Joel Osteen's church theft opens can of worms: Jaws drop as folks do the math

[Texas Ace]

Second of all, I don't think anyone ever said that preachers have to be. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that. I certainly have not said that. But are you honestly telling me that you don't understand that there is a middle ground between dirt poor and Bill Gates rich?

Yup, and that is what I'm getting at with my post.

Nothing wrong with earning a living from being a pastor or minister or even a wealthy living at that. But something just doesn't seem right about a supposed man of God being worth 40 million.

 

[skidadl]

Not understanding how this is a sick burn.... and I have this weird feeling this is leading into a religious debate.

I can see why you would think this

In this case I was just saying that VA dropped some truth and that I agreed with him in a big way.

 

[Cotton]

I can see why you would think this

In this case I was just saying that VA dropped some truth and that I agreed with him in a big way.

It was just kind of out of the blue.

 

[skidadl]

While I agree for the most part, I do think there is such a thing as having too much money like a Joel Osteen.

I consider myself to be a maturing Christian. I began going to church with the intention of becoming a Christian about 18 months ago. I've come a long way, but I still have a long way to go.

The reason I say that is because I don't pretend to have it all figured out and I may even be wrong or not completely understand what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of the lord. So forgive me if I'm being ignorant here, but I don't care for the megachurch or for Joel Osteen claiming to be this God-fearing man who just wants to help people and spread the gospel.

Again, I don't have a problem with wealthy ministers. They have to earn a living too, and there isn't a more righteous thing that one can do for a living than to spread God's word and help others accept God. I think that's a great, and they too deserve to be compensated for that if that is what they are doing on a full time basis. But if you're truly in it for the lord, or your heart is pure, shouldn't you at some point stop accepting this outrageous amounts of money?

Once Joel Osteen became a millionaire, shouldn't he have stopped accepting lots of money or at least stop pocketing all of it to go and speak at places? I mean, you're doing it for God and all, aren't you? If you're doing it in the name of Jesus and to save people, then shouldn't you be doing that from the heart and without the need to be compensated? Especially if you've already got more money than you'll be able to spend?

Let's say someone wants to fly him out so he can speak. I don't think it's wrong to ask for the traveling expenses to be covered and for a donation to be made, but have it made to organizations or efforts that are proven to help people.

Instead of paying me 50K or whatever, how about I take 5 or 10K, and the other 40 you send to our efforts in Haiti, in Africa, in the Middle East where those of Christian faith are executed.

That to me is how business should now be conducted by the Osteen's now that they are so well off. But that's not how they're doing it, is it? Whatever service Joel Osteen provides, he and he alone is compensated for it and it goes straight into his bank account. That to me is wrong and I just don't agree with it.

Am I wrong for thinking this way?

You bring up a lot of really good points.

I don't know what type of things that Ol;steen does with his money. I've heard that he gives a bunch to the poor and stuff.

I don't know his fee structure for speaking so can't comment of that.

I do know that he makes a bunch of money off of his books, which is fine unless I'm missing something.

 

[Jiggyfly]

What is crazy is when you hear about intelligent successful people who get caught up in various scams. It is ridiculous to see.

I read a story a while back about a successful person got caught up in a Nigerian scam of some sort and lost a few hundred thousand. That just blows my mind.

Using religion is the lowest of lows though.

Just look at all of the money people make on these ponzi schemes.

Ever watch American Greed it's amazing how many people get caught up in get rich scemes.

 

[skidadl]

It was just kind of out of the blue.

I just got excited about his comment because I agreed with it wholeheartedly. I'll try to frame my comments better so it doesn't catch you off guard.

 

[skidadl]

Just look at all of the money people make on these ponzi schemes.

Ever watch American Greed it's amazing how many people get caught up in get rich scemes.

I've seen some of those. Sick bastids!

 

[Jiggyfly]

While I agree for the most part, I do think there is such a thing as having too much money like a Joel Osteen.

I consider myself to be a maturing Christian. I began going to church with the intention of becoming a Christian about 18 months ago. I've come a long way, but I still have a long way to go.

The reason I say that is because I don't pretend to have it all figured out and I may even be wrong or not completely understand what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of the lord. So forgive me if I'm being ignorant here, but I don't care for the megachurch or for Joel Osteen claiming to be this God-fearing man who just wants to help people and spread the gospel.

Again, I don't have a problem with wealthy ministers. They have to earn a living too, and there isn't a more righteous thing that one can do for a living than to spread God's word and help others accept God. I think that's a great, and they too deserve to be compensated for that if that is what they are doing on a full time basis. But if you're truly in it for the lord, or your heart is pure, shouldn't you at some point stop accepting this outrageous amounts of money?

Once Joel Osteen became a millionaire, shouldn't he have stopped accepting lots of money or at least stop pocketing all of it to go and speak at places? I mean, you're doing it for God and all, aren't you? If you're doing it in the name of Jesus and to save people, then shouldn't you be doing that from the heart and without the need to be compensated? Especially if you've already got more money than you'll be able to spend?

Let's say someone wants to fly him out so he can speak. I don't think it's wrong to ask for the traveling expenses to be covered and for a donation to be made, but have it made to organizations or efforts that are proven to help people.

Instead of paying me 50K or whatever, how about I take 5 or 10K, and the other 40 you send to our efforts in Haiti, in Africa, in the Middle East where those of Christian faith are executed.

That to me is how business should now be conducted by the Osteen's now that they are so well off. But that's not how they're doing it, is it? Whatever service Joel Osteen provides, he and he alone is compensated for it and it goes straight into his bank account. That to me is wrong and I just don't agree with it.

Am I wrong for thinking this way?

Well said especially considering the Camel and eye of the needle thing.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

Then I will repost this. I will be a lot more pissed at a garage telling me I needed a car part, charging me for it then not installing it than I will for a pastor telling me I might receive a blessing for donating. Does that fit the morals criteria?

I will answer your repost with reposts.

Ewww, I don't know, buddy. Trying to measure the level of scumbagness is probably the wrong road to go down here.

From a biblical view most definitely the preacher.

(I'll defer to Skid on that because I'm quite sure he knows what he is talking about)

You are a Christian, right? Does it not bother you that scum like Robert Tilton, et al are making tons of money in the name of Christianity when they are doing nothing but peddling lies?

I suppose your whole point is that religious scumbag is no more scum than other scum. Except that you said that the mechanic who charges for a part he does not install is more of a scumbag than a preacher who takes your money claiming you will receive blessings for it. So you are actually saying the religious person is less scum. I strongly disagree. They are the same.

I fail to understand why you are even trying to make this point. Seems like an attempt to defend religion when I am talking about people who are abusing religion for massive personal gain, not the truly devout Christian or general institution of religion. I am talking about extreme examples here, BTW. Of course churches/ministries have to raise money in order to operate.

 

[skidadl]

Well said especially considering the Camel and eye of the needle thing.

That is sort of the point that I was making in the religion thread. Jesus is for people that need him. If you don't have a need for redemption, answers or whatever then you don't need him. Generally rich people have no needs so they don't need God.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I will answer your repost with reposts.



(I'll defer to Skid on that because I'm quite sure he knows what he is talking about)



I suppose your whole point is that religious scumbag is no more scum than other scum. Except that you said that the mechanic who charges for a part he does not install is more of a scumbag than a preacher who takes your money claiming you will receive blessings for it. I strongly disagree. They are the same. I fail to understand why you are even trying to make this point. Seems like an attempt to defend religion when we are talking about people who are abusing religion for massive personal gain, not the truly devout Christian or general institution of religion.

Yes I am a Christain. And yes it bothers me that there are a, lot of charlatans in the Christian faith. But what equally what bothers me is that some of the posters are laying out a higher standard rule for churches and some of them do not even believe there is a metaphysical state called the Christain church so how hypocritical is it for them to set a standard to be higher for something they don't even believe exists. All I was attempting to do is to show there isn't an inherent right to be incensed or establish a standard that is above what is considered normal ethics. If it doesn't exist then there is no plain that is higher for them that should be higher.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

Yes I am a Christain. And yes it bothers me that there are a, lot of charlatans in the Christian faith. But what equally what bothers me is that some of the posters are laying out a higher standard rule for churches and some of them do not even believe there is a metaphysical state called the Christain church so how hypocritical is it for them to set a standard to be higher for something they don't even believe exists. All I was attempting to do is to show there isn't an inherent right to be incensed or establish a standard that is above what is considered normal ethics. If it doesn't exist then there is no plain that is higher for them that should be higher.

Does the bible—the very word of God according to Christians—not hold preachers to a higher standard?

Also, your point about non-believers being more incensed about religion...you claim it is hypocritical? Ludicrous. These men are taking advantage of people who do believe. Who hold these men on a higher plane.

 

[L.T. Fan]

That's fine. I guess my last question is, does the bible—the very word of God according to Christians—not hold preachers to a higher standard?

It does but if one is a non believer then are they going to use something they think is hooey to prove their point.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

It does but if one is a non believer then are they going to use something they think is hooey to prove their point.

It doesn't matter to me what the bible says about it, but if you are a Christian it should to you. Yet you claim the shady mechanic is more of a scumbag.

 

[L.T. Fan]

What does being a non-believer have to do with it? They aren't the ones getting taken by these guys. These preachers like Tilton are taking advantage of people who do believe. Very strongly believe. The people who are being duped do not think it is hooey. And also believe that a preacher is as trustworthy and godly as it gets.

Being a non believe has everything to do with it. If one doesn't accept that it's a higher power that sets aside preachers and churches and that same higher power gives guidelines then how can they use these guidelines for judgements. If they don't believe or accept then they only have their personal judgement which is an arbitrary position that pastors should be held to a higher standard. If the judgement is arbitrary then it a matter of personal preference and not ordained as a matter of faith and belief because those elements are possessed by believers.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

Being a non believe has everything to do with it. If one doesn't accept that it's a higher power that sets aside preachers and churches and that same higher power gives guidelines then how can they use these guidelines for judgements. If they don't believe or accept then they only have their personal judgement which is an arbitrary position that pastors should be held to a higher standard. If the judgement is arbitrary then it a matter of personal preference and not ordained as a matter of faith and belief because those elements are possessed by believers.

See post #94.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Inaddition my position is not to exempt these types because I do believe in the guidelines set forth in the bible. My point is that those who do not believe should simply say it is their own pet peeve that makes them think that religious Con men and women worse than other decievers.

 

[L.T. Fan]

It doesn't matter to me what the bible says about it, but if you are a Christian it should to you. Yet you claim the shady mechanic is more of a scumbag.

But the ones who are not getting duped are being judgemental by arbitrary means using religious positions as their source for their positions. This I' s an ironic selection to use something you don't believe as a source for your determination.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

Inaddition my position is not to exempt these types because I do believe in the guidelines set forth in the bible. My point is that those who do not believe should simply say it is their own pet peeve that makes them think that religious Con men and women worse than other decievers.

Could be that it is just a "pet peeve" because I am not a Christian, but just because someone is a non-believer does not mean that they can not see how strong of a hold religious belief has on others. A lot of people have very deep, absolute faith (and sometimes little else, ie, not a lot of brains). Knowing that, it seems particularly disgusting to prey upon these people by representing yourself as someone who is essentially selling them miracles in the name of God. Keep in mind that I am talking about the more extreme examples.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Could be that it is just a "pet peeve" because I am not a Christian, but gust because someone is a non-believer does not mean that they can not see how strong of a hold religious belief has on others. A lot of people have very deep, absolute faith (and sometimes little else, ie, not a lot of brains). Knowing that, it seems particularly disgusting to prey upon these people by representing yourself as someone who is essentially selling them miracles. Keep in mind that I am talking about the more extreme examples.

Not at all it is disgusting for all of this to be happening. Anyone can have a feeling of disgust for it believer or no. I just fail to see how a non believer can feel justified in holding religious dishonest to a higher standard in light of the fact that they don't believe in them in the first place. That just seems to be an arbitrary position and that's fine but that position came from the bible and its unseemingly that it would be used as the source to justify a position. Especially in light of one who doesn't believe it exists. Anyone can categorize based on personal preference and if religious dishonesty is part peeve so be it.