-
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.
- Status
A
I don't think he will. I was not proposing that everyone wrap up this thread, merely that I back away from it because I'm tired of jumping through Rosinsky's hoops. I mean he said that all I knew about the Prosperty Gospel was from people who opposed it. Thait is not true, and if he'd done some basic research on this topic before he started this thread, then he'd have known that. I mean, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm always seeking out views that are different than mine. How will I know that I have a balanced point of view otherwise? I mean, there are some issues that seem so obvious, I really wonder how the other side justifies their point of view, so I go looking for those arguements. Fortunately, pretty much every point of view can be found on the Internet nowadays, so seeking out those points of view is not hard. Anyway, so I told him what I heard on TV from Creflo Dollar (but I couldn't remember his first name, so I guess he just disregarded what I wrote) but then he wanted me to give him just one name, but when I gave him a whole list of names then he wanted just one quote. If I foolishly give into that, he won't be satsified and he'll likely ask for something else.
I mentioned earlier that I couldn't find where he responded to that youtube video you posted. That doesn't make sense me, because when I want to know more about an issue, I'll read (or listen to) whatever I get my hands on on the subject. So, if he's not sincere about really wanting to know the truth about this topic, why is he wasting our time with it?
My choice to withdraw from this (and even though I'm still posting on this thread, notice I'm specifically addressing my comments to you, Phil) has everything to do with playing fair. In a debate, providing your opponent with sources to back up your claims and straight answes is just common courtesy. When I asked for what research he's done on this topic (so he could have facts to back up his claims) he told me that was not my concern. Then last night he said he had done research and says "You may ask, why didn't I provide these facts before? Simply because up until tonight, I have never been asked to." He might as well have said "I was never asked to by someone other than Ancilla, becaue my research is not her concern." Furthermore, I asked a simple question (more than once, if I'm not mistaken) then you echo that simple question, then he says he can't handle the back and forth and wants a moderator. I don't mean to bash him, I'm just saying I don't feel like he's treating me fairly in the context of a debate* and instead of telling him to stop, I'll just not make myself available for this kind of treatment.
Anyway, the bottom line is this: he started this thread by asking what we thought of the Prosperty Gospel (or the prosperty gospel, he was not clear that he wanted to redefine an existing term) we told him what we thought of it, a lot of that he didn't like, and starting over with a moderator is not going to change that.
*I'm not saying he's singled me out in anyway, but I will let others speak for themselves.
I mentioned earlier that I couldn't find where he responded to that youtube video you posted. That doesn't make sense me, because when I want to know more about an issue, I'll read (or listen to) whatever I get my hands on on the subject. So, if he's not sincere about really wanting to know the truth about this topic, why is he wasting our time with it?
My choice to withdraw from this (and even though I'm still posting on this thread, notice I'm specifically addressing my comments to you, Phil) has everything to do with playing fair. In a debate, providing your opponent with sources to back up your claims and straight answes is just common courtesy. When I asked for what research he's done on this topic (so he could have facts to back up his claims) he told me that was not my concern. Then last night he said he had done research and says "You may ask, why didn't I provide these facts before? Simply because up until tonight, I have never been asked to." He might as well have said "I was never asked to by someone other than Ancilla, becaue my research is not her concern." Furthermore, I asked a simple question (more than once, if I'm not mistaken) then you echo that simple question, then he says he can't handle the back and forth and wants a moderator. I don't mean to bash him, I'm just saying I don't feel like he's treating me fairly in the context of a debate* and instead of telling him to stop, I'll just not make myself available for this kind of treatment.
Anyway, the bottom line is this: he started this thread by asking what we thought of the Prosperty Gospel (or the prosperty gospel, he was not clear that he wanted to redefine an existing term) we told him what we thought of it, a lot of that he didn't like, and starting over with a moderator is not going to change that.
*I'm not saying he's singled me out in anyway, but I will let others speak for themselves.
A
Alas, I worry that many people don't think they can sell books or build mega-churches with those other things. In my politics and religion class, we talked about how churches think they need to market their church like one markets a product. And when's the last time you hear an ad that said "Use our product, the Romans will feed you to the lions!"? Of course not, that's just not marketable. There's a church here in Canada who admits to watering down the rules and spirituality of Christanity in an effort to attract more members. I think this is counterproductive since it's sprituality that everyone is craving. But, they didn't ask me or you, did they?
R
See? You can't even be honest with yourself. That's partly why I am withdrawing, at least not without a moderator because you are falsely accusing me. As I said, I am very happy that this was not an oral debate, we have the records so that everyone can go back and verify.
Why don't you post the quote from me where I asked you to give me one name? Since the beginning, I have asked you to give me one quote from the proponents of the theology of prosperity gospel that define it as you and the so called "mainstream" official definition claim. This should not be very hard for you to do. You only have to look through 9 pages of posts. Actually, 6 pages
Why don't you post your quote when you asked me to give you facts of those who defined the prosperity gospel the way I believed it to be? You won't find it because you never did ask. At least not until last night. This again, should be very easy for you.
You've asked me to tell you how much research I have done on this topic prior to starting this topic, how many scholars agree with my understanding of Psalms 1, and I told you and will tell you again, that's none of your concern.
Lastly, you accused me of not being honest about my intentions or that I was misleading in starting this thread. That's a lie, I clearly defined what the prosperity gospel was on the very first post. Had I had a malicious intent, as you claimed, I would have simply named the Prosperity Gospel and asked people to contribute. Granted, had I knew this would have turned out this way, I would have been more specific on the first post by stating the definition of the "mainstream" belief and the real definition of those who came up with the theology. But you have no reason to accuse me of anything.
Baptistw, thank you for your kind response. But I am well aware on what to do to stop. But I do desire a moderator (a third party) to moderate since this one is getting out of hand. Every good debate has a moderator.
Why don't you post the quote from me where I asked you to give me one name? Since the beginning, I have asked you to give me one quote from the proponents of the theology of prosperity gospel that define it as you and the so called "mainstream" official definition claim. This should not be very hard for you to do. You only have to look through 9 pages of posts. Actually, 6 pages
Why don't you post your quote when you asked me to give you facts of those who defined the prosperity gospel the way I believed it to be? You won't find it because you never did ask. At least not until last night. This again, should be very easy for you.
You've asked me to tell you how much research I have done on this topic prior to starting this topic, how many scholars agree with my understanding of Psalms 1, and I told you and will tell you again, that's none of your concern.
Lastly, you accused me of not being honest about my intentions or that I was misleading in starting this thread. That's a lie, I clearly defined what the prosperity gospel was on the very first post. Had I had a malicious intent, as you claimed, I would have simply named the Prosperity Gospel and asked people to contribute. Granted, had I knew this would have turned out this way, I would have been more specific on the first post by stating the definition of the "mainstream" belief and the real definition of those who came up with the theology. But you have no reason to accuse me of anything.
Baptistw, thank you for your kind response. But I am well aware on what to do to stop. But I do desire a moderator (a third party) to moderate since this one is getting out of hand. Every good debate has a moderator.
R
Chronological Order - The Facts
Here's the first time I asked you for evidence of one quote from the proponents
Post #84 - http://christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=1617&page=5
You responded by giving me a wikipedia link that has the "mainstream" definition that list of names:
Post #92 - http://christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=1617&page=5
I asked you one quote from the proponents.
I asked you again to "prove me wrong" and for you to provide evidence.
Post #114 - http://christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=1617&page=6
I understand that the word "quote" is not stated in post 114. But given, I had already asked you to give one quote, I don't see how you could mistake that for names. What would I need a list of names for? Especially since I have been pretty consistent in saying that the mainstream definition was given by those who oppose to the view.
Let's do this - Prove this to be wrong.
The so-called "mainstream" belief of the Prosperity Theology is false. Yes, it is the "popular" definition. Yes, it is what most people know it by. However, this definition has been given by those who oppose to this view. Therefore, it is most likely to be bias and a distortion of what the Theology Prosperity really is. I have asked you this before, can you find me at least one person who believes in the Prosperity Gospel is what the "mainstream" believe it to be? This should not be very hard for you, I am asking you to find me just ONE.
The rest has been a repetition of posts 114
Here's the first time I asked you for evidence of one quote from the proponents
Post #84 - http://christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=1617&page=5
You responded by giving me a wikipedia link that has the "mainstream" definition that list of names:
Post #92 - http://christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=1617&page=5
I asked you one quote from the proponents.
I asked you again to "prove me wrong" and for you to provide evidence.
Post #114 - http://christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=1617&page=6
I understand that the word "quote" is not stated in post 114. But given, I had already asked you to give one quote, I don't see how you could mistake that for names. What would I need a list of names for? Especially since I have been pretty consistent in saying that the mainstream definition was given by those who oppose to the view.
Let's do this - Prove this to be wrong.
The so-called "mainstream" belief of the Prosperity Theology is false. Yes, it is the "popular" definition. Yes, it is what most people know it by. However, this definition has been given by those who oppose to this view. Therefore, it is most likely to be bias and a distortion of what the Theology Prosperity really is. I have asked you this before, can you find me at least one person who believes in the Prosperity Gospel is what the "mainstream" believe it to be? This should not be very hard for you, I am asking you to find me just ONE.
The rest has been a repetition of posts 114
- Status