0
   

How low will religion go

 
 
xingu
 
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 09:08 am
`Gospel of wealth' facing scrutinyBy ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer
Thu Dec 27, 2007

The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor's living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.

And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Fla., area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn and a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.

Only the blessings didn't come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn't strong enough.

"I wanted to believe God wanted to do something great with me like he was doing with them," she said. "I'm angry and bitter about it. Right now, I don't watch anyone on TV hardly."

All three of the groups Fleenor supported are among six major Christian television ministries under scrutiny by a senator who is asking questions about the evangelists' lavish spending and possible abuses of their tax-exempt status.

The probe by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has brought new scrutiny to the underlying belief that brings in millions of dollars and fills churches from Atlanta to Los Angeles ?- the "Gospel of Prosperity," or the notion that God wants to bless the faithful with earthly riches.

All six ministries under investigation preach the prosperity gospel to varying degrees.

Proponents call it a biblically sound message of hope. Others say it is a distortion that makes evangelists rich and preys on the vulnerable. They say it has evolved from "it's all right to make money" to it's all right for the pastor to drive a Bentley, live in an oceanside home and travel by private jet.

"More and more people are desperate and grasping at straws and want something that will alleviate their pain or financial crisis," said Michael Palmer, dean of the divinity school at Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson. "It's a growing problem."

The modern-day prosperity movement can largely be traced back to evangelist Oral Roberts' teachings. Roberts' disciples have spread his theology and vocabulary (Roberts and other evangelists, such as Meyer, call their donors "partners.") And several popular prosperity preachers, including some now under investigation, have served on the Oral Roberts University board.

Grassley is asking the ministries for financial records on salaries, spending practices, private jets and other perks. The investigation, coupled with a financial scandal at ORU that forced out Roberts' son and heir, Richard, has some wondering whether the prosperity gospel is facing a day of reckoning.

While few expect the movement to disappear, the scrutiny could force greater financial transparency and oversight in a movement known for secrecy.

Most scholars trace the origins of prosperity theology to E.W. Kenyon, an evangelical pastor from the first half of the 20th century.

But it wasn't until the postwar era ?- and a pair of evangelists from Tulsa, Okla. ?- that "health and wealth" theology became a fixture in Pentecostal and charismatic churches.

Oral Roberts and Kenneth Hagin ?- and later, Kenneth Copeland ?- trained tens of thousands of evangelists with a message that resonated with an emerging middle class, said David Edwin Harrell Jr., a Roberts biographer. Copeland is among those now being investigated.

"What Oral did was develop a theology that made it OK to prosper," Harrell said. "He let Pentecostals be faithful to the old-time truths their grandparents embraced and be part of the modern world, where they could have good jobs and make money."

The teachings took on various names ?- "Name It and Claim It," "Word of Faith," the prosperity gospel.

Prosperity preachers say that it isn't all about money ?- that God's blessings extend to health, relationships and being well-off enough to help others.

They have Bible verses at the ready to make their case. One oft-cited verse, in Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, reads: "Yet for your sakes he became poor, that you by his poverty might become rich."

Critics acknowledge the idea that God wants to bless his followers has a Biblical basis, but say prosperity preachers take verses out of context. The prosperity crowd also fails to acknowledge Biblical accounts that show God doesn't always reward faithful believers, Palmer said.

The Book of Job is a case study in piety unrewarded, and a chapter in the Book of Hebrews includes a litany of believers who were tortured and martyred, Palmer said.

Yet the prosperity gospel continues to draw crowds, particularly lower- and middle-income people who, critics say, have the greatest motivation and the most to lose. The prosperity message is spreading to black churches, attracting elderly people with disposable incomes, and reaching huge churches in Africa and other developing parts of the world.

One of the teaching's attractions is that it doesn't dwell on traditional Christian themes of heaven and hell but on answering pressing concerns of the here and now, said Brian McLaren, a liberal evangelical author and pastor.

But the prosperity gospel, McLaren said, not only preys on the hope of the vulnerable, it puts too much emphasis on individual success and happiness.

"We've pretty much ignored what the Bible says about systemic injustice," he said.

The checks and balances central to Christian denominations are largely lacking in prosperity churches. One of the pastors in the Grassley probe, Bishop Eddie Long of suburban Atlanta, has written that God told him to get rid of the "ungodly governmental structure" of a deacon board.

Some ministers hold up their own wealth as evidence that the teaching works. Atlanta-area pastor Creflo Dollar, who is fighting Grassley's inquiry, owns a Rolls Royce and multimillion-dollar homes and travels in a church-owned Learjet.

In a letter to Grassley, Dollar's attorney calls the prosperity gospel a "deeply held religious belief" grounded in Scripture and therefore a protected religious freedom. Grassley has said his probe is not about theology.

But even some prosperity gospel critics ?- like the Rev. Adam Hamilton of 15,000-member United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in suburban Kansas City, Mo. ?- say that the investigation is entering a minefield.

"How do you determine how much money a minister like this is able to make when the basic theology is that wealth is OK?" said Hamilton, an Oral Roberts graduate who later left the charismatic movement. "That gets into theological questions."

There is evidence of change. Joyce Meyer Ministries, for one, enacted financial reforms in recent years, including making audited financial statements public.

Meyer, who has promised to cooperate fully with Grassley, issued a statement emphasizing that a prosperity gospel "that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person's walk with God."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_on_re_us/prosperity_preachers;_ylt=Aks5GH3oDqlp3F4wNICzbYes0NUE
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,477 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 09:15 am
Years ago, I used to listen to the Reverend Ike:

http://www.revike.org/whois.asp

http://www.revike.org/

He was a hoot. He preached prosperity, but differently than what is being preached now. He made no bones about it that he liked living large. What he told people was that they had the power within themselves to accomplish something in life and live well. This was no "pie in the sky". It was more of the "Power of Positive Thinking".

Although I was not interested in his religious message, I believed that his attitude could be very helpful to people who were having difficulty making it in life.

I thought that the Reverend Ike was great!!!!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 09:22 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Although I was not interested in his religious message, I believed that his attitude could be very helpful to people who were having difficulty making it in life.

I thought that the Reverend Ike was great!!!!


I think the same is true for Joel Olsteen.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 09:27 am
http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/laughing1.gif
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 09:34 am
Can Catholic congregants be held liable for forcing their ministers to live under a vow of poverty under the guise of obedience to God's command?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 10:03 am
I, for one, am really glad to see these investigations into some of these prosperity gospel preachers. While it is true the Bible says God wants us to have life and life more abundantly, I have a really hard time believing he meant monetarily. There are too many scriptures that speak in direct opposition to the prosperity gospel.

I am probably one of the biggest speakers against Benny Hinn. I was watching him the night he told the audience Jesus was going to appear on his stage and he was going to videotape it. I haven't watched him since.

I feel for the people that send in money expecting blessings. I think it's great they want to help a ministry but giving to one shouldn't be done with the intent of receiving something in return.

I may not agree with Catholicism but what puzzles me is they are a very rich church yet I have never heard the prosperity gospel come from them. Perhaps some other denominations should take note of that?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 10:04 am
I have to wonder....

People who give money to these churches/evangelists....if they were not signing checks over to them, wouldn't it be likely they would be sending their grocery money to someone else they hear on the TV, radio, or through other communication?

It's not so much the religious aspect I wonder about, but the fact so many people are so gullible, it's as if they are actually seeking out ways to get cheated out of their money.

I suppose the problem is some people get more upset at this because the name of God is envoked. However, it could just as well be a investment scam...bogus health potions, etc.

The question for me is not so much that they gave their money to a televangelist, but that they so willingly gave up the option to figure out for themselves if it made any sense.

Anyone can look at a Bible, for instance and read that God doesn't promise material riches.
Anyone can investigate a real estate deal and find out if the land in question is in a swamp.

It's true, there's a sucker born every minute.

If some suckers money was going to a televangelist, it'd be getting sent to someone promising a flatter stomach in 10 days.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 10:46 am
Hucksters of all flavors and stripes have no shame.

I don't see much difference between any hucksters, whether they are religious hucksters (listed above), environmental hucksters (Gore et al), or political hucksters (Bush, Clinton et al).

They all deserve to be laughed out of public life.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 11:03 am
Don't mess around with Jim. Cool
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 11:05 am
Hucksters exist because people empower them to exist. They are a reflection of the fact that a portion of society is easily fooled.

The larger the portion of society easily fooled, the more hucksters to exploit them.

The more educated people are, the harder they are to fool. So if you're a huckster and you want to plant the seeds of future fools, you start young and in primary education. You start with the corruption of critical thinking skills in science, by pushing "Creationism", "ID" and "Teach the Controversy" into the classroom.

The fact that we have bad presidents and bad congress people is a reflection of bad decision making skills within the population. Our education system has been under siege for years (and it still is). We see the effects today.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 11:10 am
It is not religion that is low. It is the low lifes that con people in the name of religion that are low. Unfortunately, there are many gullible and desperate people who fall for these television scams. It hurts those who are actually trying to do good in the name of religion.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 11:21 am
Some of the most 'educated' people are also some of the biggest hucksters (and victims of same also).

Your faith in education to keep people from making bad judgements will doom you to disappointment.

People are easily fooled, not because they are unintelligent, but most often because they have character flaws such as greed and laziness that are easy to exploit.

Education does little to address the problem of wanting something for nothing. It is a moral issue, not an educational one.

Ros seems to want to blame belief in creation for all the ills of the world.

Let's remind ourselves that it is not creationists that have had control of the public schools for the past few decades. It is the evolutionists.

But ros' attempt to fool people into shifting the blame is bound to succeed with some who want an easy answer, and no responsibility for themselves.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 11:22 am
real life wrote:
Can Catholic congregants be held liable for forcing their ministers to live under a vow of poverty under the guise of obedience to God's command?


Vow of poverty? Have you ever seen how cardinals and bishops live?

It's the nuns who get screwed (no pun intended). They have to depend on contributions or the ability of their order to bring in money for their retirement, unless they belong to a dioceses.

The Catholic Church is a very large organization to it presents many faces. There is a big difference between the pomp and luxury the leaders live under versus the little parish priest in Africa trying to save lives.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 12:56 pm
real life wrote:
Some of the most 'educated' people are also some of the biggest hucksters (and victims of same also).

Some, but not most.

real life wrote:
Your faith in education to keep people from making bad judgements will doom you to disappointment.

You have a pretty pessimistic attitude about humanity. Should we gather from your statement that you think education has no affect on people's judgement? Or are you suggesting that less education will actually improve judgement.

real life wrote:
People are easily fooled, not because they are unintelligent, but most often because they have character flaws such as greed and laziness that are easy to exploit.

There's a difference between intelligence and education. And since character flaws are always going to be there no matter what we do, improving education should only help.

real life wrote:
Education does little to address the problem of wanting something for nothing. It is a moral issue, not an educational one.

Wanting is an emotional state. People will always want. And it's natural to want as much as you can get for as little as you have to do to get it. That's called efficiency. The question is how well people learn to balance their wants against reality, and how their efforts affect the society around them. So it's both a moral issue, and an educational one.

real life wrote:
Ros seems to want to blame belief in creation for all the ills of the world.

Well, not "all the ills of the world". I'm sure there are some ills which we can blame on other aspects of religion Smile But idiotic literalist creationism sure is an easy target. Very hard to pass up. Wink

real life wrote:
Let's remind ourselves that it is not creationists that have had control of the public schools for the past few decades. It is the evolutionists.

With the creationists lurking around in the background hindering progress in science class, and undermining the US constitution at every turn.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 01:13 pm
R.L.
Quote:

Can Catholic congregants be held liable for forcing their ministers to live under a vow of poverty under the guise of obedience to God's command


Priests don't take a vow of poverty, some monks and nun orders do. Is there ANY area of knowledge where you can't embarrass yourself with your ignorance? Hey we are all still waiting on the other thread for you to answer those questions on the conservation laws I asked you almost a month ago now. Amazing you know how the conservation laws acted at the big bang (even though you don't believe one took place), but can't even NAME them. The same way you know that priests are FORCED to take a vow of poverty!!!

ROFLMAO Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 07:21 pm
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
R.L.
Quote:

Can Catholic congregants be held liable for forcing their ministers to live under a vow of poverty under the guise of obedience to God's command


Priests don't take a vow of poverty, some monks and nun orders do. Is there ANY area of knowledge where you can't embarrass yourself with your ignorance? Hey we are all still waiting on the other thread for you to answer those questions on the conservation laws I asked you almost a month ago now. Amazing you know how the conservation laws acted at the big bang (even though you don't believe one took place), but can't even NAME them. The same way you know that priests are FORCED to take a vow of poverty!!!

ROFLMAO Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


You obviously can't spot sarcasm when it's straight in front of you.

Of course no one FORCES a Catholic minister to take a vow of poverty.

And no one FORCES those who donate to the Pentecostal preachers (who were the subject of the article) to do so either.

Both do so of their own free will.

That's my point.

Lighten up TCR and perhaps humor won't be so difficult for you to deal with. Cool
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 07:36 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Some of the most 'educated' people are also some of the biggest hucksters (and victims of same also).

Some, but not most.


Correct.

The same is true of those with lesser education (those you tried to broadbrush as 'easily fooled').

Some, not most of them, can be fooled.

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Your faith in education to keep people from making bad judgements will doom you to disappointment.

You have a pretty pessimistic attitude about humanity. Should we gather from your statement that you think education has no affect on people's judgement? Or are you suggesting that less education will actually improve judgement.


No, it's just realistic.

Education doesn't make folks honest.

If they are greedy or lazy, then they will be easy prey for hucksters, no matter their education level.


rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
People are easily fooled, not because they are unintelligent, but most often because they have character flaws such as greed and laziness that are easy to exploit.

There's a difference between intelligence and education. And since character flaws are always going to be there no matter what we do, improving education should only help.


I'd rather encounter an honest fool than an evil genius.


rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Education does little to address the problem of wanting something for nothing. It is a moral issue, not an educational one.

Wanting is an emotional state. People will always want. And it's natural to want as much as you can get for as little as you have to do to get it. That's called efficiency. The question is how well people learn to balance their wants against reality, and how their efforts affect the society around them. So it's both a moral issue, and an educational one.


If 'it's natural' as you say, then why should we restrain what comes naturally?

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Ros seems to want to blame belief in creation for all the ills of the world.

Well, not "all the ills of the world". I'm sure there are some ills which we can blame on other aspects of religion Smile But idiotic literalist creationism sure is an easy target. Very hard to pass up. Wink


Are all the ills of the world the fault of religion , in your opinion?

What of Communist China?

Which religion causes the oppression of people under an atheistic state?

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Let's remind ourselves that it is not creationists that have had control of the public schools for the past few decades. It is the evolutionists.

With the creationists lurking around in the background hindering progress in science class, and undermining the US constitution at every turn.


You are bemoaning the fact that the populace is ill trained in science, logic and use of good judgement.

Yet it is your group (evolutionists) who have been at the helm for decades.

By your own admission, creationists have had very little success in having any influence in government schools.

Therefore, the responsibility for the status quo is yours.
0 Replies
 
mrhunt
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 02:30 am
This is just one of the saddest Things and Really pisses me off...

These "Churches" Are Scammers and are taking advantage of Mentally Weak Individuals in need of a crutch...these People are In trouble and Need to beleive in SOMETHING...theirs nothing wrong with that but these ******* preachers come across and Take your money for THEMSELVES and these people are left Without their Money,Without their Hope and Just without...

This is one of the most horrible Things in my opinion....All these ******* fake ass "Churches" Should be Shut the **** down.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 07:01 am
rl
Quote:
You are bemoaning the fact that the populace is ill trained in science, logic and use of good judgement.

Yet it is your group (evolutionists) who have been at the helm for decades.

By your own admission, creationists have had very little success in having any influence in government schools.

Therefore, the responsibility for the status quo is yours.


Evolution is but one area of curriculum and it doesnt follow that EVOLUTIONISTS are responsible for the inabilaty for kids to read at a third grade level. Obviously evolution and understanding of science presumes some degree of literacy. As for the schools being "under the control of evolutionists" Thats just a bullshit statement for which you are famous there RL. We wont go into the fact that teching evolution had to be legislated away from the fundamentalist school systems as late as the 1980's. Its more a problem that weve wasted the first 3/4 of the 20th century on doctrines of "special creation" or "Scientific Creation" or "The Flood geology" crap that kids in Butthole Kansas dont even know about genetics or Earth CSience .
Yet we still have some yahoos spending 26 million bucks building a animatronic display of triceratops with saddles on em to coincide with the no evidence "science view" of this tiny but vocal group of citizens whose votes count just as much as anyone with a nondenominational education.

As far as taking action against the $$ temples, we can never protect everyone against themselves, if they are so determined to just piss away their money on these preachers who "deal spiritual and financial riches" as part of their theology. Im more amazed at the control that the GOP has been placed under by many of these fakes. My dad was an Eisenhower republican and the party's platform actually made sense when I was a little kid. Today, theyve adopted such a litmus test of "true believers" shepherded , in part, by a bunch of these "Crystal Cathedral Types"
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 09:26 am
farmerman wrote:
rl
Quote:
You are bemoaning the fact that the populace is ill trained in science, logic and use of good judgement.

Yet it is your group (evolutionists) who have been at the helm for decades.

By your own admission, creationists have had very little success in having any influence in government schools.

Therefore, the responsibility for the status quo is yours.


Evolution is but one area of curriculum and it doesnt follow that EVOLUTIONISTS are responsible for the inabilaty for kids to read at a third grade level. Obviously evolution and understanding of science presumes some degree of literacy.


Christians have been busy pulling their kids OUT of public schools and utilizing alternatives like private Christian schools and homeschooling for the past few decades (where the kids score HIGHER on science for the ACT/SAT than the national average).

PC Liberals who have been busy introducing the elementary schools to things like Early Sex Education, Self Esteem programs, psychologists in the schools , Nobody Loses sports and games, censorship of student creative writing and sexual predators masquerading as teachers are but a few of the reasons for it.

Perhaps if schools were interested in reading then teachers unions would support things that would produce same. But they generally don't and it's quite a stretch for you to try to blame it on Christians.



farmerman wrote:
As for the schools being "under the control of evolutionists" Thats just a bullshit statement for which you are famous there RL. We wont go into the fact that teching evolution had to be legislated away from the fundamentalist school systems as late as the 1980's.


The last few places where creation MIGHT have been tolerated or taught were affected by this. Most government school systems have taught evolution for many decades and you know it as well as I.

If you aren't happy with scientific aptitude, you should look to your own group to blame.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How low will religion go
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/16/2026 at 03:03:51