is due to the doctrinal belief and teachings about Hell and condemnation and judgments to come down on those who don't believe like they do.
But, that's all the more reason why it should be a personal, private thing, no?
It's when we look outside ourselves and expect others to guide us that we get into trouble. If, as the Bible says, holy spirit will guide you, then there's no need to submit, pay or depend on someone else for guidance. Other cultures and religions believe the same thing, they just use different words.
And, no, I don't feel separated or lonely in that regard. I do think a lot of "spirituality", "beliefs", whatever one calls it, is personal, unique and individual even though there are similarities and connections to a whole. It's getting quiet with yourself, meditating, prayer, whatever so that you can know, experience and hear that still, small voice - getting to that peaceful place with yourself, personally.
The "fellowship", if you will, is beneficial for learning and sharing and friendship - for personal enrichment and enjoyment. I don't need a whole congregation of hundreds of people for that. Just a few close friends and some acquaintances with whom I really enjoy spending time and sharing ideas and what we're learning.
I started attending "classes" at a couple of the metaphysical bookstores here in town and met a few people that way - I also signed up for a couple of groups at www.meetup.com - I visited a few groups and picked the ones that that resonated with me and have made some friends that way. With both of those, I choose how involved I get, how often I do stuff and how much money I spend - most all of these are free or very cheap because the genuine heart behind it is to share knowledge and make friends. What a concept, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Seems to me that having enough non-profit dollars to purchase a multi-million dollar compound means someone has been made merchandise of..... seems to be Janice's goal, too, especially since she's got pleas for donations or purchases of her book on every page of her website, yet no teachings or other information. <_<
Heck, even on Dot's thread in the Open section one woman says Joyce is her "Mother in the word" - gag me! -
There's plenty in the Bible that warns of people like this for those who want to see it.
This is from only five days ago:
Sounds to me like she's way beyond "non profit" status and can afford to pay taxes and should be paying taxes. Imagine how many government programs could benefit from the taxes on her business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
One must wonder why someone without a basic understanding of either scripture or logic would set out to start a ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Belle: And that's what I pretty much do myself. I dont depend on others for that. I think Belle, there has been so much insistence of dependence and attendance by organized what not, that if I make a remark to the reverse, you automatically think I am suggesting its a prerequisite to a better tuned life. I am not.
I once asked an evanglical pastors wife, ( who is a real nice woman) the following question when she asked me if I was attending church. Who is more justified the one who attends one time and does everything he heard or the person who goes 100 times and does not of it? She smiled and winced a tad, and didnt really answer. I think she was expecting me to say that I was doing it (whatever her response would have been); anyway, I think she got the point.
I would be willing to bet I attended in younger years enough if one added them it would be more than most attended in there lifetime. still, ya dont get extra credit so you can play hookey, later down the road.
The skinny is I never feel guilty anymore if i dont go, it doesnt add up if I have other things to do.
peace, :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
In comparison to Eagle's book $8.00 is rather cheap. Somebody should warn others of people like him, right?
Or you can check out Billy Graham's books here or here or here.
Oh, I imagine there's plenty in the Bible that warns of people just like yourself as well. I know -- I've seen it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Larry, good point and I agree. A posters occupation or even personal bias, has nothing to do with discussion and debate of the issues. Keeping the debate about the issues and not getting personal makes for much better and fairer posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
On the other hand, where the person taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
(this in-depth research was culled from - I believe - the same source as Mr. Moore used, Wikipedia)
When simply giving one's opinion, I think that showing the bias of the source of that opinion is fair game, sorry...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You are wrong on both accounts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The bias or lack of bias of a poster is not the issue. I don't care. The point is one doesn't (and I believe shouldn't) have to invoke anything personal about the poster in order to engage in a debate about the issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Remember tho, it was a spinster named VPW who taught that Job's problem was his faith was inapprobrate, thus VPW wrecked the entie book of Job. I aint saying either Bramble that others dont teach similar stuff (I dunno about Joyce, I doubt it tho that Joyce teaches that from what I have seen) Typically, IMO , similar doctrines teach prosperity in combo with some believing philosophy. You are correct tho, telling people they are sick and deserving tis a bit shameful.
Yea, but, in my NT, the obedience issues are related to principals , not an established presence of people of have all the goods. I agree with your principal however, that having "leaders" who substitute themselves for ones own personal experience is where the real problem is.
Hey guys, quit being so hard on Belle, she did make the obvious comparison between Billy Graham's salary and Joyces', which was a valid point.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Sky, I was responding primarily to your comment about feeling isolated:
Maybe I mis-understood and for that I am sorry. :) I do not think regular attendance at any sort of meeting, church or gathering is necessary for a person's spiritual vitality. In fact I believe that most of the "spiritual work" should be done privately, personally and alone. I do, however, see the benefit of getting together with others to discuss, learn, question and share - including those with diverse beliefs in addition to those on the same sort of path. I enjoy and learn a great deal from it - I've also made some pretty cool friends in the process.I hear ya!
This lady was raised in a Southern Baptist family and was at the church every time the doors were open....there was handbells, choir, youth group, Sunday school, GAs, etc. etc. etc.... you name it - I actually enjoyed it, too. :P Not to mention the fact that it was good for keeping this wild child out of trouble. Would that TWI had been that much fun....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Personal bias and occupation have quite a bit to do with some discussions/debates. It can affect the credibility of the data presented or left out. It can have even more relevance when the poster is using strawman argumets, red herrings, misdirection, etc, when it is also known that the debater could reap financial gains as a result of their position.
It is interesting that Oldies and Larry only protest the so called ad hominem fallacy, and do not protest the strawmans, misdirection, and many others.
I agree.
And .... when a poster uses strawman arguments, misdirection, and almost never directly addresses what was actually stated, I think the poster's motives/bias become suspect and therfore fair game as well.
I object! --- It goes to credibility your honor. --- Allowed.
Bias is the reason a Judge or potential juror should recuse himself from the trial of a close friend or family member. While the judge or juror may be sure that he can rule objectively, history has proven that it seldom the case.
Another term that might apply is conflict of interest.
Seems Oldies and Larry have no problem with it.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It asks posters right on the forums page "please don't make it personal".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Many things we discuss here are personal by nature.
I am not so sure that "don't make it personal" means what you think it means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The meaning of "please don't make it personal" is very simple. It means that posters should be able to communicate opinions without adding personal details about or insults against another poster.
If you have a personal opinion about a poster and want to say something about them that is of a personal nature, why not PM them directly? My PM is always open to anyone here.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Show where personal details were added and show the "insults".
And while you are at it, explain how it is NOT personal in suggesting that those who question Joyce Meyer's salary & lifestyle have a "spirit of jealousy". And then explain why are you are not complaining about that also.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I was just speaking generically about unnecessary personal details (a whole lot of stuff including a persons occupation applies here) and personal insults against a poster which is unnecessary and detracts from the discussion.
I agree that accusing a poster of having a spirit of jealousy is a personal insult and should be avoided as it detracts from the issue being discussed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Ok then, we agree that it was personal. But what if that person actually believes that another really does have a "spirit of jealousy" based upon what they beleive to be an honest understanding of the Bible for example. Would it be fair to prohibit them from expressing that belief? -- In a Doctrinal forum ?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think so. I think it's so much better not getting personal in the public forums. It takes work, but in the long run makes for better discussion. One may use PM if needed to communicate personal issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunnyfla
JM's teachings was first introduced to me by a former WC sis about 8 years ago. I became a sponcer and gave every month
beings I had no home church at the time to tithe to. I bought tons of her tapes/albumns and it helped me get over a lot of
baggage was still carrying from twi.
Yes, she's a bit hard core, like what were were all used to, and so was I at the time. So.. I
guess you can say here "Where the Shoe fits, wear it" Well, her shoes don't fit in my life anymore. It began a few years ago
when we were getting letters of wanting MORE $$ so that it could go to India. I noticed a big change in her when they
started going abroad. Her letters were less and less personal and more of asking for money.
Needless to say, I've moved on and am listening to various teachers now like Charles Stanley, and Beth Moore which she is
so much easier to listen to than than JM IMO.
Someone needs to start something on Joel Olsteen. I haven't quite figured this cat out yet. On the fence with him.
Tootles
Edited by SunnyflaLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
God is not about money...duh....
or is that doh..lol...doe ......dough.....
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Please see Revelation 3, but if you're burning hot for the Lord there is no worry, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Men and women give money to various helps causes and provisions.
We do what we are supposed to do. The rest is not my problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.