Joel Osteen is a fraud meta thread

[elfenix 34364]

On 11/24/2019 at 9:15 AM, Johnny Sack said:

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party   

 

*Democratic

[ruitxn 298]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Neither of those churches have 99% of the people all voting the same way.  So they are naturally constrained by church members and their contributions by staying quiet about politics while up on the pulpit.  Even the Baptist church in the reddest county in America is going to have 20-25% percent of its contributions from democrats (think the local attorneys and such)  Black churches do not have that constraint at all.  No group votes in lock step like black Americans do.  Just the way it is.  They can do Souls to the Polls and no one bats an eye. 

Church leaders of any faith can politic when they are not in the pulpit.  They are citizens just like any other citizen.  What they cannot do is preach politics from the pulpit.  I have been attending a Southern Baptist church for a long time.  Serve as a deacon.  You just don't hear politics from the pulpit.  Ever.  I have been in churches in Houston, Dallas, East Texas, South Texas, etc.  Not once.

If you have attended a church and heard political lobbying from the pulpit, please advise where it was.  The IRS won't go after black churches.  It's a sacred cow.

Does your church or the board of deacons allow political voting guides to be distributed within the confines of your church building?

[Prepuce of Doom 21112]

Joel Osteen should be smashed with a hammer. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

52 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

 

Again, any statistical evidence to back this up? Is 99.99% next? One poor lonely black person in a black church who doesn't vote Democrat? And even if this were completely true and not pulled out of your ass, what does this "Political Engagement" mean? The church I go to is a sanctuary church, takes part in social justice, works with local immigrants, etc. We have even <gasp> offered transportation assistance to homeless, infirm, elderly, etc. for voting (among other needs). There may be a few Republicans in church, but not many (and no, I am not Surly black mafia). Was this political engagement?

So, please, tell us how black churches are the most political, how you determined this, and how you define that (other than by being black).

There is a 95 percent chance he just pulled it out of his ass. 

[cactusflinthead 27609]

On 11/24/2019 at 3:31 PM, immamac said:

Create a CR version if you'd like.

Ok. Cool.

On 11/24/2019 at 3:31 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Look, I have most unChristian sentiments about Jeffress and you're about to make me defend him.

Well, don't. He's pretty indefensible. 

For every Jeffress, or OSteen, or Franklin Graham, there are dozens or hundreds of pastors, representing dozens of churches and thousands of church members, whom you've never heard of and never will, politically or any other way unless its for the church's good works (or maybe the odd sex scandal)

---------------

I said so too. But, there are also no-name pastors and churches that are batshit racist fuckers. God, guns, and gays. Haters that support a man and consider him a Darius to rescue them from those who would ruin their country. Y'know how I know about that? I'm going to see some of them this weekend. Beautiful lovely people that have a hard on to build a stupid wall, that don't mind separating children from parents, for whom the cruelty of the policy is the point, that turn a blind eye to infidelity of their party, and would support the impeachable offense of soliciting the aid of a foreign country against their political opponents. All of it is present in the evangelical church. All of it. Every day on Facebook, every Sunday in classes, and sometimes behind the pulpit. I'm not denying that they do mission work or do good deeds. But, it comes at a cost. You want to adopt a child? You better not be gay. You want some money in the form of government assistance? You can only do certain approved by us things, namely you can't smoke weed. Because if you smoke weed you are contributing to the downfall of America.

-------------

To tax churches because you think a relative handful of pastors are assholes is not sound policy.  When Jeffress is being an asshole, he's not representing FBCD. HIs fame is due to FBCD and his assholishness, but Robert Jeffress is not FBCD.  I'll let you speak to whether FBCD is 100% Jeffress-style assholes, but I rather doubt that it is.

-----------

I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT TAXING CHURCHES. IT AIN'T HAPPENING. EVER.

/allcaps.

Sorry. I have to make it clear that is a non-starter. I'm speaking to what Sack said about black people. As if it is only what is preached that impacts a voter of color. My bad. Jeffress can go talk to whoever whenever. I don't give a shit. Just don't pretend that he's unique among evangelicals. He's a good example of a large portion of them.

--------------

But even if Jeffress was FBCD, that ignores the hundreds of other churches in Dallas that aren't chock full of assholes and led by one.  In fact, quite a number of them are  hotbeds of liberalism and progressivism, and most of them distribute most of their revenue to charity, after paying their staff a barely living wage.

------

Ain't you been paying attention? If you have any of these progressive, liberal ideas you CAN'T be a Christian. That's a top talking point. 

Never mind that my Presbalonian Sunday school group has both really conservative and really liberal members. It would be great if some of the non-asshole SBC members spoke up about stuff. On the TV,Facebook, and the pulpit. 

Picking the worst examples of a certain type of organization and from there extrapolating that all of that type of organization should lose tax exempt status is foolish bad policy.  If the bad examples are violating the tax exemption laws, revoke that tax exemption, don't punish the good ones too.  

And if you think there aren't loads of examples of good churches, well you can join Bob Jeffress in asshole hell (the royal you, not you cactusflinthead).

--------

We're cool. I get your point on the righteous man in Sodom. I don't want to see the dissolution of a church because they can tax the shit out of them to drive them into Bolivia. It's a pointless argument. 

I do take exception to the idea that because they do other good works that we can't hold them accountable for their moral hypocrisy. 

I can go get a whole lotta surveys of the politics of evangelical voters. Might even find some breakdown of denominations. 

But, if we can just pull numbers out of thin air with no citations that's fine too.

Replies to Twice in the quote 

Edited November 26, 2019 by cactusflinthead
Clarification

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 hours ago, elfenix said:

*Democratic

Ain't shit democratic about the democrats.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

14 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Ok. Cool.

I can go get a whole lotta surveys of the politics of evangelical voters. Might even find some breakdown of denominations. 

But, if we can just pull numbers out of thin air with no citations that's fine too.

Replies to Twice in the quote 

Part of my angst is that while I loathe and abhor Jeffress, I am not willing to convict the parishioners of FBCD of his sins.  I suspect that a great number of them are ardent admirers of his, but I don't know so I won't condemn.

Also, as a librul Methodist, I am exposed to the good sides of churches on a weekly-plus basis.  Free from politics, full of compassion.  I suppose the one bone to pick is that the "conservative" churches are stone silent on political issues even at the intersection of faith and politics, leaving it to the more liberal ones to talk about it and advocate for it.  https://www.northaven.org/lgbtq

The interesting thing is that some large, conservative congregations have founded other churches to serve other areas, to include poverty-stricken areas and to serve the needs of the more liberally minded.  To an extent, that's kind of a nimby thing, but its a lot better than ignoring it entirely.  And there's something to be said I suppose for not running off your current large congregation.

[Nivek 17013]

On 11/25/2019 at 10:38 AM, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that's awkward, a lot of churches are quite property rich in Dallas, for example.  I'm thinking specifically of the churches in central Dallas, but it might also apply to very suburban churches in say, Plano for example.

But many of them been in the same spots for nearly a century.  It's not like they went out and bought prime real estate for their premises from the outset.  They located to serve their congregation and that property appreciated massively in the interim.  Even the churches in Plano bought a field 25-30 years ago that is now worth millions.

You can't call them Osteens or Copelands or Hinns or whathaveyou because of that.

The tax burden on that property would be insane today.  To tax them would force them to move periodically for no other reason, and ultimately to move away from the congregation they serve.

If you stop and think about it for just a minute or two, you realize what a bad idea this would be.  Unless your real motive is simply to tax churches out of existence.

People and other businesses have to move sometimes due to taxes.  If a church cannot afford the location it has, it should move or find a new revenue source.

 

On 11/24/2019 at 9:33 AM, Johnny Sack said:

So do churches to their members and the public.  Whether God is real or not.  

You can’t discriminate against the tax treatment of nonprofits due to religion.  

Nor can you start debating real tangible benefits or nonprofits on a case by case basis.  Quite a few people hate zoos because they think animals shouldn’t be be caged up and living on concrete.  Pretty much every nonprofit out there is going to have a sizable percent of the public who believes the entity doesn’t do any good. 

So you either exempt them all from property tax.  Or none.  You do the latter and sayonara to pretty much all of them.  

The public services offered by a church are offered by tax paying members of society as well.  Churches should pay taxes and close/die/move irrespective of their god/or religious affiliation.   Donate more. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, Nivek said:

People and other businesses have to move sometimes due to taxes.  If a church cannot afford the location it has, it should move or find a new revenue source.

 

The public services offered by a church are offered by tax paying members of society as well.  Churches should pay taxes and close/die/move irrespective of their god/or religious affiliation.   Donate more. 

Same applies to all nonprofits.  You cannot discriminate against a nonprofit due to it being affiliated with a religion.  It is a violation of the First Amendment.

So again, a whole, whole lot of nonprofits are done.

[The People’s Elbow 707]

Good to see Johnny Sack continuing to prove the “every accusation is a confession” theorem. 

[workswithseed 2121]

On 11/26/2019 at 7:41 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Part of my angst is that while I loathe and abhor Jeffress, I am not willing to convict the parishioners of FBCD of his sins.  I suspect that a great number of them are ardent admirers of his, but I don't know so I won't condemn.

Also, as a librul Methodist, I am exposed to the good sides of churches on a weekly-plus basis.  Free from politics, full of compassion.  I suppose the one bone to pick is that the "conservative" churches are stone silent on political issues even at the intersection of faith and politics, leaving it to the more liberal ones to talk about it and advocate for it.  https://www.northaven.org/lgbtq

The interesting thing is that some large, conservative congregations have founded other churches to serve other areas, to include poverty-stricken areas and to serve the needs of the more liberally minded.  To an extent, that's kind of a nimby thing, but its a lot better than ignoring it entirely.  And there's something to be said I suppose for not running off your current large congregation.

The church I go to would be considered conservative, and they do work with the homeless and a orphanage in Oklahoma. Are you saying they're not on the "good side" if they're conservative, or that if they do charity that they are on the "good side"?

 

 

[jkates 316]

"Don’t be deceived by this funny biz

If you come to Jesus for money, then He’s not your God- money is

Jesus is not a means to an end

The gospel is He came to redeem us from sin

And that is the message forever I’ll yell

If you’re living your best life now, you’re headed for hell"   ~Shai Linne

Sorry, Joel.

[WhatTheBuck 28822]

On November 23, 2019 at 7:48 AM, HenryJames said:

 

Jesus Fucking Christ, how stupid do you have to be to shoot video of your widescreen TV in portrait mode? Stupid enough to watch Joel Osteen, I guess. But still, could there be a more obvious visual cue that you're doing it wrong?

[elfenix 34364]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

The church I go to would be considered conservative, and they do work with the homeless and a orphanage in Oklahoma. Are you saying they're not on the "good side" if they're conservative, or that if they do charity that they are on the "good side"?

 

 

they're in oklahoma, so they're definitely not on the good side.

[WhatTheBuck 28822]

On November 24, 2019 at 5:36 PM, South Austin said:

Jesus thinks you’re dumb!

Jesus thinks you're a jerk:

 

[Nivek 17013]

Same applies to all nonprofits.  You cannot discriminate against a nonprofit due to it being affiliated with a religion.  It is a violation of the First Amendment.
So again, a whole, whole lot of nonprofits are done.

Religious institutions getting a pass on taxes is an establishment by the government, indirectly. Nada about zoo’s in there.

You can pray at home. You can invite people to your home and feed them. You can invite them to a park and feed them.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Religious institutions getting a pass on taxes is an establishment by the government, indirectly. Nada about zoo’s in there.

You can pray at home. You can invite people to your home and feed them. You can invite them to a park and feed them.


 

That’s going to lose in court every time.  

And it should.  The guys who wrote the first amendment weren’t taxing churches either.  

Next - define what is and isn’t religion.  Have fun with that. 

You don’t like religion and want to tax it.  If you do, I want to tax planned parenthood.  

[formermav43 4606]

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

Religious institutions getting a pass on taxes is an establishment by the government, indirectly. 
 

Separation means just that. It goes both ways.

Edited December 4, 2019 by formermav43

[Thetexashammer 1062]

8 hours ago, jkates said:

"Don’t be deceived by this funny biz

If you come to Jesus for money, then He’s not your God- money is

Jesus is not a means to an end

The gospel is He came to redeem us from sin

And that is the message forever I’ll yell

If you’re living your best life now, you’re headed for hell"   ~Shai Linne

Sorry, Joel.

Matisyahu was a hassidic jew living in Crown Heights when he wrote King Without A Crown. He was, I believe, studying to be a rabbi. Full orthodox getup. Beard, all black, hat. At the same time that he's studying judaism, he goes and starts rapping. 

 Anyway, I will never forget some of his lines from that song. The Shia Linne statement reminded me of the bolded parts.

Strip away the layers and reveal your soul
Got to give yourself up and then you become whole
You're a slave to yourself and you don't even know
You want to live the fast life but your brain moves slow
If you're trying to stay high then you're bound to stay low
You want God but you can't deflate your ego
If you're already there then there's nowhere to go
If you're cup's already full then its bound to overflow
If you're drowning in the water's and you can't stay afloat
Ask Hashem for mercy and he'll throw you a rope
You're looking for help from God you say he couldn't be found
Looking up to the sky and searchin' beneath the ground
Like a King without his Crown
Yes, you keep fallin' down
You really want to live but can't get rid of your frown
Tried to reach unto the heights and wound bound down on the ground
Given up your pride and the you heard a sound
Out of night comes day and out of day comes light
Nullified to the One like sunlight in a ray,
Makin' room for his love and a fire gone blaze
Makin' room for his love and a fire gone blaze
 

Words to contemplate.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[TwiceHorn 31646]

18 hours ago, Nivek said:

People and other businesses have to move sometimes due to taxes.  If a church cannot afford the location it has, it should move or find a new revenue source.

 

The public services offered by a church are offered by tax paying members of society as well.  Churches should pay taxes and close/die/move irrespective of their god/or religious affiliation.   Donate more. 

No, most other organizations offering similar services to churches are also tax-exempt organizations.

You can't really rationally make an argument against revoking the tax-exempt status of churches (other than for specific individual things like political activism or enriching an individual) without revoking it for other charities.  Unless you're just hostile to churches.

Churches serve local congregations, unlike businesses.  A 100-year old church built in a 100 year old neighborhood shouldn't have to move 40 miles away to have affordable church property.

Your prejudice is showing.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

Religious institutions getting a pass on taxes is an establishment by the government, indirectly. Nada about zoo’s in there.

You can pray at home. You can invite people to your home and feed them. You can invite them to a park and feed them.


 

That's not the way any of this works.

 

[TwiceHorn 31646]

31 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Separation means just that. It goes both ways.

It's useful to consider that "separation," while a popular shorthand, doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

As noted above, the government is forbidden from making laws either "establishing religion"  or restricting the "free exercise thereof."  Neither has been interpreted as facilely as lay people are wont to do.

But you're right, it kind of sets out a narrow line for the government.  It can't go very far one way or the other.

Edited December 4, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[formermav43 4606]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It's useful to consider that "separation," while a popular shorthand, doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

As noted above, the government is forbidden from making laws either "establishing religion"  or restricting the "free exercise thereof."  Neither has been interpreted as facilely as lay people are wont to do.

You’re correct, of course. But I think  it’s a useful shorthand on threads like these, because it points out that many of those who employ it the most don’t really believe in it in principle. They want that “wall of separation” to only operate in one direction.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

Just now, formermav43 said:

You’re correct, of course. But I think  it’s a useful shorthand on threads like these, because it points out that many of those who employ it the most don’t really believe in it in principle. They want that “wall of separation” to only operate in one direction.

True enough.  It's never said as "separation of state and church," but it works that way too.

[formermav43 4606]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

True enough.  It's never said as "separation of state and church," but it works that way too.

In fact, in the original context of the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, that sense is arguably the primary one. It’s certainly one of the concerns the Baptists addressed Jefferson about, at any rate. 

[Guest Lobo]

I read an interest statistic yesterday (It was hard copy, but I'll find the link).

In the U.S., in the last 75 years, more Catholic Priests have been reassigned for failure to "kick-up" to the Diocese than have been reassigned for failure to not fuck kids.  

Edited December 4, 2019 by Lobo

[Pato del Muerto 52665]

13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I read an interest statistic yesterday (It was hard copy, but I'll find the link).

In the U.S., in the last 75 years, more Catholic Priests have been reassigned for failure to "kick-up" to the Diocese than have been reassigned for failure to not fuck kids.  

I would hope so

[Captainant 27878]

18 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

You don’t like religion and want to tax it.  If you do, I want to tax planned parenthood.  

Sorry, do you think planned parenthood is a church or religious organization? Also I thought you always got all hurt butthole about mentioning politics outside of CR? 

[Nivek 17013]

That’s going to lose in court every time.  
And it should.  The guys who wrote the first amendment weren’t taxing churches either.  
Next - define what is and isn’t religion.  Have fun with that. 
You don’t like religion and want to tax it.  If you do, I want to tax planned parenthood.  

3/5ths of a person was some impressive lawyering bullshit. It held up in court too, until it didn’t.

Churches have been fighting taxation for hundreds of years and it became a societal norm from which these men grew up within. Just like other unfortunate behaviors and attitudes which we have fortunately moved beyond.

I am going to ignore your last sentences because I think you were just behaving irrationally. We all do from time to time.

[Murfdogg21 4438]

Joel and fam seem not to take Jesus’s lessons on rich people, camels, and entry to heaven to heart. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21998]

I'm sure the religious right would be happy to be rid of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  I'm willing to bet they would trade taxation of Churches for the right to outlaw every religion but theirs.

[formermav43 4606]

11 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I'm sure the religious right would be happy to be rid of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  I'm willing to bet they would trade taxation of Churches for the right to outlaw every religion but theirs.

Every religion but whose, exactly? The “religious right” isn’t monolithic.

[demos 3012]

Every religion but whose, exactly? The “religious right” isn’t monolithic.

That’s when the real fun begins.

[Braff Zacklin 13670]

On 11/24/2019 at 8:15 AM, Johnny Sack said:

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party 

Don't want to get too embroiled in this thread as it's too CR for me, but had to address this grossly inaccurate statement.

Are you not familiar with the LDS church? There aren't any official dispatches from Salt Lake City, but presidents and pastors absolutely make a habit of instructing their flock on how--and for whom--to vote ... and it's generally not for candidates of the Democratic party.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

1 minute ago, Braff Zacklin said:

Don't want to get too embroiled in this thread as it's too CR for me, but had to address this grossly inaccurate statement.

Are you not familiar with the LDS church? There aren't any official dispatches from Salt Lake City, but presidents and pastors absolutely make a habit of instructing their flock on how--and for whom--to vote ... and it's generally not for candidates of the Democratic party.

Well, technically, no one that isn't a morm is familiar with the morm church.  Underwear and all.

[F250 28883]

5 hours ago, formermav43 said:

Every religion but whose, exactly? The “religious right” isn’t monolithic.

Very true.

3 hours ago, demos said:

That’s when the real fun begins.

Also very true. Reminds me of the Handmaid's Tale where Baptists were killed by Puritan Gilead government. Yeah those psychos would turn on everyone but they would never have the numbers to take out the Baptists despite trying to overtake the SBC from within. Way too many divisions for those fools to establish a religious tyranny. More than likely the Religious Rights Revolution would look like this.

Then the Vatican army sweeps in to clean up.

[elfenix 34364]

[SimonBolivar 10961]

On 12/3/2019 at 5:17 PM, Johnny Sack said:

 

Next - define what is and isn’t religion.  Have fun with that. 

 

It depends on what the definition of is is.

[Guest Lobo]

More important than the definition of religion is, to me anyway, is what amount of time need elapse before we can call your religion, a mythology?  

Edited December 20, 2019 by Lobo

[Doc Reeves 6434]

20 minutes ago, elfenix said:

...now, we are sending the collection plates around...

[TwiceHorn 31646]

On 12/4/2019 at 5:09 PM, formermav43 said:

Every religion but whose, exactly? The “religious right” isn’t monolithic.

Yeah I'm not so sure the Founders were afraid of a state religion/church as much as the battle for said state religion/church.

[formermav43 4606]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah I'm not so sure the Founders were afraid of a state religion/church as much as the battle for said state religion/church.

Agreed. In fact, the main purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the existing established churches in the states from being supplanted by a national church. Its actually kind of nonsensical from a historical perspective, in my opinion,  that it’s been incorporated against the states-it was rooted in federalism, not individual liberty.

[Huckleberry 33163]

3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Agreed. In fact, the main purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the existing established churches in the states from being supplanted by a national church. Its actually kind of nonsensical from a historical perspective, in my opinion,  that it’s been incorporated against the states-it was rooted in federalism, not individual liberty.

Like most things political it seems to me it was included to mean different things to different people. Thomas Jefferson certainly though it was important from the perspective of individual liberty.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek.  Pretty sure the founders agreed that having a state religion was a bad thing in a number of ways.

[formermav43 4606]

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Like most things political it seems to me it was included to mean different things to different people. Thomas Jefferson certainly though it was important from the perspective of individual liberty.

Jefferson was certainly against any established religion, that’s true.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek.  Pretty sure the founders agreed that having a state religion was a bad thing in a number of ways.

State religion implies a Devine right to rule. No bueno.

[Brisketexan 105478]

30 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

State religion implies a Devine right to rule. No bueno.

A divine right to rule is no bueno.

A Devine right to rule might be okay, because Devine is the location of the delicious Triple C steakhouse, and also the final resting place of my grandpa and uncle.

[workswithseed 2121]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A divine right to rule is no bueno.

A Devine right to rule might be okay, because Devine is the location of the delicious Triple C steakhouse, and also the final resting place of my grandpa and uncle.

What, are they buried underneath the steak drippings? Cause that might be an awesome way to be buried.

[Buffsoldier 1895]

On 12/20/2019 at 2:29 PM, Brisketexan said:

A divine right to rule is no bueno.

A Devine right to rule might be okay, because Devine is the location of the delicious Triple C steakhouse, and also the final resting place of my grandpa and uncle.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

I am Jack’s utter lack of surprise stumbling into a thread and finding @Johnny Sack mischaracterizing blacks while trying to convince himself the rules don’t favor the rich whites but actually the blacks!

Why does a guy born from generational wealth, replete with private aviation, massive hunting leases, second homes in Palm Springs and who knows what else feel compelled to demonize black people every chance he gets?