Give us these kind of men
- Thread starter preacher4truth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
I've never seen him call anyone anything negative. (Annoying, really, Grace. 
)
I disagree with quite a bit of what he teaches, but he is one of the least hypocritical person on this site. (Also annoying.)
And why should he man up when he already does man up, and you don't?
AND, do you want me to go all feminist on you with the "man up" thing? (What is woman up? Is it different than man up? Can guys man down? Mostly, where did we ever pick up that phrase? Oh, sorry. I went feminist anyway.)
)I disagree with quite a bit of what he teaches, but he is one of the least hypocritical person on this site. (Also annoying.
)And why should he man up when he already does man up, and you don't?
AND, do you want me to go all feminist on you with the "man up" thing? (What is woman up? Is it different than man up? Can guys man down? Mostly, where did we ever pick up that phrase? Oh, sorry. I went feminist anyway.
)
Health,wealth & prosperity --- word of faith gospels = No gospel at all.
The fact that they may call their teachings Christian does not make it Christian. We live in a time when men and women want their ears tickled and bellies filled to bursting with a topping of something resembling spirituality to help ease their conscience. The health, wealth/word of faith teachers fill all these people's bellies, they are people pleasers, not God pleasers!
Paul says it well:
No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
The fact that they may call their teachings Christian does not make it Christian. We live in a time when men and women want their ears tickled and bellies filled to bursting with a topping of something resembling spirituality to help ease their conscience. The health, wealth/word of faith teachers fill all these people's bellies, they are people pleasers, not God pleasers!
Paul says it well:
No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
D
Imagine a public swimming pool in August with a cage in it and a guy in that cage. And the guy in the cage has a megaphone that's very loud. It's your typical swimming pool, complete with deep end and shallow end. And it's full of people of all swimming skills, including those who can't swim or aren't strong swimmers. Got that imagined?
Good. Now the dude in the cage is shouting with his meagaphone to everyone that the deep end holds all glorious things -- life, happiness, goodness, puppies, unicorns, candy, money, and wonders to be had just by swimming into it.
What should the strong swimmers do? What should the ones on the side of the pool with life preservers and poles do? They can't get into that cage to take him away to protect the ones duped. Are they just supposed to quietly go into the deep end to save the ones who believed Caged Dude? And then repeat, repeat, repeat? (Because seriously, the word gets out, so more and more are coming.) But do so quietly as to not disrupt Cage Dude? Apparently, they aren't supposed to bash him either, so what are they supposed to do?
I don't trust those who just watch.
Good. Now the dude in the cage is shouting with his meagaphone to everyone that the deep end holds all glorious things -- life, happiness, goodness, puppies, unicorns, candy, money, and wonders to be had just by swimming into it.
What should the strong swimmers do? What should the ones on the side of the pool with life preservers and poles do? They can't get into that cage to take him away to protect the ones duped. Are they just supposed to quietly go into the deep end to save the ones who believed Caged Dude? And then repeat, repeat, repeat? (Because seriously, the word gets out, so more and more are coming.) But do so quietly as to not disrupt Cage Dude? Apparently, they aren't supposed to bash him either, so what are they supposed to do?
I don't trust those who just watch.
I'll be glad to help you with that one.
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[SUP][2][/SUP] to manipulate public opinion,[SUP][3][/SUP] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[SUP][4][/SUP] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked.
History
The term "sockpuppet" was used as early as July 9, 1993,[SUP][5][/SUP] but did not become common in USENET groups until 1996. The first Oxford English Dictionary example of the term, defined as "a person whose actions are controlled by another; a minion," is taken from U.S. News and World Report, March 27, 2000
Strawman sockpuppet[edit]
A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position.[SUP][13][/SUP] Such sockpuppets behave in a similar manner to Internet trolls.
A particular case is the Concern troll, a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (aka FUD) within the group.
See anyone you know yet?
Meatpuppet
The term "meatpuppet" (or "meat puppet") is used as a pejorative description of various online behaviors. The term was in use before the Internet gained public awareness, including references in Ursula K. Le Guin's science fiction story "The Diary of the Rose" (1976),[SUP][14][/SUP] the alternative rock band Meat Puppets, and the cyberpunk novelist William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984).[SUP][15][/SUP] Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position.[SUP][16][/SUP] Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he/she is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation. Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg put "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," defining the term as "a person who disagrees with you."[SUP][17]
[/SUP]Nevertheless, other online sources use the term "meatpuppet" to describe sockpuppet behaviors. For example, according to one online encyclopedia, a meat puppet "publishes comments on blogs, wikis and other public venues about some phenomenon or product in order to generate public interest and buzz"—that is, he/she is engaged in behavior more widely known as "astroturfing."[SUP][18][/SUP] A 2006 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education defined a meat puppet as "a peculiar inhabitant of the digital world—a fictional character that passes for a real person online."[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP]
When I first found out what a sockpuppet was, the puzzle pieces started falling into place.
Here's the real power behind sockpuppets: when a person is hired to be one, the are usually given enough computer equipment to log on as several people at once! They use programs to make them look they're from different states & countries.
When you're arguing with 6-7 people at once in the BDF, you may be really arguing with one or two.[/SUP]
One might think joseph prince has sockpuppets in here because of how fast they will jump you for even questioning him.
Imagine that.
Selah.
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[SUP][2][/SUP] to manipulate public opinion,[SUP][3][/SUP] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[SUP][4][/SUP] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked.
History
The term "sockpuppet" was used as early as July 9, 1993,[SUP][5][/SUP] but did not become common in USENET groups until 1996. The first Oxford English Dictionary example of the term, defined as "a person whose actions are controlled by another; a minion," is taken from U.S. News and World Report, March 27, 2000
Strawman sockpuppet[edit]
A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position.[SUP][13][/SUP] Such sockpuppets behave in a similar manner to Internet trolls.
A particular case is the Concern troll, a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (aka FUD) within the group.
See anyone you know yet?
Meatpuppet
The term "meatpuppet" (or "meat puppet") is used as a pejorative description of various online behaviors. The term was in use before the Internet gained public awareness, including references in Ursula K. Le Guin's science fiction story "The Diary of the Rose" (1976),[SUP][14][/SUP] the alternative rock band Meat Puppets, and the cyberpunk novelist William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984).[SUP][15][/SUP] Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position.[SUP][16][/SUP] Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he/she is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation. Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg put "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," defining the term as "a person who disagrees with you."[SUP][17]
[/SUP]Nevertheless, other online sources use the term "meatpuppet" to describe sockpuppet behaviors. For example, according to one online encyclopedia, a meat puppet "publishes comments on blogs, wikis and other public venues about some phenomenon or product in order to generate public interest and buzz"—that is, he/she is engaged in behavior more widely known as "astroturfing."[SUP][18][/SUP] A 2006 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education defined a meat puppet as "a peculiar inhabitant of the digital world—a fictional character that passes for a real person online."[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP]
When I first found out what a sockpuppet was, the puzzle pieces started falling into place.
Here's the real power behind sockpuppets: when a person is hired to be one, the are usually given enough computer equipment to log on as several people at once! They use programs to make them look they're from different states & countries.
When you're arguing with 6-7 people at once in the BDF, you may be really arguing with one or two.[/SUP]
One might think joseph prince has sockpuppets in here because of how fast they will jump you for even questioning him.
Imagine that.
Selah.
D
Okay, so technically it's libel, not slander. (Slander is speaking. Libel is published. Everything we write on here is published. Sorry -- word nerd. Can't help it. lol)
Osteen was neither slandered nor libeled, because it is the truth. (He gets both words because Lawson talked, instead of wrote.)
You, however, were libeled on this thread.
AND, still, the gospel is God, not grace. (Just to remind you what else we disagree with.)
Osteen was neither slandered nor libeled, because it is the truth. (He gets both words because Lawson talked, instead of wrote.)
You, however, were libeled on this thread.
AND, still, the gospel is God, not grace. (Just to remind you what else we disagree with.)
a note to all:
i have heard Mr. Osteen preach, not dozens but several (honestly can't recall the number and eventually my husband turned off the tv in disgust).
and not meaning to attack Osteen's person, but his teaching.
he does not teach the whole Gospel because he feels people are already weighed down and need to be lifted up (my paraphrase). there is some truth in that for some people, but!
if we consider, as i do, the book of Romans to be God's treatise on the whole Gospel, let's take a quick look.
Romans 1-3 contains the message that God is Holy and people are sinners. our dilemma. our indictment.
Romans (well, the end of chapter 3 and) 4-11 explain how God saves those who believe in Christ.
Romans 12-16 tell the believers how they are now to live in light of so great a salvation.
that's the whole Gospel, right? before the Good News, it's bad news, and we must get the bad news about ourselves.
prosperity "gospel" aside, Joel talks to his congregation as though everyone attending is in Christ, and there's danger there. perhaps he does, but i've never heard him speak about our duties as bondservants of the Lord, either. and that's part of the Gospel, isn't it? (honest question, isn't it??)
because God in Christ has done 'this' (Rom 4-11) (indicative) we are now empowered to obey Him (Rom 12-16) (imperative).
idk.... i hope you know i love you. i fear for those who flock to Osteen's type of teaching because it is, if not totally false, certainly incomplete when it comes to salvation. each time i've heard him, all i can think about is:
Let your manner of life be without covetousness, being satisfied with the present; for He Himself has said: "Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you." (Heb 13:5 Berean Literal Bible)
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. (Prov 17:15 NASB)
i pray i'm doing neither.
i have heard Mr. Osteen preach, not dozens but several (honestly can't recall the number and eventually my husband turned off the tv in disgust).
and not meaning to attack Osteen's person, but his teaching.
he does not teach the whole Gospel because he feels people are already weighed down and need to be lifted up (my paraphrase). there is some truth in that for some people, but!
if we consider, as i do, the book of Romans to be God's treatise on the whole Gospel, let's take a quick look.
Romans 1-3 contains the message that God is Holy and people are sinners. our dilemma. our indictment.
Romans (well, the end of chapter 3 and) 4-11 explain how God saves those who believe in Christ.
Romans 12-16 tell the believers how they are now to live in light of so great a salvation.
that's the whole Gospel, right? before the Good News, it's bad news, and we must get the bad news about ourselves.
prosperity "gospel" aside, Joel talks to his congregation as though everyone attending is in Christ, and there's danger there. perhaps he does, but i've never heard him speak about our duties as bondservants of the Lord, either. and that's part of the Gospel, isn't it? (honest question, isn't it??)
because God in Christ has done 'this' (Rom 4-11) (indicative) we are now empowered to obey Him (Rom 12-16) (imperative).
idk.... i hope you know i love you. i fear for those who flock to Osteen's type of teaching because it is, if not totally false, certainly incomplete when it comes to salvation. each time i've heard him, all i can think about is:
Let your manner of life be without covetousness, being satisfied with the present; for He Himself has said: "Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you." (Heb 13:5 Berean Literal Bible)
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. (Prov 17:15 NASB)
i pray i'm doing neither.
D
Actually it has been done. The prosperity gospel is heresy, and you embrace it as yours.
Have you even watched the video? Compared it to Scripture? Compared Osteens heresy to Scripture?
Slander means to lie, so, either, show us all the lie, or stop lying yourself.
Anytime your personal beliefs are brought up, things you say you believe, you then call the one doing it a slanderer. You simply don't know what you're talking about or what the term means and are in fact lying when you falsely accuse of slander.
Soooo...when we are called to reprove and rebuke false teachers by name in Scripture, commanded to do so, it is the flesh acting up, eh?
That's utterly ridiculous and a slam on the truth.
Is it your flesh acting up when you rant about the false teachers and pharisees here?
Yes folks, don't obey the Word, obey grace777. When the Word of God shows us to reprove and rebuke false teaching, ignore it, and pay no mind to when grace777 rebukes pharisees and false teazchers in threads here, he's allowed to, he has a double standard.
No one has slandered, you've been shown that. Glorify the LORD? Yes, do that, by obeying Scripture and exposing the false teachers.
What a lame excuse and misuse of, and paraphrasing of, Paul out of context. Those passages do not address this issue whatsoever. Looking at that it is no wonder you're a fan of Osteen, he also rips passages out of context.
You're the one ripping passages out of context. And proof? Reread the exchange between you and Grace. It's on this thread, so not even much effort.
Man up!
D
I didn't even get the connection to me with "Christianity 101." "101" is a colloquialism used often in our neck of the woods, so we're bound to use it when we talk often enough. No need to apologize, and I truly think people get we aren't the same people so would use it however we individually use it. lol
D
Assault A
(And notice the five Assaults were 1-5, so no letters in that study at all)
"Believe whatever you want to believe."
The more I'm reading P4T, the more I agree with you that this isn't about truth so much for him as it is about being right.
But, again, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to many of us this really is about Osteen teaching a foreign gospel.
I appreciate you answered a question that's been rattling around in the back of my brain -- "What's up with this Lawson guy?" Because of what you've written (And, of course I looked at the source lol), I now know I'd trust him like is trust _____. (Hey, I did say I'm not into calling out many, and the name in my head now is much loved by many, and that's okay, but I see problems with him like you and I see problems with Lawson. So let's just leave it at he's one of the variations listed in that "Assault List." Someone I don't trust.) I won't trust Lawson either.
But that doesn't make Osteen any better. I still see him as much worse. To me Lawson is thin ice. Osteen is like Devil's Snare in Harry Potter. There are two choices:
-- relax and let it sink you into the dark depths of humanism.
-- Have the Light destroy it.
This thread seems to be between the two choices. Do we relax and let Olsteen take out whoever he wants, or do we shine God's light?
(And notice the five Assaults were 1-5, so no letters in that study at all)
"Believe whatever you want to believe."
The more I'm reading P4T, the more I agree with you that this isn't about truth so much for him as it is about being right.
But, again, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to many of us this really is about Osteen teaching a foreign gospel.
I appreciate you answered a question that's been rattling around in the back of my brain -- "What's up with this Lawson guy?" Because of what you've written (And, of course I looked at the source lol), I now know I'd trust him like is trust _____. (Hey, I did say I'm not into calling out many, and the name in my head now is much loved by many, and that's okay, but I see problems with him like you and I see problems with Lawson. So let's just leave it at he's one of the variations listed in that "Assault List." Someone I don't trust.) I won't trust Lawson either.
But that doesn't make Osteen any better. I still see him as much worse. To me Lawson is thin ice. Osteen is like Devil's Snare in Harry Potter. There are two choices:
-- relax and let it sink you into the dark depths of humanism.
-- Have the Light destroy it.
This thread seems to be between the two choices. Do we relax and let Olsteen take out whoever he wants, or do we shine God's light?
Hey Ariel,
I think you've touched on something here that is an issue with many Christians. The idea that God is too busy with the BIG problems of our lives and world to bother Him with what WE think are light or small issues. Therefore WE need to step in and help Him out.
Why can't the Truth of the Gospel stand on it's own? Why does it need our help to point out what ISN'T the Truth? Again, Paul went after false DOCTRINES not individuals. In Colossians for instance. He laid out the false gnostic gospel and kept hammering away that Christ is sufficient. Addressing the brethren with gentleness and love. Even those who never saw his face.
I think you've touched on something here that is an issue with many Christians. The idea that God is too busy with the BIG problems of our lives and world to bother Him with what WE think are light or small issues. Therefore WE need to step in and help Him out.
Why can't the Truth of the Gospel stand on it's own? Why does it need our help to point out what ISN'T the Truth? Again, Paul went after false DOCTRINES not individuals. In Colossians for instance. He laid out the false gnostic gospel and kept hammering away that Christ is sufficient. Addressing the brethren with gentleness and love. Even those who never saw his face.
The sin of individuals was pointed out by Paul.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping
with his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather
have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship
the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am
not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is
present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment
in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping
with his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather
have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship
the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am
not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is
present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment
in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.
D
And then after you learn what troll means, and then love and stand for truth means, THEN it's time to see the examples JESUS, then Paul, then Peter gave, because this is
Z. None of the above.
I'm just figuring something out. A good portion of the church has been teaching haughty is a fruit of the Spirit, hasn't it? And you've been taught that for quite some time. (Which now makes me understand why you like Lawson.) Check out Romans 1. It give the full list of sin/bad fruit, and haughty is in there.
Now I understand why the young people are haughty. They learned it from the elders.
(I also see why God was gracious enough to never let us have kids. Man! Our kids would have learned haughty! It's tough getting rid of the habit of haughty.)
Z. None of the above.
I'm just figuring something out. A good portion of the church has been teaching haughty is a fruit of the Spirit, hasn't it? And you've been taught that for quite some time. (Which now makes me understand why you like Lawson.) Check out Romans 1. It give the full list of sin/bad fruit, and haughty is in there.
Now I understand why the young people are haughty. They learned it from the elders.
(I also see why God was gracious enough to never let us have kids. Man! Our kids would have learned haughty! It's tough getting rid of the habit of haughty.)