Joel Olsteen, Is it Just about the Money?

[countryboy]

I know, doesn't it?

I would never defend the hateful little brat who was broadcasting hate speech through an amplified speaker

Whatever smart alec, you know what I mean. Thanks for the perfect example.

 

[nota bene]

Unsurprisingly, your point is dishonest because you did not merely "comment" on a child's behavior - you judged her character as well as her parents (who you know nothing about)

Character vs behavior - get it?

So you called both her and her mother "common" and when lizzie called her "a hateful little ass", you applauded lizzie's post

Funny how upset you got because the child said "Shut your pie hole" yet an adult talking about a child's "hateful little ass" gets your approval

So to recap, you don't understand the difference between judging a man's heart and intentions and commenting on a child's behavior or expectations of civil public behavior, particularly in a child.

Since you can't distinguish between a child's saying "Shut your pie hole" to a man on the street and people on this board talking about this and adding their comments, I'm not surprised that you also don't understand what I mean by "common."

 

[sangha]

So to recap, you don't understand the difference between judging a man's heart and intentions and commenting on a child's behavior or expectations of civil public behavior, particularly in a child.

Since you seem to think your words were limited to the little girls behavior, it seems you're the one who doesn't understand the difference.

Except you do.

 

[The Prophet]

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24

Yes, Jesus did teach about the dangers of being wealthy, in fact he did tell that man to sell all of his possessions and give to the poor. But those, particularly on the left, seem to use Jesus as a Trojan horse for wealth redistribution. But he certainly wasn't for the Romans enacting any laws to force people to give, he wanted people to give freely of their own volition; Jesus wanted to change peoples' hearts and minds.

 

[countryboy]

The owner of Chik fil A, Dan Cathy, is worth $1.2 billion and professes to be a devout Christian. No one questions whether he can truly be a Christian while living a wealthy lifestyle.

The husband and wife team of Jin Sook & Do Won Chan, creators of the chain "Forever 21", are worth about $5 billion and profess to be devout Christians. No one questions whether they can truly be Christian while living a wealthy lifestyle.

So, you can make a fortune selling chicken or clothing and not worry about anyone questioning the sincerity of your Christian faith. But if you make your fortune writing about God and pastoring a church, the sincerity of your faith is in question...??

Don't get me wrong, I think the question of moral demandingness is a legitimate one that all Christians should grapple with at every socio-economic level. But the way the question is applied to wealthy church leaders vs other wealthy people makes absolutely no sense. Logic dictates that, all else being equal, the guy who made his fortune writing about God and pastoring a church is far more likely to be a devoted Christian than the one who made his fortune selling chicken or clothes.

Do the exercise in your head and you will realize this is true. Imagine you were presented with three people; all three professed to be Christian, all three give away an equal portion of their earnings to charity, all three are incredibly wealthy, one built a fried chicken empire, one built a clothing store empire, and the third dedicated himself to ministry full time. If you had to pick one to be the least likely to be lying about their faith, which one would it be?

I think unfortunate stereotypes are affecting people's judgment on this one. You shouldn't question a pastor's faith on the basis of his wealth any more than you would if he were a corporate CEO or children's book author instead.



*There may be legitimate concerns about Osteen in particular. I don't know enough about him to defend his practices. I am speaking against the general concept of questioning a minister's sincerity based on how much money they make to a greater degree than you question anyone else's.

The reason people with even a modicum of Biblical knowledge question Osteen, is due to his horrible twisting of the Scripture to foment his prosperity message. His theology is what we question, and we have his own words with which to question it.

Have the two wealthy individuals you referenced written any books about their Christian beliefs? Then what is there to discern whether or not they are "good Christians"? Do you wish us to prejudge them without any information?

 

[PoS]

If Osteen's fans keep giving him money then more power to him. Everyone is entitled to make money.

 

[nota bene]

Since you seem to think your words were limited to the little girls behavior, it seems you're the one who doesn't understand the difference.

Except you do.

Oddly enough, Sangha, I'm in a far better position to know what my words mean than you are. Your hubris is limitless. :roll:

 

[sangha]

Oddly enough, Sangha, I'm in a far better position to know what my words mean than you are.

And yet, oddly enough, you don't

 

[CrabCake]

The reason people with even a modicum of Biblical knowledge question Osteen, is due to his horrible twisting of the Scripture to foment his prosperity message. His theology is what we question, and we have his own words with which to question it.

I don't doubt there are issues with his theology, but that's not what this topic is about. His theology isn't brought up in the opening post nor in at least the first two pages worth of posts. This thread is purely about the amount of money he makes. The opening post and the first several pages worth of posts use the amount of money he makes as the only basis for questioning the sincerity of his faith. My argument is that this is not a rational way to judge the sincerity of someone's faith unless you are applying that criteria equally to all wealthy people.

I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning his theology. But that's simply not what this topic is about.

 

[sangha]

This thread is purely about the amount of money he makes. The opening post and the first several pages worth of posts use the amount of money he makes as the only basis for questioning the sincerity of his faith.

That is just not true. From the first page to the last, his teachings, his methods and his lifestyle have been questioned.

 

[CrabCake]

That is just not true. From the first page to the last, his teachings, his methods and his lifestyle have been questioned.

That's not what I see when I read the first few pages. It's not how this topic began at all. The person who started even returned to explain as much a few posts later.

If you feel this topic was about Osteen's theology, then my post wasn't addressed to you. It is addressed to those who base their view of ministers on the amount of money they make.

 

[sangha]

That's not what I see when I read the first few pages.

I can't speak to what you see. I can talk about what is actually there though. The fact that you can't see it doesn't change the fact that it is there. You said "This thread is purely about the amount of money he makes. The opening post and the first several pages worth of posts use the amount of money he makes as the only basis for questioning the sincerity of his faith"

What you said is completely untrue.

If you feel this topic was about Osteen's theology, then my post wasn't addressed to you.

And that is just a plain old lie. You said that "This thread is purely about the amount of money he makes" so your comments applied to everyone posting in this thread.

 

[CrabCake]

I can't speak to what you see. I can talk about what is actually there though. The fact that you can't see it doesn't change the fact that it is there. You said "This thread is purely about the amount of money he makes. The opening post and the first several pages worth of posts use the amount of money he makes as the only basis for questioning the sincerity of his faith"

What you said is completely untrue.

The beginning of the thread is still there. Let others read it and come to whatever conclusion they want about who was right. This isn't important or worth discussing.

And that is just a plain old lie. You said that "This thread is purely about the amount of money he makes" so your comments applied to everyone posting in this thread.

That's not the post I was referring to. I was referring to my original post on this topic. My original post is addressed to those who use money as the basis of judgment. It was not addressed to those who use his theology as their basis for judgment. I even made sure to specifically add an asterisk at the bottom of that post pointing this out.

 

[faithful_servant]

Aw come on ... are you sayin' you don't trust this 40 million dollar smile??
View attachment 67165936
View attachment 67165937

I'm NO fan of mega-churches or Joel Osteen, but if you think that he got that much money by way of his paycheck, you're deluded. His money comes from book sales, speaking fees, video sales, etc. All those are from him, not the church and as such are a separate source of income. I've known people who were pastors of large churches who liked to brag about how small thier paychecks were (in private) and still had 6 figure incomes by way of all the extra income they had coming in.

 

[sangha]

The beginning of the thread is still there. Let others read it and come to whatever conclusion they want about who was right. This isn't important or worth discussing.

Words have meanings; they don't mean whatever you want them to mean and if it weren't important you wouldn't have made it the main point of your post.

That's not the post I was referring to. I was referring to my original post on this topic. My original post is addressed to those who use money as the basis of judgment. It was not addressed to those who use his theology as their basis for judgment. I even made sure to specifically add an asterisk at the bottom of that post pointing this out.

No, your post was not limited to just the posts that talked about money as the basis of criticism. Instead, it denied that there were any posts that did not use money as the basis. You dishonestly claimed that *all* of the posts in this thread used money as the basis for criticism

 

[CrabCake]

Words have meanings; they don't mean whatever you want them to mean and if it weren't important you wouldn't have made it the main point of your post.



No, your post was not limited to just the posts that talked about money as the basis of criticism. Instead, it denied that there were any posts that did not use money as the basis. You dishonestly claimed that *all* of the posts in this thread used money as the basis for criticism

This was my original post, which as you can see was very clearly directed only at those who use money as the sole basis for judgment:

The owner of Chik fil A, Dan Cathy, is worth $1.2 billion and professes to be a devout Christian. No one questions whether he can truly be a Christian while living a wealthy lifestyle.

The husband and wife team of Jin Sook & Do Won Chan, creators of the chain "Forever 21", are worth about $5 billion and profess to be devout Christians. No one questions whether they can truly be Christian while living a wealthy lifestyle.

So, you can make a fortune selling chicken or clothing and not worry about anyone questioning the sincerity of your Christian faith. But if you make your fortune writing about God and pastoring a church, the sincerity of your faith is in question...??

Don't get me wrong, I think the question of moral demandingness is a legitimate one that all Christians should grapple with at every socio-economic level. But the way the question is applied to wealthy church leaders vs other wealthy people makes absolutely no sense. Logic dictates that, all else being equal, the guy who made his fortune writing about God and pastoring a church is far more likely to be a devoted Christian than the one who made his fortune selling chicken or clothes.

Do the exercise in your head and you will realize this is true. Imagine you were presented with three people; all three professed to be Christian, all three give away an equal portion of their earnings to charity, all three are incredibly wealthy, one built a fried chicken empire, one built a clothing store empire, and the third dedicated himself to ministry full time. If you had to pick one to be the least likely to be lying about their faith, which one would it be?

I think unfortunate stereotypes are affecting people's judgment on this one. You shouldn't question a pastor's faith on the basis of his wealth any more than you would if he were a corporate CEO or children's book author instead.



*There may be legitimate concerns about Osteen in particular. I don't know enough about him to defend his practices. I am speaking against the general concept of questioning a minister's sincerity based on how much money they make to a greater degree than you question anyone else's.

A later post pointing out how the subject of this thread was money and not theology was a reference to the actual subject of this thread. At the very top of the thread is a post referred to as "Title" and it is that post which determines what the topic being discussed in the thread is. If you go read it, you realize this thread is about questioning Joel Osteen and his church because of how much money they make. The person who created this discussion even clarifies it a few posts later, making the topic of this thread even more clear.

There are certainly other views one could take. Claiming that the intentions of the originator are not what defines the thread but rather the twists and turns it has made since then. Those may be legitimate points. But I don't find that to be a discussion worth having. If you want to define a thread differently, based on criteria other than what the person who created it intended, that's fine. Ultimately my post, as you can see above, was not directed at those who view this as a discussion on Joel Osteen's theology. It was directed at those who view this as a discussion on whether a minister who makes that kind of money can be honest.

 

[sangha]

This was my original post, which as you can see was very clearly directed only at those who use money as the sole basis for judgment:


A later post pointing out how the subject of this thread was money and not theology was reference to the actual subject of this thread. At the very top of the thread is a post that says "Topic" and it is that post which determines what the topic being discussed in the thread is. If you go read it, you realize this thread is about questioning Joel Osteen and his church because of how much money they make.

There are certainly other views one could take. Claiming that the topic is not what defines the thread but rather the twists and turns it has made since then. Those may be legitimate points. But I don't find that to be a discussion worth having. If you want to define a thread differently, based on criteria other than what the person who created it intended, that's fine. Ultimately my post, as you can see above, was not directed at those who view this as a discussion on Joel Osteen's theology. It was directed at those who view this as a discussion on whether a minister who makes that kind of money can be honest.

Here is what you said:

This thread is purely about the amount of money he makes. The opening post and the first several pages worth of posts use the amount of money he makes as the only basis for questioning the sincerity of his faith.

No matter how much effort you put into twisting and turning, there's no changing the truth which is that you claimed that all of the criticisms in the first several pages of this thread were based on his money. No matter what you said before or after that doesn't change that fact; it only demonstrates the lengths you will go in a desperate attempt to hide your mistake instead of just admitting you were wrong to mischaracterize what people had said.

 

[CrabCake]

No matter how much effort you put into twisting and turning, there's no changing the truth which is that you claimed that all of the criticisms in the first several pages of this thread were based on his money. No matter what you said before or after that doesn't change that fact; it only demonstrates the lengths you will go in a desperate attempt to hide your mistake instead of just admitting you were wrong to mischaracterize what people had said.

That is what you will find in the first two pages worth of posts.

If this is really important to you, go through the first two pages post by post and show how each of them (or at least some of them) question Joel Osteen's theology rather than the amount of money he and his church make.

It doesn't matter enough to me to do that exercise. Ultimately, even if I were wrong about that, it doesn't affect the point I was making.

You seem to think I'm backing off because there's something to hide. I'm not. I'm backing off because you are wanting to debate an insignificant tangential issue having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I really have no interest in debating about the debate. I am interested in discussing the issue of money in ministry, which was the whole point of this debate from the start.

There is nothing to hide, all the posts are here for everyone to look at and come to their own conclusions on. I simply have no interest in engaging in debate about how people debate. The issue itself is what I find interesting.

 

[sangha]

It doesn't matter enough to me to do that exercise. Ultimately, even if I were wrong about that, it doesn't affect the point I was making.

If it didn't matter, then you wouldn't have spent so much time defending it and then denying it. The fact is that it was a central part of your argument, which was to depict the criticism of Osteen as being completely without merit. Unless you can show that there is not legitimate criticism of him, then all you have done adds up to nothing more than "some people on the internet are wrong"

If you are now admitting that some of the criticism is legitimate, then you are admitting that there are legitimate grounds on which to criticize him.

And good for you for finally coming around because Osteen is nothing more than a snake oil salesman who has twisted Scripture to fit his purposes, which is to fleece his "flock" into thinking they are doing a good thing by giving their money to him.

 

[Horace]

Mega Churches should then make mega donations. I think it's sickening that this man stands up there, in the name of God, and rakes in this kind of money. Every day, 66,000 people go hungry in Houston. Almost 37,000 homeless people live in Houston, and 5,400 of them are children. Yet this guy is worth $40 million dollars, and takes in $600,000 a week in donations. He says God wants him to be rich. I think God might be more concerned about hungry children instead.

Not to single you out personally Superfly, but this post is as good as any other one here to reply to. First the level of ignorance and false assumptions being foisted in this thread is pretty spectacular. Mega Churches do in fact make mega donations. The leading donors to charity and charitable organizations in the United States are now and always have been churches and religious organizations. Probably always will be too. The leading contributor to charity worldwide is the Church of Later Day Saints aka the Mormons. While you might think it's sickening that Olsteen stands up in the name of God and rakes in money while 66,000 people allegedly go hungry in Houston? Olsteen's church and its vast charity acts, programs and donations feed a lot of those homeless in Houston. And elsewhere, in fact even in other countries too.

I see that later on in this thread you finally found out that Olsteen does not get paid for his job at his church. Olsteen's first best selling book ended up netting him a three million dollar profit, so starting in 2006 he began donating his salary back into his church's charities. That is on top of the several million dollars he personally donates to charities not related to his own church, annually. Olsteen's personal fortune was earned from sales of his multiple NY Times best selling books and the aforementioned speaking engagements, not his job as a preacher.

I'm not a religious person, but from all appearances and available evidence, Olsteen walks the talk. He seems to be an actually decent very generous person as well as as far as I can see, a principled Christian. Despite all the leaping to assumptions and wild assed just dead wrong claims and hyperbolic comments from posters in this thread.

I didn't quote him. But what he does say is that God will make them rich if they use their money to help other people. Then he asks them for money to help other people

And then he goes home to his multi-million dollar mansion.

And it's not the only home he owns.

Speaking of wild assumptions, you are wrong. Olsteen owns one home, prior to moving into his current River Oaks home in 2010, he had lived in his previous home for 13 years. He still owns one home and only breifly owned two homes while his first home was on the market for sale. Yes his new home is valued at around ten million dollars or so, but that is the value of some homes in River Oaks. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of Olsteen, but not your own set of facts that don't hold up to scrutiny.

How do I know all this? Because coincidentally about the same time this thread got started a "meme" was sweeping social media sites like FB. It pushed the same ignorant message about Mega Churches and how they are supposed to be stealing food out of the mouths of the homeless and less fortunate. Of course the fact that churches, mega and otherwise, are and always have been the predominant feeders and caretakers of the homeless? As well as the leaders in charitable donations in the US and the world? Well that is not information a lot of people that get caught up social media memes and have raging boners for dastardly Christians incorporate into their peculiar world view.

 

[Declan]

Not to single you out personally Superfly, but this post is as good as any other one here to reply to. First the level of ignorance and false assumptions being foisted in this thread is pretty spectacular. Mega Churches do in fact make mega donations. The leading donors to charity and charitable organizations in the United States are now and always have been churches and religious organizations. Probably always will be too. The leading contributor to charity worldwide is the Church of Later Day Saints aka the Mormons. While you might think it's sickening that Olsteen stands up in the name of God and rakes in money while 66,000 people allegedly go hungry in Houston? Olsteen's church and its vast charity acts, programs and donations feed a lot of those homeless in Houston. And elsewhere, in fact even in other countries too.

I see that later on in this thread you finally found out that Olsteen does not get paid for his job at his church. Olsteen's first best selling book ended up netting him a three million dollar profit, so starting in 2006 he began donating his salary back into his church's charities. That is on top of the several million dollars he personally donates to charities not related to his own church, annually. Olsteen's personal fortune was earned from sales of his multiple NY Times best selling books and the aforementioned speaking engagements, not his job as a preacher.

I'm not a religious person, but from all appearances and available evidence, Olsteen walks the talk. He seems to be an actually decent very generous person as well as as far as I can see, a principled Christian. Despite all the leaping to assumptions and wild assed just dead wrong claims and hyperbolic comments from posters in this thread.


Speaking of wild assumptions, you are wrong. Olsteen owns one home, prior to moving into his current River Oaks home in 2010, he had lived in his previous home for 13 years. He still owns one home and only breifly owned two homes while his first home was on the market for sale. Yes his new home is valued at around ten million dollars or so, but that is the value of some homes in River Oaks. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of Olsteen, but not your own set of facts that don't hold up to scrutiny.

How do I know all this? Because coincidentally about the same time this thread got started a "meme" was sweeping social media sites like FB. It pushed the same ignorant message about Mega Churches and how they are supposed to be stealing food out of the mouths of the homeless and less fortunate. Of course the fact that churches, mega and otherwise, are and always have been the predominant feeders and caretakers of the homeless? As well as the leaders in charitable donations in the US and the world? Well that is not information a lot of people that get caught up social media memes and have raging boners for dastardly Christians incorporate into their peculiar world view.

And this is one of the reasons that as a Progressive I welcome religion in public discourse. Churches are the ones still rebuilding Haiti and doing missions in Latin America and all over the world. If someone hates gays but will go help a villager in Africa dig a drain ditch, then there is room in my tent for them.

 

[Horace]

And this is one of the reasons that as a Progressive I welcome religion in public discourse. Churches are the ones still rebuilding Haiti and doing missions in Latin America and all over the world. If someone hates gays but will go help a villager in Africa dig a drain ditch, then there is room in my tent for them.

Outside of Westboro Church types I've never met or seen a Christian that "hated" gays. If someone who purports to be a Christian says they "hate" gays? They are not really a Christian, I'm not religious and even I know that!

 

[sangha]

Speaking of wild assumptions, you are wrong. Olsteen owns one home, prior to moving into his current River Oaks home in 2010, he had lived in his previous home for 13 years. He still owns one home and only breifly owned two homes while his first home was on the market for sale. Yes his new home is valued at around ten million dollars or so, but that is the value of some homes in River Oaks. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of Olsteen, but not your own set of facts that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Wild assumption? I'm wrong about "facts that don't hold up to scrutiny"?

What facts did I state that don't hold up to scrutiny? I said he goes home to his multi-million dollar home and that's exactly what he does.

You're allowed your own opinions about him, but you're not allowed your own facts. If you're going to claim I got something wrong, the honest thing to do would be to identify something I said that was actually wrong

How do I know all this? Because coincidentally about the same time this thread got started a "meme" was sweeping social media sites like FB. It pushed the same ignorant message about Mega Churches and how they are supposed to be stealing food out of the mouths of the homeless and less fortunate. Of course the fact that churches, mega and otherwise, are and always have been the predominant feeders and caretakers of the homeless? As well as the leaders in charitable donations in the US and the world? Well that is not information a lot of people that get caught up social media memes and have raging boners for dastardly Christians incorporate into their peculiar world view.

You are being incredible dishonest here. I said nothing about stealing food out of anyone's mouths and we're not talking about "churches, mega or otherwise". We're talking Joel Olsteen here, and he doesn't give the majority of donations to care for the homeless.

So you can take your peculiarly dishonest BS and put it where it belongs.

 

[Horace]

Wild assumption? I'm wrong about "facts that don't hold up to scrutiny"?

What facts did I state that don't hold up to scrutiny? I said he goes home to his multi-million dollar home and that's exactly what he does.

You're allowed your own opinions about him, but you're not allowed your own facts. If you're going to claim I got something wrong, the honest thing to do would be to identify something I said that was actually wrong



You are being incredible dishonest here. I said nothing about stealing food out of anyone's mouths and we're not talking about "churches, mega or otherwise". We're talking Joel Olsteen here, and he doesn't give the majority of donations to care for the homeless.

So you can take your peculiarly dishonest BS and put it where it belongs.

You said Olsteen goes home to his multi million dollar home and that he owns more than one. You were wrong, try not to let it fry your noodle. My comments about the arguments that sprung up from the "meme" I highlighted (repeated here at DP) were not actually aimed at you but the comments of many in the thread. I guess I could have made that more clear, but the idea I'm lying somehow about this or anything for that matter? A bit overheated Sangha.

 

[Declan]

Outside of Westboro Church types I've never met or seen a Christian that "hated" gays. If someone who purports to be a Christian says they "hate" gays? They are not really a Christian, I'm not religious and even I know that!

There is a lot of hate in this country. Too much. People are gettin to the point that they do not need much of a reason to hate someone. Either way, I don't care what is in people's hearts as long as they do good deeds. I don't care if a billionaire gives $100K to feed the poor because it is a tax writeoff or because he wants to feed the poor---just so somebody gets fed in the end.