Victoria Osteen (
Yes ladies and gentlemen, it has come to my attention (thanks to Friend, a reader) that Victoria, the wife of our favorite light weight life coach, has a date. And it’s not with Willow Boy. Unfortunately it’s with Sharon Brown and her lawyer in a
If you remember, a couple of years ago, Miss Vickie got really upset because there was a stain in the upholstery of her First Class seat prior to a flight to Vail Colorado, where they were traveling to take part in a missionary project aimed at the snow pixies there in the Rocky Mountains. Apparently, when the airline servant didn’t jump quickly enough, Queen Willow got a little testy and made a scene. In fact, here is the testimony being presented by the airline servant:
Brown alleges Victoria Osteen threw her against a bathroom door and elbowed her in the left breast during an angry outburst over a stain on her first-class seat. The Federal Aviation Administration fined Victoria Osteen $3,000 for interfering with a crew member…
Tell me again why people follow after these clowns and clownettes? They don’t preach the Gospel, they don’t live the Gospel and it becomes clearer and clearer that they probably don’t even KNOW the Gospel. Hmmm…now that I think about it, that’s probably why people follow after these clowns – no danger of having to actually be inconvenienced by the truth of the Gospel. My bad.
Isn’t that the point for many pseudo-dr.-feelgood Christians out there? Go to church, put up a front, give yourself an ‘attaboy’ for going and live the rest of the week as lost as you can.
That’s why this Caspar Milquetoast psychobabble pablum is so inviting - no conviction, no depth, no scripture. And these days, in this ultra PC world in which we live - an offense equals personal defense. Hence, folk split that church and find another.
Besides Joel inherited his Daddy’s proud mantle, and they ain’t leaving. I wrote more about it here:
More on Mrs. Willow Boy
Good times indeed.
These people are truly blessed! This is the first time I saw how much the message of prosperity is really hated on! The bible says “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me”.
God Bless you,
Justin
(MN: Notice he says “these people.” He doesn’t seem to include himself in this blessing. I love listening to the MNRs defending their pimps and pimpettes with misused Scripture and accusations of speaking false things against the pimps.
By the way Justin, who’s persecuting these people? And what have I said that was untrue/false? )
Justin-
If this is the “first time I saw how much the message of prosperity is really hated on” then you must not have studied the Word much.
Here are just a couple of examples of Jesus “hating on” those who chase after prosperity over JESUS:
Mark 10:23-25 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 21:12-13 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, ” ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’”
God never promotes teachers, ministers, prophets, disciples to seek after material wealth. Here is a sure sign someone is a false teacher or prophet: They DO NOT live above the means of their people. Name one wealthy prophet or apostle in scripture. All gave up the desire for material wealth to serve Him. I’m not even going to mention all the scripture about us suffering with Christ.
By the way, the the verse you used from Matthew states “…falsely say all kinds….” Falsely being the key word. As long as the Olsteen’s do not teach the full Gospel of Jesus Christ they are FALSE TEACHERS. There is nothing falsely stated in that sentence.
Atta girl! No disrespect intended. Atta Woman?
Cheryl,
Have you ever read what the bible says in Galatians 1:4, Who (Jesus) gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
God has only one message and that is his message above. Galatians 1 goes on to say in verses 8 and 9:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Prosperity preaching is not just another gospel, it is a false gospel and the bible says that these men and women are accursed.
I think there may be a misunderstanding, beacause I agree with you. So, I think you may want to re-read my post again and other post I have made and then you would know that I know prosperity preaching is a false gospel. Sorry if I did not communicate that effectively.
Justin,
Lets see what the first century Church went through in regards to persecution. They had been jailed, beaten, fed to lions, crucified, and stoned to death. Take a look at what the Church in foreign countries have to endure; death, beheadings, beatings, and relegated to second class citizens. Now compare that to YOUR idea of persecution regarding the pimps. Dude you need to wake up bro.
Kyle
You quoted Matthew 5:11, “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me”.
The key part here is “because of Me” , not because of prosperity or rightly being called out for heresy!
Great point!
Your best TEETH now. Faith never tasted so minty fresh?! ROFL.
Hi Melvin,
The first problem is that a woman is considered to be a pastor. That is not an office within the Church of Jesus Christ that women may hold. That’s the first hint that one should not attend to, listen to, read, or follow, these individuals.
The stage show has hit the road. You see ego is a very important aspect in the lives of these so called Christians. They are dead to God and alive to themselves. Humility even in the public arena is unheard of when you have that much bank. Thanks for the information Mel. PJ
Melvin,
I so agree with walksbyf8h! The first clue should be that she is the co-pastor. But, my first thought about Joel No-steen is always the fact that he doesn’t teach sin and repentance. Therefore, his wife probably does not know that her behavior was sin, and that she needs to repent for even having the ability to behave so rudely. Thanks for the update.
HEY!!! LAY OFF THIS POOR LADY!!! She was having her Best Upper Cut Now.
Hilarious.
Phil Perkins.
ROFL!!!
or, “Become a Better
YouPugilist”Yes, and we could go on, couldn’t we?
Phil P.
I have a question.
Do any of us not have days where we aren’t on our best behavior? What about the time you said something ugly to your spouse? What about the time you got mad in traffic and said something you shouldn’t or even reacted in a way less than what Christ has called you to do? What about the time the cashier was rude or the bank lost your check and you had a huge fee or someone tried to take advantage of you?
As believers do we expose the sins of others in a mocking way? I know Galatians 6 says something along these lines:
6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
The Spirit to restore is in gentleness, even if you think she is a nonbeliever is this the way we win people to Christ? I believe we can expose their teaching. But man “clowns” and “clownettes”? Melvin you killing me bro!
(MN: Once again - I’m not here to restore a brother or sister, or win anyone to Christ. I’m here to warn people about the pimps and get rid of their veneer of respectability. )
But isn’t that an imperative? Isn’t there two more along these lines found in Col 3 and Ephesians 4? Do you have the authority to ignore these imperatives? If so why point out the flaws of the pimps false teaching. Is the sin of ignoring those imperatives the same as teaching false doctrine? Both are commands can we pick which ones we FEEL like doing?
(MN: Which imperatives are you talking about? )
So, if I understand you correctly, B & R, you’re paraphrasing a well known Bible verse to read “He who is without sin cast the first elbow”?
Of course all of us have days when we are not exhibiting “Our Best Behavior Now”. I don’t believe that is the issue at hand. I think Pastor Coleman pointed to the heart of the matter - an inflated ego so bloated as to make one think they have the God-given right to throw the first elbow!
Lois,
How many time have you used your ego to lash out at someone who has wronged you? Any children, relatives, coworkers, spouse? I know I have. I felt I had a right to defend myself and the reason why is because…… ding, ding ding “ego”.
B&R
I’m gonna have to agree with you…the stubbed toe, the guy who cut me off on the way home from work, my brainless boss, etc. We al have are moments.
However, I also think that in this case, John Coleman raised a valid point. the two words that come to mind are ego and humility, polar opposites. Ms. Olsteen could have been having a moment, but the fact that it has been a couple of years since the incident and there is no admission of guilt or an apology for the alledged incident, makes me lean towards a bad ego problem. One that is costing alot of money and time.
So I agree that none of us are perfect, some of us are close (like myself and Melvin), but Ms. Olsteen could have simply said, “hey my bad, had a moment, and I’m sorry.”
I think what’s being said by Coleman and others (Lois), is that folks like Olsteen’s wife, feel that they’re justified in behaving this way, because they are christians, therefore the head and not the tail.
In other words, the teachings they believe in, that postures itself as christian teachings, is so fleshly and carnal, to where the adherents of such beliefs, actually believe it is permissible to act out in such a way as Joel’s wife.
Simply put, christians having “off days,” and christians who believe their “off days” is normal conduct for believers, because of their false sense of privilege-are two different topics.
Seekerman, what you said was profound:
“folks like Olsteen’s wife, feel that they’re justified in behaving this way, because they are christians, therefore the head and not the tail.”
The logical outcome is a total disregard for others and justifying the works of the flesh. Wow! I hadn’t thought of it that way.
Who knows if that was Mrs Osteen’s reasoning or mentality?
(MN: Could be. We don’t know of a certainty. But it could be. )
Even if they don’t explicitly teach this, the outcome of such carnal teachings can definitely produce such beliefs, if you know what to look for.
ROFLMBO on the “head and not the tail” mentality of these people!
Those WoF-ers really take that “head and not the tail” thing very seriously! On my last job, I had to work next to a lady who was (is) deeply into the WoF, and one day she asked me “what part of the body of Christ are you?” I looked at her in deep thought, and finally I told her: “… well I’m not sure, but most of the time, I feel like I’m probably the anus!” She looked totally indignant and asked me “why do you think that??” So I told her “… well everybody’s got one, and even the body of Christ would be incomplete without one … besides, most of the time, it seems like all I ever do is try to get all the crap out of the body! After all, there seems to be alot of crap in the body of Christ that needs to be removed these days!” At that, her jaw dropped down to her knees and her eyes popped out, and she exclaimed, “… you are NOT a christian!!” When I asked her why, she told me in disgust … “because christians are the head and NOT the tail!”
I almost busted a gut laughing …
Man, that was some nice, wholesome, restroom humor, for the body of Christ-if I ever heard any.
And the interesting thing about it, is the grimy and tawdry aspects of this humor, actually had a pertinent message. LOL!
(MN: Never tell me that Pulpit-pimps.org isn’t multifaceted. )
At the time this took place, I worked on a factory assembly line. Now I am a full time nursing student, and speaking of such things as “elimination” isn’t considered bathroom humor … it is just as natural and necessary as eating or breathing. I guess speaking of such things could be considered “grimy and tawdry,” but it is one of those things that we nurses deal with on a daily basis. It just goes along with the territory. The only word I used that wasn’t a legit medical term was “crap” … (I guess I could have used “fecal matter” instead, which is how we refer to it in school.)
But you’re right … I when I said it to her, there was a slight “shock factor” involved. I thought it was funny, and “crap” does accurately describe the “false doctrine” that needs to be removed right? lol
………..wiping away tears of laughter. LMHO
B&R
I think the key to this is to look at the text of the post “Tell me again why people follow after these clowns and clownettes? They don’t preach the Gospel, they don’t live the Gospel and it becomes clearer and clearer that they probably don’t even KNOW the Gospel”
You seem to be speaking about restoration of the individual, restoring them to what? Their unacceptable behaviour and lack of substance in what they attempt to teach has been highlighted a number of times and I believe attempts have been made to bring it to their attention in the past. Their repeated behaviour speaks to either one who is possibly not saved in the first place or one who has deliberately chosen a specific or particular course of action contrary to the gospel. Meaning that their behaviour is not borne out of ignorance.
I don’t think the intent here is to win any of them over to Christ but to clearly illustrate to others that the Osteens’ should not be any position of leadership or authority within the body of Christ.
Nigel, you hit the nail on the head … as I was reading the scripture B&R quoted, my first thought was “restore them to what?” That implies that they were on the right path and temporarily slipped, but these people were not on the right path to start with, so this scripture doesn’t even apply to them!! I was going to respond to that as soon as I read it, but decided to read down a little first to see of anyone already noticed … I’m glad you did !!!
B&R,
I have to disagree with you here. Christians may have days when we’re not at our best, but, having said that - we know when we have wronged another. We are to go apologize before we ever put in another knee-mail or worship of the Lord. And most definitely, we’re to do that before ‘we’ preach a sermon. We are to rectifiy the situation with the other person. Frankly, I am weary of older Christians who have an ‘office’ but behave no better, and usually worse, than the unsaved. Personally, I’m tired of it. When I wasn’t a Christian, this very thing was my pet-peeve….well, that and Christians who knew nothing of the Bible. Perhaps my expectation is too high but I expect an elder/deacon/pastor (and their wives), to quick to apologize and straighten matters out. I expect them to be more mature in their faith and in better control of their flesh. And if they mess up like that, in public, then they should be dealt with in like manner - in public. Paul did not take Peter off to a corner to discuss his hypocrisy.
At the very least, Ms. Osteen should have used her platform as a ‘pastor’ on TV to publicly apologize to the victim, the congregation, and the Body of Christ. And this is after she privately apologized to this woman.
Lady Osteen should get a film deal out of this.
“From Quentin Tarantino, the director who brought you “Kill Bill” and “Kill Bill 2″, comes another epic epic of feminine fisticuffs and womanly whippings…
She’s blonde. She’s blingin’. She’s Gospel singin’. She’s taking the Kingdom of God (and anything else she wants) by force. Victoria Osteen stars in the motion picture sure to make you wish you had taken Greyhound.
“Airport 2008: Elbows Of Fury.
“Her righteousness may be as filthy rags, but her First Class seat had better be spotless.”
That is hilarious!!!!!!!!! ROFL….
ROFL!!!
Lets start with Galatians 6, then we can work the others out. Can you ignore that one?
(MN: What is the imperative in Galatians 6? That we restore a brother who is caught in a sin? What sin was Willow Boy caught in? What sin was his wife caught in? His behavior is well known. So is her’s. The lawyer and company gave no indication that there is any remorse or desire to be restored [This, of course, assumes that she is indeed guilty of SOMETHING other than simply throwing a hissy fit] He does not consider himself fallen into sin or in need of restoration. Or maybe you would like to apply that verse to Reverend Ike or maybe Creflo Dollar. I mean, they’re brothers in need of restoration. Right?
So again, what imperative are you talking about? Telling me “the one in Galatians 6″ doesn’t answer the question. Be specific. We have an imperative to do what? I want to see what you understand it to be saying. Otherwise we will talk past each other here as much or more than we did over at your place.
)
I would apply it to any Christian Melvin. The problem is if you felt she is in sin. You are to restore. That is why the word “caught” is used. It doesn’t say “If your brother comes to you seeking to be restored from sin”. The verb is caught. I don’t know. I definitely know it ain’t gentle. But lets proceed to the other verses:
How about we start with verses 29&32 of Ephesians 4
Then lets flip over a couple of books and see what it says in Chapter 3 verses 12-17.
You pick the commands out of there that you are doing in this post.
(MN: Let me try again. You keep giving me verses as though we both understand them and their application the same way. I keep asking you to tell me how you understand the verses. Taking me from verse to verse doesn’t benefit the discussion until you answer the question “How do you read it and what does it mean?” And unless you’re going to do that, I’m not counting on this discussion going any further than the last one we had.
Does Galatians 6 apply to a person who does not think, or won’t admit, that they have sinned? Again, should Paul have continued to attempt restore the fellow who was living with his step mother WHILE the bloke was living with his stepmother? )
Okay Melvin,
How are we to speak to one another as Christians? Are we allowed under the verses I provided to call someone a clown? I don’t what else you want me to ask.
Secondly even if you think she is a nonbeliever Colossians 4 says “let your speech ALWAYS be gracious”. Now I don’t know what else you want me to say. If she is a believer you are to be gentle, loving, kind and humble. If she is a nonbeliever your conversation is to be always gracious. Does that answer your question? (MN: It certainly helps me to understand how you would apply those verses. And knowing that, I can, in perfectly good conscience disagree with you and move on with what I’m doing. IF you believe me to be wrong in doing it, then for goodness sake don’t read the postings. And certainly don’t contribute any comments. )
Paul did restore the guy in Corinth. (MN: Uh, no. He didn’t. The man turned from his sin and the church welcomed him back. Paul didn’t do anything. ) He restored him by having him removed from the fellowship in hopes that he was truly regenerate. (MN: Huh? No. That’s not what restoration means. But I’m getting a better idea of how you see it. ) Church discipline isn’t to outcast it is a tool for restoration and reconciliation. (MN: You’re losing me here. You’re saying restoring is a tool for restoring? Isn’t that a little like defining a word with the word?
But regardless of what you say at this point, I understand where our differences are and how you see it. You are certainly free to see the situation as you do. However, don’t expect me to continue to defend my position or to attempt to move you in yours. )
Lionel,
I’m reading the dialogue between you and Mel, and just a couple of questions popped in my head. Hopefully you will be able to give me some guidance and clarification.
1. Could you give a little more comprehensive exegesis on Galatians 6? Just at a cursory glance it appears to me that the apostle Paul is speaking to the church of which he has some sort of relationship with, meaning in their eyes he would have had much creditability concerning his apostleship and labor among them. So, I would assume the imperative of which you speak and the main one in question is found in verse 1?
“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you be tempted.” (ESV)
It is my assumption (and you may disagree if you like) that Paul is dealing with a group of people who have an established relationship in a certain gathering (notice I used the term “gathering” because I’m keeping in mind your rethinking the definitions of what the “church” means). Would you agree that within the context of restoration in this passage that “repentance” certainly will be within that process?
So, in light of the imperative you gave to Melvin to restore Mrs. Osteen, how much of a factor does relationship play in this? Let’s be realistic. How much attention would Victoria pay to this site were it one that agreed with her position. Let’s say that one day Victoria is perusing the net and happens upon this article, in which Mel is referring to her as a clownette (that was a bit rough BD), and she contacts him through email asking him why he thinks what her and her husband are doing is destroying the body of Christ?
After she tells Mel how she was offended by being referred to as a “clownette”, Mel then apologizes for that (which I would hope he would), and then proceeds to share with Victoria the gospel, which she may not have heard a clear presentation of to this point. All this because of Mel’s use of satirical comedic disagreement which, if the truth be told, causes us to pay attention more than when some “yes man” agrees with our position. I know I may be stretching with the example but really, wouldn’t that be more likely to happen than if Mel was on here speaking about prosperity and blessings?
restore (katartizo) : 1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete
a) to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair
1) to complete
b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust
1) to fit or frame for one’s self, prepare
c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be
Commonly used term for repentance in new testament writing:
Repentance (metanoia) 1) a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done
Surely God monergistically leads one to repentance by His goodness (Romans 2:4), so doesn’t it stand to reason that this will be an element of the aforementioned restoration? More on this in a moment…
2. How far back in the letter to the churches of Galatia do you systematically apply this particular hermenuetic? Please don’t take that as a challenge or insult, but just hear me out for a moment. Without getting too much in the weeds on this, the apostle seems to set the tone for the letter immediately in chapter 1 when he writes;
“6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (1:6-9, ESV)
Honest question. Really from the heart. How often do Joel and Victoria need to hear (from scripture) that the gospel they are teaching is a false one? It would appear from a brief view of the text that one of the main reasons for the unacceptable behavior of the church at Galatia was due to the improper doctrine that they had allowed to enter in.
Touching again on the relational aspect, I’m certain that Joel (and Victoria) saw the 60 minutes segment and heard Mike Horton’s assessment of their ministry practices under the glaring light of scripture and found it to be wanting. Has Joel (who has admitted that he does not consider himself a theologian) tried to contact Mike, who many (although some may disagree with some of his Covanental views) consider to be a sound expositor of the bible?
Flip it around, and say that if Mike tried to contact Joel, would he respond to Mike’s admonishment and rebuke from scripture? He hasn’t responded publicly, what leads us to believe that he will respond privately?
This hasn’t happened to my knowledge, and it is interesting how Paul discusses this very deviation from the gospel from the outset of his letter. Mike may be as close as any of us will get to Joel and Victoria, but even when the brother on youtube was speaking outside of his church to the passers by, in true allegiance to the one who teaches them, there was still no response and turning from that mentality from the members of Lakewood.
As we look through the rest of the chapters (just a quick look), we see Paul talks about Christ’s sealing evidence and the acceptation by others of his claim to his apostleship (chapter 2), his rebuke of Peter for the racism and separation (chapter 2), faith being the basis of justification (ch.2), departing from the foundation of their justification by the works of the law (which Joel and Victoria teach a version of “works” salvation, but I won’t get into that) in chapter 3. In 4 and 5 he discusses heirship, freedom in Christ by grace through faith and the importance of walking in the Spirit.
This leads us to the chapter in question (6), which is really the basis for my question of how far you go back, because even in all that Paul expounds thus far, it is all relational to the body and with the assumption that these are people who are willing to cooperate and respond to biblical discipline. Please give some guidance on this aspect.
I know this may seem to be much to respond to, so I apologize if this is beating a dead horse, and perhaps it would have been better to post this on your site. However, I’ve always perceived you to be one who is learned in the scriptures, so I’m sure it won’t be a problem for you. (smile…)
Lastly, I know that you may respond to the false gospel claim from your understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, so I am prepared for that heavy blow!!! (LOL!!!)…Otherwise, due to some time constraints and other responsibilities I have, unless I can come up with questions that you don’t clarify for me, you have the last word on this my friend…Keep stretching our minds Lionel, you are much appreciated in the Lord for it…
Solus Christus,
R4C
B&R, you say that Galatians 6 would apply to any christian … are you implying that V. Osteen is a christian? Like Nigel said above, “restore them to what?” You assume that she had a spirit of gentleness in the first place that we might be able to restore back to her. We know her by her fruits, and therefore, speak about her as she is so poignantly described in 2 Peter chapter 2.
Melvin,
Victoria Osteen possesses powers not attributed to just any normal human being. As a vessel of gawd Victoria AKA Vicky has the power to induce hemorrhoids
and make one lose their faith. Yes I tell you the truth. I suggest you take this blog post down immediately for fear of the same thing happening to you.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you. You go buy all the Preparation H you want.
From World Net Daily: Victoria Gave Me Hemrrhoids!
Kyle
Lets see now first we had contagious laughing, then sneezing, then fainting, then holy ghost machine guns, and now holy hemrrhoids? Nice……..
personally, i’m skeptical about the stewardess’ claim. beside herself, were there any other witnesses to this alledged assault? or is it victoria’s word against the stewardess’? the stewardess is suing for 10% in punitive damages of all victoria’s net worth and wants an apology.
10%, what an interesting amount. what if the stewardess is just looking to get paid and is outright lying? the whole, “i’m so traumatized by the ordeal that i now have a bad case of hemorrhoids” is going overboard. as a jurist, i would doubt the stewardess’ claim that she got thrown up against a bathroom wall and elbowed just because she didn’t clean up a spill fast enough. it sounds like a really tall tale to me, and just for the record, i’m no fan of the osteens.
(MN: If it helps any, the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] fined her several thousand dollars for her actions. )
I would think that at least everyone sitting around there in first class would have seen it, and I would think that some of the attorneys would have at least subpoenaed at least sworn statements by some of them. These are details that we may never know. Like you, I am suspicious of the stewardesses motive, but I have no doubt that it happened pretty much the way we are hearing it or the FAA wouldn’t have slapped a fine on her. In the article I read about it, Vicky O. denies that it happened, so somebody is lying.
Osteen comes across to me as a spoiled rich brat who is used to having her way. If she as a christian (for which she shows no fruit, so I don’t believe she is) is supposed to serve, why would it be so beneath her to clean the stain off her own seat? I would love to see her reaction if she ever had to wash somebody else’s FEET!!
Wow, and to imagine all of this transpired over a juice stain on an arm-rest. Imagine what would have happened if someone would someone would have stepped on her stilettos.
I degress R4C,
Thanks for the comments. For some reason you believe that you are only responsible of restoring someone in your local church which draws a false dichotomy between the local and universal body of Christ.
Next Melvin,
Someone once said that you were just as guilty as the people you expose. I would regularly defend you but I notice that they are correct. When approached with a clear command to speak graciously “at all times” you disagree. That seems to be a bit hyporcritical that you would want to correct Mr. Jenkins but ignore very clear commands in the scripture. Next if you don’t know that Church discipline is a tool for restoration then you have greatly mistaken what the purpose of Church discipline is. You may want to spend some time studying that topic. Finally I also provided you verses on gentleness, kindness, humilty and patience. While in turn you ignore these also.
(MN: BAR, you are certainly allowed to consider me hypocritical. However, I would disagree both with the interpretation and application of the verse you are using. As I suggested in previous responses, you would have to conclude that Jesus and Paul were were hypocritical. To use a favorite phrase of my much admired monergists: “Al”l doesn’t always mean all. You have to look at context. John did not speak graciously of Diotrophes. Paul did not speak graciously of any of the false teachers. Peter did not speak graciously of the false teachers. James also failed to speak graciously of the false teachers. Hmm. What’s the pattern I’m seeing here? The command to speak graciously doesn’t seem to be for universal, automatic application. By the way, to be really picky about it - I don’t speak to the people I write about. If I did speak to them, I likely would do it with grace. I actually smiled at John k. Jenkins, spoke to him pleasantly, and shook his hand the last time I saw him at Freeway Airport. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a pimp. Would I stand, calling him names and shout at him if I had an opportunity to speak with him? Certainly not. But the catch is, you don’t get to talk to guys like John. I guarantee you, if he wanted to talk, he could talk any time he wanted to make the time.
If you have been paying any attention, I do speak graciously to those who are honestly seeking. I don’t speak graciously of those who teach error. I’m even speaking graciously to you at the moment. )
So what I have found is that this blog is one of schisms not reconciling people to the cross. (MN: It’s not here to reconcile people to the cross. It is here to warn the sheeple away from those who don’t wish to be reconciled to the cross. ) Which is the command of every Christian. But your supporters may not agree with that. I really think that says a lot about your true intentions. (MN: Be careful. Can you really judge my intentions? I suspect the best you can do is observe my actions and interpret them according to your best understanding of Scripture. ) You don’t want to expose false teaching and point people to the savior. Your desire is to make a mockery. When I first came here I thought that your intentions were to help people get out of bad situations. (MN: And how do you do that except by helping them see that they are indeed in a bad situation? )
Again you are right I will not comment because I don’t believe what you write is done in a spirit of reconciliation. (MN: You are correct. It is not done in a spirit of reconciliation. As a reformed person, I know you recognize that Jesus did not die to reconcile all. ) It was proven when you allowed people to crack jokes about Mr. Jakes lisp and then allow Kyle to post forehead jokes. Bro if you thought this was acceptable in the name of Christ, you are further away form the cross than I first imagined. (MN: Still and all, they were pretty funny. )
Maybe the Jenkins crew have some valid points when they post. I pray that even though this blog is mean spirited that people see the truth in your exposure of false teaching. I just hope they do it in a way that Christ would endorse. If you are going to be shepherding hearts through Standup you should really consider reviewing 1 Timothy 3 brother.
(MN: BAR, while I respect you and the work you are doing on your site, I still disagree with your conclusions. If you feel as you do then perhaps you need to not continue to visit the site. I’d like to continue to consider you a friend, but please don’t expect me to modify what I am doing simply because of your take on Scripture. That’s not going to happen. I’m truly sorry to see you go, but as the phrase says: Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. But seriously, I will miss you. )
BAR you are my man and all but I must concur with Melvin that he has never in the posts I have read declared that he was out to restore the ones he refer to as pimps but only to warn others about what they are doing.
I brought this scripture up in another post yesterday and I think it something to consider here as well.
“Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, ” ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’” Matthew 21:12-13
A good question here would be, was Jesus trying to restore the money chargers or restore the temple? Another would be, was He gentle in his approach or was His anger a righteous anger?
I am very familar with biblical church discipline. 14 years ago when my husband choose to leave our marriage my church followed the steps of church discipline. They were gentle, loving and at the same time firm in their correction, but guess what? My husband did not think it was that gentle, because he wanted to continue in his sin.
The two things I learned about church discipline were:
1) It is good for the person to be seperated from the “good-hearted” people of the church, because then God can do His work without our interruption.
2) It protects the church from the influence and sin of the offender.
I will tell you this my husband and I have recounciled. We have been married now for 16 years. 13 of those years he has been incarcerated . My husband did not respond to the church discipline, but he did to God’s discipline. He will tell you that he wishes he had listen to the elders who disciplined him. Now that he is recounciled to God he sees the wisdom and gentleness the elders used.
I’m not into the names like “clowns” or even “pimps”, but I have no problem calling out those who are false prophets and teachers. I also have no problem doing it straight forward and with a righteous anger. I do not believe that church discipline applies in these cases, because they are not under the blood of the Lamb. Calling them to repentance and salvation is what they need.
I think the word “pimp” as it is used on this site is probably the most appropriate word for them. I think that people only find it offensive simply because they may not understand the analogy of “pimps” and “ho’s” and how accurately they portray a preacher demanding money to finance an extravagant lifestyle off the backs of all his hard-working followers just like a pimp does with his ho’s. Really, the word is very fitting, and I am not only unashamed, but actually proud to boldy profess that I was one of the biggest “ho’s” out there! The word “pimp” is probably most offensive to those whom it describes, but of course those people would never see themselves that way. It’s kind of like the proverbial rock thrown into a crowd of people, and the one who cries out is the one that it hit. But actually, I think it is a very “gracious” word, considering some of the terms in the Bible uses to describe them
!!!
As for “clowns” and “clownettes” … well those words are truly not very flattering, but neither are the people whom they describe. Like calling pimps “pimps,” calling clowns “clowns” is pretty lame compared to some of the ways Jesus described the pharisees. It may be presumptuous of me to say so, but I’m pretty sure Jesus probably thought that bunch was a bunch of clowns too, ya think?
What you say about Christ’s word re: the Pharisees is true but remember HE spoke as the GOD-man; from absolute holiness (purity) and with unhindered insight into the hearts of men. We must be careful when assigning names to people that are subjective. Why not use Christ’s own words then?
Just my opinion. I ain’t trying to start nothing’ with anyone. I think using names that actualy describe the action a man takes or describes his real motivation is different than calling a name to make fun of them or to entertain others at that man’s expense. Jesus didn’t do that. To call a minister who is using the techniques of a pimp or charlatan so is accurate , right and fair. To call him Bozo-Pimp Johnson may not be.
God bless you Cheryl, you’ve made some excellent remarks and they were on point regarding the topic. It would be nice for more people to hear more testimonies like this.
BAR
On many occasions I’ve begged to differ with you, in fact, quite often, I just couldn’t see where you were coming from BUT brother I’m sure many will agree that you’ve always strove to answer in a gracious manner and for me, it is evidence of the power of Christ dwelling in you… Blessings
Lionel,
I must say that I was a bit taken aback by your comment. Rarely have I ever seen you respond to a request for clarification with only 2 sentences. Not only did you misrepresent what I said (even when I used terms to clarify), but you addressed absolutely none of the salient items. Remember, these were questions for further enlightenment of your view on the subject. Perhaps I should take the hint of how important an issue this was to you by the brevity of your response. My intent was to ask you for clarification humbly and graciously, and expect a response of the same manner from you, much akin to the graciousness and humility that you claimed was missing from this site. No worries. I have given you the last-word gift, and since I am a man of my word, your digression has been accepted and duly noted. Though there are things we may disagree on, you know that you will always be considered a friend and brother to me. Your site and others like it have been a tremendous blessing and encouragement. As I stated earlier, keep stretching our minds and challenging us, but be careful never to forget what makes our testimony distinct, causes us to go against the grain, binds together true believers, and at times brings the heavy sword of seperation—the gospel of Jesus Christ. I look forward to learning and growing more with you as I follow your writings over at your blog. I’ll leave you with a few quotes that I believe fit this occasion.
“As Christ is the end of the Law and the Gospel and has within Himself all the treasures of wisdom and understanding, so also is He the mark at which all heretics aim and direct their arrows.”
–John Calvin
“Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about matters, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.”
–John Owen
“Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have an erroneous belief without by-and-by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other.”
–C.H. Spurgeon
“Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart”. (Psalms 51:6, ESV)
Solus Christus brother, and have a great weekend!!!
R4C
R4C, your response and point of view are sooooooooooo long, I can understand why he had a 2 sentence reply, is it possible to condense a little, just a little………….
(MN: Not to be too demanding, but no, R4C should not condense it. You should schlog through it. It will be good for you. It’s good practice. Would you have God condense parts of the Old Testament? Or parts of the NT for that matter?
You assignment tonight is to read the comment and give me a three page comment report. I want it on my desk by 10:30 this evening. It will count for fifty percent of your grade for the quarter. )
OneinWorship,
Thanks for the comment. To be honest, I typically don’t post long entries unless specifically addressing a concern or engaging in a discussion in which I have a different point of view. However, when seeking clarification on an issue, there are times where many words are needed, and there are times where not so many are needed. In this particular case, my objective was to not only seek clarification, but express my understanding of the issue at hand. Why? Well, if you hadn’t noticed, I gave Lionel the last word, meaning I would not respond to his question in-depth by writing a response post. Since that was the last thing I was going to express, I felt the need to make sure that Lionel knew where I was coming from. But since we know one another offline, we were able to speak over the phone about the issue, a conversation which proved to be very fruitful and edifying for the both of us. Hope this clears things up for you.
Solus Christus,
R4C
Melvin,
Very very unChrist like. I can’t believe you just wrote that. Well, yes I can. I’ve been reading this Blog for awhile on and off and it is amazing what a so called man of God will say, that is you Melvin. I understand all you are saying BAR. God knows and sees it all.
Pray
Pray,
Could you define for us, in a paragraph or two, from scripture, exactly what Christ is like??? Be careful how you answer…
Solus Christus,
R4C
Brother as we interact there is a level of relationship that is unseen throughout these posts. Brother Melvin is a stern man that has set a standard for young brothers as myself and BAR. His stern words are I take as a sign of respect. There is no animosity here or hard feelings. He is as Dr. Cornell West says, “Our biggest fan when we are right and our worst critics when he thinks we are wrong.” Simple and plain that is love. (Proverbs 27:6)
I appreciate your kind words and concern brother. KIM as one very frequenter poster would say. I would add to that KIB B=Biblical
And you and I, of course, disagree on what constitutes “biblical”.
Melvin
(MN: Folks, I apologize for the length of this comment. It’s my fault. I inserted Melvin Notes along the way to make sure BLD’s ocmments were addressed. )
Bro. Melvin,
I’ve been reflecting on the exchange between you and B&R and I’d like to share my thoughts. Before I do, let me be clear that I’m not attempting to take sides or place blame for the exchange’s ticky-tack nature. I’m not defending Joel Osteen or his wife. And I do have my own site where I do things the way I think they should be done. (I’ve noticed that this is your response to most critiques, even honest disagreements with your style. It appears to be a fair response to unhelpful negativity but it is a prideful response to someone who is actually attempting to be constructive.) These are just my particular reflections that I’d like to commend to you and everyone else.
(MN: I disagree that “start your own site and do it the way you think it should be done there” is automatically prideful. Generally, that is the response when some one insists [usually repeatedly] that I should do this or that in this manner or that manner. )
The whole idea of bringing up the public bad behavior of one of the “pimpettes” seems, to me, to be a case of piling on. It seems also to be a case of “picking the low hanging fruit”. There’s been little activity on the pimp front lately. (Fred Price’s “Apostleship” or Rick Warren appearing on Time Magazine as “America’s most powerful religious leader”) That has left you with little to write about. Perhaps in your haste to get something out, you jumped on the first sign of negative activity. But this is just speculation on my part. (MN: I disagree. There has been quite a bit going on. You should see an article on Claude Alexander tomorrow or Monday. Low hanging fruit? No. Willow Boy appointed his wife as co-pastor. This goes directly to HIS actions both as husband and pastor. Her behavior goes directly to his ability to manage his household. All of that goes directly to his qualifications, or complete lack of such, to pastor/be an elder/manage the household of God. I don’t consider it at all peripheral or “low hanging.” She teaches - under his auspices. She behaved like a heathen [and it doesn't appear that she was simply tired and lost it]. Again, this goes directly to Willow Boy and his qualifications. )
Since the purpose of this site, as you have stated it over and over again, is to “warn the sheeple away from these people”, it seems that instead of focusing on comparing bad doctrine with sound biblical teaching, you have picked an area where we can all be found guilty as B&R attempted to point out, the area of bad behavior. While I don’t agree with his usage of Galatians 6 in regards to this particular woman (I have my doubts about the authenticity of her Christianity), I do agree with the Colossians 4 admonishment. “Gracious” by definition implies that you give undeserved, unearned and even unwarranted favor to her even as an unbeliever. And as to the purpose of this site, it seems to me that even the warning of the sheeple could be done in a manner that would minister to an unbeliever who happened upon the site. Authentic discussions on the crucial issues of Christianity would at least combat the image that we are a bunch of mind-numbed, blind-faith cult members. It being done in a gracious manner would also go a long way to distance us from the “God hates fags” crowd. But when the discussion centers on someone’s body image, speech impediment, or taste in clothing, it is hard to hold up the “purpose of this site is” banner consistently.
(MN: I have to disagree with you there. The site is not here to “minister to those who might happen upon the site.” In saying that, you pretty much declare that the truth of the Gospel as shown in explanations of how a person should behave, explanations of what makes up a healthy church, descriptions and explanations of real spirituality [as opposed to religious emotionalism] do less [all of it being done through the power of God] to attract the unsaved - especially the male unsaved] than being falsely “gracious’ to the pimps and pimpettes. What I do here is not going to attract the unsaved any more than a bowl of ammonia is going to attract a bloodhound. )
As far as you calling these people “pimps” or “clowns”, I see it as a case of identifying what these people do. They pimp and they clown or put on a show. So I have no problem with it so far as it goes.
Well Mel, perhaps you will also show me the door and that is fine. (MN: When did I show BAR the door? ) If disagreeing with your methods is cause for excommunication (MN: I haven’t excommunicated anyone. But if you disagree with me why would you continue to visit, read, and comment. Please remember what BAR said:
For instance on Aug 7, 1:41 PM, I said:
This was in response to BAR writing:
A little bit later, he said:
to which I responded:
At no point did I excommunicate him. But if he thinks the site is mean-spirited and that I am hypocritical, can you explain to me why he should visit the site? And where in my response did I tell him not to come back? Now what I did do is encourage to leave if he was going to leave. Why stretch it out?
Of course, perhaps you can show me in the words I have used, where I did tell him to go away because he disagrees with me and to not come back) , then I have to ask how that separates you from the pimp pastors you excoriate on a this site. They exercise the same “agree or get out” method as you have lately. (MN: Sorry - it’s no different than I have been in the past. And it isn’t an “agree or get out” method. The only difference is BAR has not been a drive by commenter or one of the folks who argued in circles. In fact, with BAR I spent several cycles just trying to understand exactly what he was saying. How is this such a terrible and prideful thing?
Now there are a couple of things I’m not going to do:
1. I’m not going to waste the readers’ time taking a conversation around in circles pointlessly. Once I see that happening, I warn the writer that they are in danger of being expelled - for that thread. I do it publicly so that everyone knows what happens and they don’t get the impression that the commenter simply ran away.
2. I’m not going to try to make the site what other people think it should be. It is what it is. If a reader feels strongly that some other thing should be done, then they are free to start a site to do that thing. Barring that, they should stop trying to convince me that I should be doing the other thing.
If you want to paint me as a hypocritical, mean-spirited so and so because I didn’t immediately jump up and tell folks not to refer to the man’s fivehead, then go ahead. But I’m really not going to worry about it. )
It’s at least something to think about.
(MN: Please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t show BAR the door. He can post here any time he wants. However, BAR’s conclusions about me, about my motives, about the correctness of the work pretty well moved him to say that I am doing an okay thing but with a very un-okay motive. I did point out to him that it might be best for him to not post here since doing so would seem to put him in the same company he has consigned me.
Not once have I told anyone “agree or get out”. I have, however, refused to continue a repetitive back and forth with someone. Those are boring [no new information, no movement of the discussion forward] and pretty useless [no new information]. For example, how many times should I go back and forth with an Arminian twisting the same scriptures over and over again before I cease to post their comments. Perhaps I should have allowed Joe Paden to post the rest of his repetitive comments. But even with that, I make it clear that though they are not welcome to continue posting on a particular thread [because they are not advancing the discussion - not because I disagree] I also make it clear that they are welcome to comment on others, as long as they are not pointlessly repetitive. )
By the way B&R, since Ready4change was very gracious and humble in his approach to the subject, I would have liked to have seen a response from you that went beyond what you gave. I figured that you were very frustrated with Mel’s attitude but I would have liked to have seen you put that aside and address R4C’s concerns.
(MN: One of the neat things about this forum is that you don’t have to respond while you are frustrated. You have time to think, to consider your words before you type them and hit “submit”. I think you would be surprised at how many times I have deleted an initial response, or how long I have let a comment from one of you sit here before posting it or while trying to decide whether or not to post it.
Frustration is not a sufficient justification for not addressing an issue or a direct question. One of the characteristics that gives me the most difficulty in BAR’s presentation is that he doesn’t answer the direct questions. As such, it is very difficult to move a conversation forward with any understanding when we haven’t established the baseline for the discussion. R4C and a couple of others attempted to do exactly that.
)
Just my thoughts.
Melvin,
Here again, you’re doing the same thing you accuse others of doing.
1. Where did I say that “start your own site and do it the way you think it should be done” was AUTOMATICALLY prideful? I didn’t. I said that it seemed like a fair response to unhelpful negativity but that it was prideful when someone was simply attempting to be constructive. Please disagree with what I said, if you must, but don’t disagree with words you put in my mouth.
(MN: Perhaps I misunderstood you. Here is what you said:
)
2. Melvin I want you to be 100% honest. You don’t know exactly what took place on that airplane. You only know what is alleged. (MN: Which is why I indicated that it was alleged to have happened. Specifically I said:
)
You have a prejudice against these two false teachers which doesn’t allow you to see this isolated event for what it is. Furthermore, until this situation is concluded you should have reserved judgment on Mrs. Olsteen’s behaviour, especially given the fact that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HER BEHAVIOUR WAS! (MN: I do reserve judgment with respect to the case of the woman who is suing her. But the FAA has found her guilty of INTERFERING WITH THE AIRCREW. This isn’t up for decision. She was fined and she paid, implying an admission of guilt. ) That is why I suspect that this is a case of piling on. Besides, care to confess to any bad behavior which should be cause for everyone to stop listening to you? I didn’t think so. (MN: It was not simply my prejudice against the two. The FAA fined her for interfering with aircrew - and she paid the fine. )
3. Melvin you keep asserting the purpose of the site everytime you either a) act in a manner not befitting a Christian, and are called on it or b) someone dares to suggest that there may have been a better way to say a thing.
(MN: Sorry - but you are assuming the very thing BAR is accusing me of [act in a manner not befitting a Christian]. I have not acted in a manner not befitting a Christian. And I still disagree that the site should be used to present the Gospel, reconcile people to Christ, or other things that people have suggested. The Bible says we should train up a child in the way he should go. Does that mean the site should present information on how to be an adult Christian so Christian parents can use it? It says we are to wash our wives in the water of the Word. Does that mean the site should present information that men can use to help their wives mature in the Lord? The Bible tells us that we are to do many things. But that doesn’t mean that any “christian” site has to do all of those things. BAR’s argument assumes this. I believe the assumption is invalid. He has not presented a sufficient argument to demonstrate that it is valid. In fact, the more I disagreed with him, the stronger he became in his judgments of me. )
Also, I said nothing about “attracting” the unbeliever. Why did you again dress my comments in clothes that didn’t fit them?
(MN: You said:
)
I simply suggested that perhaps there was a way to both warn the sheeple and keep from feeding stereotypes to unbelievers. I didn’t even suggest that you try the method, just that it exist. Do you disagree with that?
(MN: Actually, yes I do disagree with that. The unbeliever is dead in Christ. I am to present the Gospel to him. The believer is, supposedly growing in Christ. I am to edify him. The unbeliever can no more be edified than a rock can be fertilized. Perhaps the church should never discipline errant believers since there might be unbelievers among them and they might see the congregation being mean and unloving [in his eyes] )
And why would it be false graciousness? What does it mean to be gracious Melvin? Does someone have to deserved grace? Isn’t that a contradiction of terms?
4. Melvin you showed B&R the door when you suggested he not let it hit him on the way out. Now you being very juvenile. People only make that statement as a suggestion that it may be time for an individual to make an exit. Let’s not play silly games here. (MN: Not playing silly games. He placed hypocrisy and several other things on the table. The question that follows is only reasonable - if you see me that way, and you see the site that way, why are you spending your time and mine on the site? If these things you are saying are true, what would you take part in hypocrisy? You can’t have it both ways. )
5. I’m not now, nor have I in the past, called you hypocritical.
(MN: I didn’t say you did. I said:
And I said this because BAR said:
Try to differentiate between what I have said to you and what I have said in response to BAR. )
I suggested that you were mirroring some of the same characteristics for which you hold the “pimps” accountable. That’s a warning against hypocrisy. Not an accusation.
6. B&R did not say that you were doing an okay thing with a very un-okay manner. He said that you were doing an okay thing in an uncharitable manner. Melvin, we all battle pride. It seems that pride is keeping you from seeing what is being said in favor of what is not.
7. Melvin you have indeed been consistent in your treatment of the pimps and their defenders. I’m not asking you to change a thing about the way you run this site. What you do here and how you do it is ultimately between you and Christ. Myself, and many others, have taken your advice and started our own sites. So there’s no need for me to try and run yours. However, I’m no yes man for anyone. I’m no Melvinite. If I happen to believe that something you say, do, post, etc. is unbiblical, then I feel obligated and welcome to respond to it. If you are above this, then again I have to ask, what seperates you from the “pimps” you excoriate on this site? (MN: There are no Melvinites. That is simply a part of the schtick for the site. Again, you are taking my disagreement with your assessment as an indicator that I think I am above correction. If five people say a thing I believe to be wrong, does that mean I think I am above correction or does it mean I believe these five people to be wrong about the particular thing we disagree on. Over seven billion people disagree with me about Jesus Christ. Does that mean I am above correction? To put it slightly differently, have I recognized I was wrong on anything when it was brought to me? )
You can have the last word on it. Perhaps I’ve misjudged you. But perhaps I haven’t and that’s for you to think about.
Then again, folks DO have BAR’s number—as he has consistently been willing to answer/address questions. R4C has been encouraged elsewhere offline to call Lionel, who’d graciously explain things.
Regarding the point that Bro LawrenceD, brought up with the “Start your own Site” commet being prideful, it’d probably be beneficial to discuss what the Word of God says about pride/how it’s biblically defined. As the accusation not only was in reference to the comment, but has been brought up with the whole of the site. Also, there was one point where Melvin said to Lionel “Be careful. Can you really judge my intentions? I suspect the best you can do is observe my actions and interpret them according to your best understanding of Scripture.”…………and in hearing that, I must admit I was taken aback. For anyone reading the site sincerely can quickly see that there’ve been NUMEROUS posts where the intentions of those labeled “Pimps” was brought up with others saying they were 100% certain what they were about. And yet, if someone said “Can you know their hearts”, that comment wouldn’t fly. To see it now brought up here seems inconsistent.
(MN: The difficulty with the comparison is that here, in this discussion, we are talking about a difference of opinion about the idea of graciousness and how it should be applied. Disagreement does not equal evil. No saint is abused in the disagreement. With the pimps we are speaking of a demonstrated willingness to live large at the expense of the sheeple, a willingness to preach contradictions to the essentials of the faith, a willingness to control the behavior of those who are a part of the organization, and often a willingness to take advantage (sexually and otherwise) of the members. I don’t believe there is any real equivalence between what we are discussing and the activities of the pimps covered on the site. )
If only they had their own plane, this unfortunate event never would have happened.
Eucatastrophe,
Do you mean a G5 like the other pimps have?
Kyle
That’s right Kyle - a G5…the new Bentley of the pimp air force. If Smiling Joel doesn’t already have one, I’m sure he’ll get his own Air Pimp One so Ms. Vicky can slap the help around without having to deal with outsiders.
In my local paper, check out what the the victim’s psychiatrist asserts:
I’ve stated this on another blog, but if this lady can squeeze a few dollars out of a pimpette for “damaging her faith”, then Eddie Long and Andre Landers owe me a few dollars too!
May set a precedence! New area of litigation, its like getting a refund on your tithes and offerings.
I heard that is lady is trying to get a large sum of money from this incident. She claims she has developed all these problems (medically and pyschologically). Man give me a break, Victoria has been fined already! Seems to me that Ms. Brown is trying to get paid. I hope she doesn’t get a dime!
(MN: Based on what I have seen so far, I don’t think much of Ms. Brown. It really looks like she is out to capitalize as much as possible on the event. However, her reported reaction doesn’t in any way mitigate Miss Vickie’s alleged initial behavior.
By the way, the fine is from the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and has nothing to do with the personal interactions. It’s a little like being in an accident, getting a ticket from the cops, and then getting sued by the people you hit. One has little to do with the other. )
alrighty now! it’s 8/8/08 and just watch- at precisely 8:08 and 8 seconds this evening SOMETHING is going to happen! you just wait and see!!
Mav,
Don’t be discouraged. Please remain faithful and send in your seed harvest. God has personally told me that 8:08 “pm” EST is the moment of blessing. As of right now it’s only 2:04 pm on the East Coast so you still have time.
Kyle
Stop! you are not in China..lol..8:08p on 8-08-2008..lol
The blessing has already been received by the parents of the twins born on 08/08/08 at 8:08 weighing 8 lbs. 8 oz. If you didn’t sow your seed, you missed it!!!
I don’t know if all of this pertains to this subject Melvin but I didn’t know Victoria Osteen wa a co-pastor. That’s news to me. Now it makes a lot of sense,which brings me to my next question: I live in San Antonio and there are a number of women pastors in churches and you do know some of them through the Air Force. Are these women aware of the biblical mandate in scripture of women not lording over men especially in the Lord’s church? It may seem likea silly question but I am curious about that. They should know better! What excuse could they give when it’s in scripture? Thank you!
Why do the Osteens fly commercial anyway? I’m surprised they don’t have a private jet(s). Ala Kenny Copeland. What kind of world do we live in when rich false ministers don’t have their own plane? LOL!
Much love for using the craziest picture of the woman out there that really made my night
Thanks for the background on what happened I never would’ve guess such a big “Christian” name would’ve gotten caught up over something so trivial.
These people are not saved as some have pointed. A saved person would have made a mistake or acted in an unchristian like manner and would have apologized and moved on. The fact that this woman has not apologized says a great deal to me that she is not a Christian.
Yochee said: The fact that this woman has not apologized says a great deal to me that she is not a Christian.
Wow….So now we are calling into question this woman’s salvation, based upon the fact that she didn’t apologise.
I can’t believe you wrote that…..
DMac, I can’t believe you wrote that …
Absolutely YES, this woman’s salvation is called into question according to Matthew 7:15-23 … her failure to apologize (among many other things she does or fails to do) is indeed a fruit whereby we shall know her!
These scriptures are NOT ambiguous. Not only do they explain to us how we shall know false prophets and ravening wolves … they also are pretty straightforward as to what their fates will be. We have an obligation to recognize pimps for who they are and judge them by their fruit! If we fail to do that, then we also fail in our duty to warn the bretheren! Isn’t that the purpose of this site?
People: Please be careful in evaluating a person’s relationship with Jesus Christ via a missed apology. This woman can have “problem areas” in her life that the Holy Spirit is working on to conform her to his image and this incident may be part of that proving ground that we all are going through or will be going through. Her salvation is not based upon this incident of no apology. If so, we are all in danger of hell’s fire if we miss a chance to do right and fail to do it…much less for failing to make an apology. That approach is too legalistic and not of grace. Should one apologize for their transgressions? Yes. But if one does not apologize and hardens their heart, does that mean that they just “lost their salvation?” No. Why The Holy Spirit will continue to convict us of sin and unrighteousness in our lives including a missed apology. I do not remember Moses apologizing for his murder nor do I remember the apostles apologizing for their desertion of Jesus in his time of need. Where is the apology of Peter to Paul for Peter’s acts of intolerance that Paul caught him in? Balance…balance..balance.
I do agree… I don’t want to judge her eternity based on this. I’m no Osteen fan but I wouldn’t be surprised if the stewardess may be trying to get a quick buck…
Lafe said:
But if one does not apologize and hardens their heart, does that mean that they just “lost their salvation?” No. Why The Holy Spirit will continue to convict us of sin and unrighteousness in our lives including a missed apology.
My response:
A missed apology may not seal the fate of one’s salvation, or lack thereof, but it does tell you where their walk with God is situated. I don’t know, I’m torn on this one.
You see, a truly saved person, from where I’m standing, will admit to a wrong doing, especially if the wrongdoing is so blatant, and obvious. A true Christian will have the Holy Spirit convict them, to where an apology, is rendered, or at the very least, a change of heart/or action, is rendered.
Too many “christians” commit all types of evil, and never feel convicted in the least bit-why is that? Is it possible that they’ve created a god in their own image, whereby holiness is not required?
Oh don’t get me wrong, as Christians, we can fall into sin, but if the majority of that sin is conscious sin, and extreme acts of misconduct, then again, I have to question your present walk with God, and where you are situated, and/or your salvation, in that you may not be saved at all.
Too many people don’t apologize for their blatant wrong doing, not because they think they’re right, but because their pride will not allow themselves to apologize. This leads many people to try and justify their obvious errors, because of their flesh not wanting to take personal hits.
Lafe said:
I do not remember Moses apologizing for his murder
My response:
If you’re referring to his killing the Egyptian, well-I think that was apart of God’s overall plan for Moses’ life.
Simply put, there was no need for an apology or repentance from Moses’, seeing as how if he didn’t kill the cruel taskmaster of an Egyptian, he wouldn’t have fleed, and, you know the rest of the story…
Lafe said:
nor do I remember the apostles apologizing for their desertion of Jesus in his time of need.
My response:
They really didn’t have to, because it was prophesied that they would do so, so as to fulfill scripture. This is why they had to see the resurrected Christ, and be imbued with power from on high, on the day of Pentecost, so that the episode of running from the Savior, will never be repeated.
Instead, the power of the Holy Spirit imbued these apostles with power to run towards the Saviour, while willingly giving their lives for him.
Lafe said:
Where is the apology of Peter to Paul for Peter’s acts of intolerance that Paul caught him in?
My response:
An apology may have been made, but the fact that Paul rebuked Peter to his face, without any report of Peter rebuking Paul back, or arguing with Paul over the issue, gives us an idea of Peter’s potential penitent heart.
Lafe said:
Balance…balance..balance.
My response:
You’re right about that…
Amen…..
Please forgive for being blunt, but I am tired of so called Christians behaving badly in the public eye and feel they are only accountable to God and not to their fellow man. being a follower of Jesus Christ is a lifestyle. This is a so called co-pastor who is trodding God’s word under their feet in front of over 40,000 people weekly and millions via the airwaves.
If this woman was filled with Holy Spirit, she would would have been convicted; asked the Lord for forgiveness and asked the woman to forgive her. Maybe this woman who is unsaved would have seeing Christ in this in this woman and would have seeing what Christianity is all about. Yet, what we see is co-pastor that has “lust of the flesh, the “lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” and 1 John 2:16 says, “that is in the world and not of the Father but is of the world.” I simply reiterating what the Word of God says.
Lafe:
At the time Moses murdered the Egyptian who was beating on a Hebrew in Exo 2, did Moses know the God who created the heavens and earth or the Egyptian gods? Secondly, the Holy Spirit did not come down on the disciples yet to convict them. Even though, Peter’s conscience bothered him so much in Luke 22:62 after deserting Jesus, he “went out and wept bitterly.”
I am not judging someone’s motives or their hearts. I am judging based on the actions they have committed or lack there of.
I call it like I see it. If they twist scripture to benefit themselves, do not walk according to what the word of God says, then he/she are not saved. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Quack Quack, Or AFLAC.
Yochee: Have you heard or seen the profession of faith of this woman? Do you know what is in her heart as it relates to saving faith in Jesus Christ?
Moses, from his parents, knew of the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob. I would agree with you if you could show a pattern and a practice of Joel’s wife acting in contra to the Word. If so, then you could type cast her as a carnal Christian but to state that she is unsaved due to a lack of an apology…that is legalistic and you being judgmental about one’s future destination. A call that I am not willing to make based over this tempest in a teapot. I would like to be a fly on the wall and watch your 24/7 so I can say…”Ah haa…Yochee did this or said that or Yochee failed to do this or that…matter of fact, Yochee does the following regularly and therefore he/she is not saved: pick one or more:
[1] overeats
[2] constantly watches questionable TV programs
[3] drives past the posted speed limits
[4] does not tip waiters a fair amount
[5] waste copy paper at work
[6] buys clothes and returns them for a full refund even after he/she wore them
[7] keeps library books past their due date
[8] does not pay her bills on time
[9] does not exercise and thus is abusing her/his temple
[10]….you insert a favored one here……
Get the point? All of the above “apologies” could show a non Christian that your lifestyle is no better than theirs. Lighten up! A missed apology will not cause her to lose her salvation. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God…including Joel’s wife. Now, if you meet her and she denies the basic truths of orthodoxy christianity…then we have a problem.
(MN: Actually, we have problem. She does deny some of the basic tenets of Christianity. She and her husband preach that faith is a substance and you can use it just like God did to create the universe. Her husband says Mormons are Christians too since they believe in Jesus Christ. She and her husband have a very distorted view of the nature of man.
Have I HEARD her say these thing? No. But she has heard her husband say these things and she still works for the organization, promoting it, speaking for it, and being supported by it. I’ll maintain that the best we can say is that this event is simply one indicator in a long line of indicators of what’s not there.
Is Carlton Pearson saved? Or Oral Roberts? Or how about Ken Copeland? )
I have personally read Copeland’s positions on the basic “non-negotiables” of the faith and he denies several tenets that places him danger of hell’s fires unless he still repents. As for Pearson and Roberts I have not read their comments wherein they deny Jesus is God in the flesh and the need for repentance from sin and Jesus is the Christ. Yes, I know about Pearson’s universalism rant but if someone can direct me to his writings wherein he denies the Christ, I am willing to read that material. I am familiar with Joel’s nonsense and if his wife co signs that gibberish she needs to repent also before it is too late. As for O. Roberts, I am not up on his latest testimonies about Jesus and proper doctrine…save his outlandish statements he has made about faith healing in the past. Yes, his wife should have apologized at some time about this incident but I am not willing to make a doctrinal stance on the lack of an apology evidencing a non christian lifestyle unless it is part and parcel of an ongoing pattern and practice so that I can say without a doubt that… “by their fruits you can identify them.” If she and Joel are doing an Annanias and Sapphira duet then she is judged by the company that she keeps including doctrinal error that she supports via his “ministry.” Simply stated, an apology or lack thereof, does not for me, indicate one’s standing with the Lord.
(MN: The Christ is not the only essential. Hell is an essential. Jesus’ death on the cross (not suffering in hell) is an essential. Man as man and not a god is an essential. Roberts and company all sign up for these. Creflo denies that Jesus was God while here on earth, etc, etc, etc )
Hi Lafe:
just 1 question. How can you lose something you never had?
Yochee: You do not know what she had…just as we don’t know what you have. Do not let a slipped apology throw you for a loop. There is more to nit picking and being legalistic than seeing that an apology was not made. Sure, it should have been made just the same as when you go over the speed limit, I do not see you turning yourself in to law enforcement and voluntarily paying a ticket. Not a good Christian example to speed and not do something about it…that is, if you are in fact really saved. I do not know but if you are a speeder then that is not a Christian lifestyle and thus you are not setting a good example for others and as such I/we can call into account your relationship with Christ. Matter if fact Yochee…it appears that I have heard rumors that you are five pounds overweight and thus you are not honoring your temple…not a good witness to non Christians. Have you repented of this overindulgence or just hoping no one sees you overdosing on caramel chocolate ice cream and burgers dripping in mayo and cheese or is it cheese fries that clocks you out? You strain at gnats and let major issues go unchecked.
Lafe: This is pointless. You have an issue with the fact that I said this woman is not saved based on her adhering to false doctrine and her not apologizing for the bad behavior. There is no point to discuss this any further. Peace
Now Melvin,
I suggested to you that there was a way to both warn people about false teachers and to keep from further feeding negative stereotypes about Christians. You hotly disagreed. (and wrongly disagreed I might add) You even accused me of trying to “attract” sinners, which I never said. However… (MN: We’re not going around in that circle again. )
Why didn’t you warn Yochee about the fallacy of attracting non-believers with our behavior? Didn’t you see this statement?:
“Maybe this woman who is unsaved would have seeing Christ in this in this woman and would have seeing what Christianity is all about.”
Would it happen to be because Yochee agrees with you about Mrs. Olsteen, hmmm?
(MN: Our discussion was about the site and what purposes it should fill. His/her comment was about a person who professes to be a Christian and the impact his poor behavior can have. Why would I say anything at all since there was nothing said about the purpose of this site? )
Our discussion was not about the site and it’s purposes, my comment was about YOUR behavior on THIS site and how it may contribute to negative stereotypes that unbelievers have about Christians. This is the same thing that Yochee said about Mrs. Olsteen’s behavior and you said nothing. Does Mrs. Olsteen have to hold to a higher standard than Melvin Jones?
It seems you want to hide behind the “purpose of the site” banner in order to defend your behavior. You don’t seem to see the inconsistency. And you don’t seem to recognize that “the purpose of this site” does excuse you from obeying the clear commands and imperatives given in scripture for Christian behavior.
So yes, we are going around in that circle again. But only a few more times. I realize what pride can do in blinding us from our own sin. So I also realize this may be a complete waste of my time.
(MN: I don’t agree with your assertion that the site behaves badly, or that I behave badly. I’m certainly not hiding behind any thing to defend my behavior. Just as you believe my behavior was not acceptable, I believe it was. The FAA also agrees with the assertion that Miss Vickie behaved badly. You can sit here all day long and say that the site does behave badly and that I behave badly. You certainly have that right. I, equally, can sit here all day long and say that neither the site nor I behave badly.
I can sit here and say you are misapplying Galatians. You can sit here and say you are not.
Now what?
There is no more comparison between what Miss Vickie was fined for doing and your assertion that I am behaving badly any more than there is a comparison between Clarence McLendon divorcing his wife for a new one and my disagreeing with you about the application of Galatians. No, you didn’t make the comparison. I’m using it as an illustration, an example.
At the risk of sounding dictatorial, this conversation is not going to continue to go around in circles. If you have something other than “Melvin you’re being inconsistent because you are not seeing that you do the same sort of thing she did” then I’m not seeing much of a need to keep this particular thread going. Do you have anything else?
You are at AOL.com - dacus? I’ll shoot you an e-mail and perhaps we can continue the discussion off line until we both get tired. )
I have an interesting stat for everyone I use in my trainings/presentations. There are three things that impact a message that you communicate: body language, voice tone, and words. Studies have found that 58% of the impact comes from body language. 35% of the impact comes from voice tone and only 7% percent is from words. The old saying, “It’s not what you say, but how you say it.” applies in our communication.
When we communicate by email or blogs we are missing the body language and voice tone portion of the message. So, many times we project body language and voice tone into the message, because we do not experience them with the person. That is way we have things like “LOL”, so the person on the other end knows it is a joke.
I guess what I’m trying to say is at times it is difficult to resolve a disagreement by blogging. Just something to consider.
Melvin,
Where is the use of Galatians 6 anywhere in my post? My first response to you in this thread about the usage of that verse was:
“While I don’t agree with his usage of Galatians 6 in regards to this particular woman (I have my doubts about the authenticity of her Christianity), I do agree with the Colossians 4 admonishment. “Gracious” by definition implies that you give undeserved, unearned and even unwarranted favor to her even as an unbeliever.”
Now let’s look at two that I believe I can use:
II Timothy 2:24-26 (NASB) The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but BE KIND TO ALL, able to teach, patient when wronged, with GENTLENESS correcting THOSE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION, IF PERHAPS God may grant them REPENTANCE LEADING TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”
Let’s make some observations and see how we measure up:
1. This passage says the Lord’s bond-servant must be kind to all. Are you being kind to all Melvin? You can’t redefine “kind” here nor can you hide behind “the purpose of this site”. You should answer yes or no.
2. It also says that the correction should be with gentleness. How you doing there Mel?
3. It also says that the gentle correction should have the repentance of the one being corrected as it’s goal. Now Mel, I can’t count how many times you’ve used “the purpose of this site is not to get the pimp to repent it is to warn the sheeple away from the pimp.”. But this text teaches the exact opposite. You still with me Mel?
Let’s turn over to the most popular Apologetics text in the world: I Peter 3:15. Let’s add verse 16 for good measure. It reads, “But santify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, YET WITH GENTLENESS AND REVERENCE; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing which you are slandered, those who revile your GOOD BEHAVIOR IN CHRIST will be put to shame.”
1. Now Mel, your protection or warning of the sheeple boils down as a defense of the truth. This ultimately qualifies as the hope that is in you. However, there’s the stipulation that this is to be done with gentleness and reverence. If you’d be honest, at times your posts lack gentleness, unless you redefine it. And please don’t use the “Jesus wasn’t gentle with the Pharisees” defense. You aren’t Jesus. You don’t have His position, authority or mission. And your instructions are in these verses, not in His dealings with them.
(MN: A couple of things: I am not explaining the hope that lies within me to any of the subjects of this site. I believe if you look at the context you will see that the verse is not an absolute statement. Paul [and you're right, I'm not Paul or Jesus. But if it was not wrong for them, it is not wrong for me] was not gentle with the wolves either. Unless you consider calling someone a wolf to be gentle. By the way, He is our example. He is the one whose image I am to be conformed to. His behavior is instructive for my behavior. Otherwise, the imperative for me to love my wife as Christ loved the Church is invalid. I can even expect to be persecuted because I am no better than my Master.
But even here, we apparently disagree on things. That is why I have said the discussion is going no where.
When I speak to those who are ensared by the pimps and who give an indication that they interested in what is being said, I am quite gentle. )
So far as Colossians 4:5-6, I’ve already pointed out the command (not suggestion) that our words be with grace. Now again, unless you want to define grace or graciousness, then you must admit that the post on this site do not always live up to this command.
(MN: Again, the command is not a universal one. Otherwise Jesus broke His own imperative. See my previous comment. )
Melvin, my intention is not to call your ministry into question as somehow false or illegitimate. I don’t believe you to be a hypocrite, a liar, or bitter. My desire was only to get you to take a second look at the issue as to whether or not you were being biblical in your handling of these matters. And to see if there may have been any validity to what Lionel or I was saying. That’s it.
(MN: And I have repeatedly said that I don’t believe you are applying the verses you reference correctly. Continuing to point to them doesn’t make them valid for this situation. While all Scripture is true, not all Scripture is equally applicable in all situations.
I really don’t want to go around in circles with you. I disagree with your application here. Again, unless you have something new to add, or unless the readers out there say they wish for this discussion to continue, we’re done. )
Well Yochee, my gut instinct is that this woman isn’t truly saved. I discern her as being at heart, a cold hearted woman, who views the “ministry” as big business. For all of Joel’s false teaching, I do believe he may be more sincere in what he’s doing, more so than his wife, who’s just along for the ride…
Lafe…Great post….
lafe, you stepped all over my toes! i routinely keep library books past their due date. shame on me. :o(
Can someone have a bad day? I’m not saying that what happened was cool but dont tell me that you don’t snap every now and then….
Nikster, Lafe, and any of the rest of you who publicly make excuses for Victoria Osteen, if you have ears to hear, then let you hear …
YES, everyone has a bad day from time to time … and YES, I do believe that even Mrs. Osteen is entitled to have a bad day too in all fairness to her … BUT the problem lies in the fact that this particular bad day (which has landed her in court) happened THREE YEARS AGO, and yet she has not made any attempt during those three years to put this episode behind her according to Matthew 5:23-26. Much has already been said here about her failure to forgive and her failure to ask forgiveness (AKA “reconciliation”) and how that concept is such a basic tenet of christianity … after all, (dare I say it?) … our very SALVATION depends upon an understanding of it! Mrs. Osteen has displayed “zero” understanding of that concept … NADA!!!! It is not the only reason I believe the woman is not a christian, but it is one of the many fruit on the “Victoria Osteen Tree” whereby I know her to be a wolf … i.e. an unsaved individual!
Furthermore, with the position that Mrs. Osteen has, being the co-pastor of the largest church in this nation, if she and her husband expect their congregants to possess a lifestyle of forgiveness in order to “Become a Better You,” then her own failure to forgive or ask forgiveness while being in such a position of leadership is the height of hypocrisy!!
I really don’t want to keep going on about this, because like Yochee said, it appears that this is getting to be pointless. It is apparent that those of you who insist on giving this woman the benefit of the doubt in regards to her salvation, where no doubt exists, will not see it any other way no matter the evidence to the contrary. But there are still a few things that I wish to address before I too wash my hands of this, so please indulge me just a little longer.
Lafe, you said that
But the Bible says in James 4:17 that if someone knows to do the right thing and doesn’t do it, to him it is sin. Doesn’t this indicate the absolute NEED for Mrs. Osteen (and all of us) to humble ourselves and seek the forgiveness we need? I thank our Lord immensely for the forgiveness He provides, for like you said, we would ALL be in danger of hellfire without it. But even something as simple as the Lord’s prayer tells us that our Lord forgives us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us! This is (or at least should be) very BASIC knowledge for any christian, and yet Mrs. Osteen displays an incredible lack of spiritual maturity in this area, not to mention just plain old maturity as a human being! She acts like a spoiled little rich high school girl who didn’t get her way! And this lack of maturity in areas that differentiate “baby” christians from adults brings us back to the question as to why she holds the position of teacher and co-pastor of her church?
I think the desire by many of you to tread lightly around someone else’s salvation is understandable to a point, but sometimes there are things that we “just know” based on the evidence. The Bible clearly sets our standard to judge the evidence of sin, and if that makes me “legalistic,” then I am sorry you feel that way, but I just see what I see and do my best to judge what I see according to the Scriptures as best as I can. And there is nothing legalistic or unchristlike in doing so, because the Scriptures require it of us!
One last thing I would like to touch on before I stop is that I find it very difficult to understand why so many of you appear to stand in defense of a pimpette here, because that is exactly what you are doing! If we are to to follow through with Lafe’s (and some other’s) line of thinking and be persuaded that Mrs. Osteen is a christian who is just going through a “tough spot”, then let’s just go all out and assume the rest of the pimps are christians too! After all, wouldn’t that be in keeping with his contention that perhaps they have “problem areas” in their lives that the Holy Spirit is working on to conform them to His image?? We need to get real and listen to what is being said here people! Some of the implications that are being made are really becoming absurd!!!
People: I am not making excuses for her conduct or lack thereof. What I am assessing is the vitriol of the comments against her! We are talking about whether or not an apology from Joel’s wife would cement her position in the pantheons of heaven. The answer is no. When we subtract the anger and jealousy against her husband and their wealth and her idea that she is entitled to a cloistered life with no bumps or bruises (presumably many of the commentators here are going up the “rough side of da’ mountain”) what we have left is a woman who is going to be judged by God for her deeds done in the flesh. We can make our assessements but in the final analysis it is what matters to God.
Could she have said I am sorry and thus restored your faith in her? Yes. Did she? No. Why? She believes that she has an issue with this stewardess apart from the unexcusable conduct of interfering with the pilot (MN: Actually, the aircrew, which includes the stewardii ) and for which she got off very lightly and that was probably due to her status.
I do not and will not defend pimps or pimpettes but as a lawyer I will not sit idly by and be taken in by specious arguments based upon personality issues or the photograph of her which makes her out to be a goofball. I am only asking for someone who has personal knowledge of this person to come forth and state under penalty of oath that they have asked her about her claim of saving faith in Jesus Christ and that she denied it or denied the atonement or denied that Jesus is God in the flesh or that the blood of Calvary does not cleanse up from our sins.
So, would all of the eager rock throwers please line up, take a number and on the count of P-h-a-r-i-s-e-e-, please cast the stones at her and walk away feeling good and clean about your lives. Ready?….let’s start the count. Yochee…you go first.
Lafe,
I have already addressed the question as to my perceived anger. I am not angry at Mrs. Osteen, nor am I “jealous” of her riches. I think that what is happening is a misconception of what we are actually talking about here. You said that “we are talking about whether or not an apology from Joel’s wife would cement her position in the pantheons of heaven.” That is not what I am talking about here. I am not saying that if she forgives the stewardess she will be welcomed into “the pantheons of heaven.” Nor am I saying that if she had said she was sorry, that she could have “restored my faith in her.” I have never had faith in her my friend.
I believe I have sufficiently stated my point that Mrs. Osteen simply doesn’t understand the concept of forgiving or seeking forgiveness, and that those are basic tenets of the christian faith, for without them how can she know her need for salvation in the first place. I have also stated that her refusal to submit to the written Will of God in this area is ONE of the fruits whereby we know her. So to make my point abundandly clear, what I am saying is that she shows evidence of not being saved to begin with!! It is not a matter of me being angry at her for not acting in a christian-like manner because ALL non-christians do that … am I angry at the world for acting worldly? No. The fact is, Mrs. Osteen is trying to pass herself off as a christian and is showing the fruit of a wolf. Really, I think our respective arguments are flying right past each other because of our different ideas of what we really ARE talking about here. You say it is one thing and I say it is another and so we disagree on all other points because we are not in agreement on the MAIN point!
Furthermore, I disagree with you again when you when you say you are not “defending” her. I do not often make comments on this site, but I have been an avid reader since 2005, and I have seen MANY of the tactics used by pimp defenders here. Usually they begin by accusing us of spouting “vitriol” against the pimp in question. Oftentimes they accuse us of being “angry” or “jealous” of their wealth because we are probably “going up the rough side of da mountain.” I also here them tell us quite often that God is the judge (implying that we should keep our mouths off of them because “in the final analysis it is what matters to God.”). Then there are those who claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about because we don’t have a “personal knowledge” of the pimp in question. What about “P-h-a-r-a-s-e-e-s” that cast the first stones … has anyone here been accused of that by the sheeple? And finally, rationalizations are presented to excuse their behavior.
Lafe, you have presented EACH of these tactics that are regrettably all too common in pimp defenders, so when you say you “do not and will not defend pimps and pimpettes,” (excuse me for being so blunt) … You are talking out of both sides of your mouth!
Do we know for certain that Mrs. Osteen hasn’t attempted to come to some reaonable agreement regarding her offensive behavior on the flight? Do we know for certain that her opponent or her opponent’s lawyer would have been willing to talk? Do we think Mrs. Osteen should be willing to cough up millions for the bad act to make peace? Perhaps paying the exhorbitant amount would be like giving someone your coat and cloak!
Do we know without contoversy that all that the alleged victim has said is true? Even if Mrs. Osteen acted badly on the day in question (I believe she has. She could have sat on a magazine for 10 mins while the crew got it together…sheesh) should she allow herself to be robbed because a woman saw an opportunity for a financial windfall?
Regarding salvation lost or maintained: Behavior should conform to whether or not it is Christ like and biblically appropriate.
If we had found out three years from now that behind closed doors, Mrs. Osteen had settled out of court for a particular amount of money would we have accused her of bad behavior then also? I think she may be in a loss/loss situation here.
PS I think I may have placed this comment in the wrong “reply here” section. I am responding to seekerman, sorry. I am truly repentant, really.
BooBoo said:
“YES, everyone has a bad day from time to time … and YES, I do believe that even Mrs. Osteen is entitled to have a bad day too in all fairness to her … BUT the problem lies in the fact that this particular bad day (which has landed her in court) happened THREE YEARS AGO, and yet she has not made any attempt during those three years to put this episode behind her according to Matthew 5:23-26. Much has already been said here about her failure to forgive and her failure to ask forgiveness (AKA “reconciliation”) and how that concept is such a basic tenet of christianity … after all, (dare I say it?) … our very SALVATION depends upon an understanding of it! Mrs. Osteen has displayed “zero” understanding of that concept … NADA!!!! It is not the only reason I believe the woman is not a christian, but it is one of the many fruit on the “Victoria Osteen Tree” whereby I know her to be a wolf … i.e. an unsaved individual!”
My response:
There was much truth in what you said, and for folks not to understand this position, but pretend to be so high and mighty in Christian discernment, with the claim that folks who don’t see their point of view, aren’t right thinking when it comes to spiritual matters-are being SELF-RIGHTEOUS.
You know, the type of false righteousness a person can have, where the person feels that open and progressive stances on biblical issues are the epitome of enlightenment, simply because they find loopholes in excusing unchristian like behavior.
Ok Mr. Boo Boo! The media doesn’t tell everthing and you still can’t put her in hell. And for the record I don’t even watch these Joes on tv nor do I send them my “MORE”gage payments in hopes that God will send me more.
Let’s look at this from a legal stand point. Her lawyers have probably told her to shut her pie hole and not say a word ….and If she apologizes that would make her GUILTY…………… You only heard one side of the story Mr. Boo Boo…The other Lady may have something to profit from this……..Chah Ching!!!! Hello!!!! But then I wouldn’t blame the lady for even fabricating a story…She’s probably ticked off that her tithes and offering went towards that pretty little dress and those smoking pumps Joes wife was wearing on the plane. Lighten Up Mr. Boo Boo cause God is watching you too!
(MN: Actually, the stewardess has, through some things she has said, made herself look pretty silly. I beleive she said she does not and has not attended Lake of Firewood church.
But of course, the issue is not whether the woman is crazy. The issue is whether or not the woman was damaged emotionally AFTER Miss Vickie went Medieval on her buttocks. And remember, the woman is suing because of what she claims is the result of Miss Vickie’s action. THAT is what the trial is about.
As I’ve said previously, the FAA fined Miss Vickie and Miss Vickie paid the fine. She has already admitted guilt in interfering with a member of the air crew. The current trial is not about her guilt. The current trial is a personal damages law suit in which Miss Brown is claiming that Miss Vickie gave Miss Brown hemorrhoids and destroyed her faith. It’s not about whether or not Miss Vickie roughed her up. )
First of all, I would like to state that I agree completely with Cheryl’s recent comment about body language, voice tone, and words … My speech class in university supports her stats, so let me make clear in words that I usually do not write in anger when I comment here. My comments are usually written in a sense of astonishment at some of the incredulous assertions that are being made, and with a determined propensity for truth as defined by Scripture and not by what Seekerman so accurately describes as “false righteousness” that some people here are trying to impose on those of us who DARE to question another’s salvation.
Having said that, I hesitate to assume that Nikster’s comment to me was made in anger, although I do detect a degree of sarcasm in his/her reference to me as “Mr. Boo Boo.” Nikster, it appears that my words have struck a nerve with you, so allow me to clarify a few things:
You said:
I am not trying to “put her in hell.” I do not have the power to put anyone in hell. What I am trying to get across is that as long as she thumbs her nose at our Lord with her pride and lack of humility, she is putting herself in hell!”
You said:
I never thought, nor did I say that you watch them on T.V. or that you send them your “MORE”gage payments! But you DO make excuses for their behavior by chocking it up to them “having a bad day.” There is a difference between supporting a pimp with your substance and trying to impose your sense of righteousness on others.
You implore us to
I submit you you that if Mrs. Osteen had a working knowledge of the Bible, and basic christian conduct, she would not have ever been in NEED of lawyers to tell her to “shut her pie hole!” Nevertheless, do you believe that violating scripture because a lawyer says so makes it okay? If Mrs. Osteen truly felt that the flight attendant’s treatment of her was wrong, why could she allow herself to be wronged or cheated? In the same sermon (Matthew 5) in which Jesus Himself tells us to “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge,” He tells us “turn the other cheek,” and that if any man sue us at the law to take away our coat we should give him our cloak also; He tells us to walk two miles instead of one; to give to him who would borrow from us and turn him not away. But probably the most difficult thing He commands us to do here is “to love our enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Nikster, I ask you, “is it okay to ignore these commandments of Jesus Himself because a lawyer tells us to??” But I say again, if Mrs. Osteen had a working knowledge of the Bible, and this basic christian conduct, she would not have ever been in NEED of lawyers to tell her to “shut her pie-hole!”
You said
I agree with you on this Nikster! In fact, I have already said as much in one of my posts farther up in which I responded to Mrs. Mav when she said she was skeptical about the stewardesses claim. This is not an issue with me, and if you would read my comments objectively, you would have known that.
You said
Melvin has already quite eloquently addressed this to you, and I have nothing further to add.
And finally you conclude by implying that I too may be guilty of some unspecified wrong …
Nikster, we have ALL sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that includes ME. I am not so full of self-righteousness and prideful that I cannot admit to that. But there is a difference between me and Mrs. Osteen, and that is that I have an acute knowledge of my shortcomings and understand the price that my Savior has paid on the cross to provide the forgiveness I so desperately need to move beyond them. That is the entire theme of what I am trying to explain here … christians NEED to understand the concept of forgiveness, for without it how can we be saved? I rejoice that my name is written in heaven.
Man Mel, you shouldn’t messed with the Victoria, especially after you posted up a picture of her. It brought out a lot of latent chivalry from the men on this site, who detested the fact that you took a shot at what they view as an attractive woman. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Next time you’ll know not to go too far. Remember, you can criticize pimpettes, they just better not look like Crissy Snow from “Three’s Company.”
So next time know your place, and play your position.
BOY!
I meant to say in the first sentence, of the first paragraph:
“Man Mel, you shouldn’t have messed with the Victoria, especially after you posted up a picture of her…”
Sorry to go off topic but the purpose driven guy is going to host a political debate. I would use a common internet slang but given the focus of this site I’ll give the beginning and you guys can fill in the rest WT?
Though I can tell from the timing of the posts that seekerman could not have been referring to my previous post. Let me say this: I in no way at all find that woman attractive. Believe me. She is too skinny, too plastic and has a wrong doctrine that would make for daily fights. She doesn’t come near my type at all! Besides (at the risk of sounding racist) I only like the dark meat on the chicken and turkey………selah
St. James, you’re right, I wasn’t referring to any post you put down on this thread. Rather, I was throwing my shoe down a different alley.
Well, I guess somebody on this site made a huge seed offering, (was that you Melvin) …Victoria beat the rap. Incredible.. if it was me and I made a scene on a airplane…I would still be in handcuffs being tasered by a Federal Air Marshall.
Marcus,
I think this lawsuit was brought by the victim not the airlines. That being said the plaintiffs allegations of hemorrhoids and losing her faith was a little absurd. Nonetheless Vicky is still a Pimpstress.
Kyle
Lake Of Firewood Church!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! I’m laughing my buns off!!! I know where I can come when I want a good laugh!!! Are you sure you weren’t supposed to be a stand up comic….. And that Pic of Joel’s wife….Priceless……….
(MN: As with most clever things on this site, one of the readers came up with that moniker.)
I am no fan of Osteen, but it appears the airline flight attendant was perhaps the Pimpette in this situation - claims that she suffered injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Things that make you go hummm…. Maybe the Osteens will see the light of what they do and what this flight attendent did?
(MN: I would agree. The LAWSUIT seemed nothing more than an attempt to bilk the Osteens of some money. However, as someone pointed out, it would never have happened if Miss Vickie had not behaved so badly. I sincerely doubt that the woman got hemorrhoids just ’cause Miss Vickie body checked her. )
Mark, I really doubt the Osteens “will see the light of what they do”. It would seem that perhaps this proves to them their false gospel of entitlement really works - they were the “head and not the tail” once again. I agree that the flight attendant’s claims were absurd, and had she been truly assaulted physically, charges should have been filed by Ms. Brown.
Victoria Osteen’s prima dona behavior in demanding immediate care on a busy flight (which seemed confirmed in court testimony) will be shrugged off by her adoring congregation. I didn’t hear that she or Joel apologized after the trial for the snooty behavior that got her there in the first place. If she had conducted herself in a humble manner, there would have been no FAA fine. I also wonder what happened between the time the witness for the plaintiff told Mr. McKamie her story, which aligned with what the flight attendants said, and when said witness appeared on the witness stand with a totally different account that shocked attorney McKamie, and pretty much tanked Ms Brown’s case along with the passengers’ and pilot’s testimonies. What made that witness turn “180 degrees” as Atty. McKamie stated? He would never had her on the stand to give such a damaging testimony to be met with glee by, and used by, Osteen’s attorney! Something seems amiss.
Also, I think McKamie’s inexperience was no match for Victoria Osteen’s “bevy of attorneys” as one news article put it. It did not appear that Sharon Brown had such a “bevy” as the moneyed Osteen’s could afford. I can’t help but observe that Osteen’s astute lawyering-up with well-know attorney’s ( and I am sure expensive ones) gave her an advantage. Sharon Brown’s excessive, seemly exagerated claims didn’t help her credibility from the get-go, either!
I have conflicting feelings regarding the jury’s verdict; I am glad a money-grab based on some alleged false accusations was thwarted on one hand, but I also wish there had been some admonition to Victoria Osteen to conduct herself with more propriety in public venues. The whole thing was an emarassment for Christians and a source of amusement for the world. Look for this incident to be used by the Osteens and their fans to assert God’s “favor” for Lakewood’s ministry. On the other hand , in Vickie praising God on hearing the verdict, the world( which sees the Osteens as respresentatives of Chrisitianity) may see this as the Lord protecting His own. On the other hand again, I just can’t stand an opportunity to be available with this verdict for the Osteens to capitalize upon and draw more biblically unstable Chrisitians into their false doctirines.
I pray that both sides of that court case understand their follies. In spite of all the questions I have, I know the Lord God is sovereign.
Now that’s what I’m talking about. What you’ve just outlined is what many quick to be self-righteous folks just don’t seem to get!
You hit the nail on the head, and I couldn’t have said it better myself. THANK YOU!
She got off, guys!
and she manages to get off scott free.
This whole thread = pointless to me…
Why is that Stephani? Because she got off scott free in the court of man? She is still a pimpette and has another trial coming … one in which she will not have lawyers; one in which plea-bargaining will not be an option (I know they didn’t do this); one in which ALL evidence both in thought and deed will be presented; one in which there will be no jury, and one in which she will not “get off” unless she repents. I am not personally disappointed or insulted that she got off in this case … Ms. Brown’s charges of hemorrhoids and post traumatic stress disorder were outrageous, and I wasn’t sitting on the edge of my seat hoping for the hammer to fall on Miss Vickie for that, but that in no way negates the fact that she acted very inappropriately as a so-called christian, and that fact has been brought to light. So really, the thread isn’t pointless as long as the bretheren are warned.
To Yochee and the Gang: A jury acquitted Mrs.Osteen wife of the allegations of an assault…in other words, they said that she did not do it. So…Yochee….you who was ranting for an apology…it appears that there is nothing to apologize for since according to the jury, nothing took place that required an apology. Now…do you care to change your rant for the apology or simply go away quietly and put the stones back on the stone pile?
(MN: No. This was not a criminal case. The key paragraph is, I believe:
San Antonio Newspaper
Melvin: criminal or civil…no difference. I am referring to the gist of this/these conversations being that of an apology that should have been uttered by Mrs. Osteen. A jury said: nothing happened…Mrs. Osteen did nothing wrong against her accuser. (MN: FAA says she did and she paid the fine. This appears to be the reverse of the OJ case. He was found innocent of murder charges but liable for damages as they relate to her death. Did she body check the stewardess? According to the jury - no. Did she interfere with the duties of the aircrew? According to the FAA, yes. ) If nothing was done wrong…what is there to apologize for? The whole kernel of this discussion was to size up the salvational experience and outworkings of Mrs. Osteen due to this incident on the plane..it being whether or not she is a pimpette or an aggressor. God will judge the pimpette issue and man has judge the aggressor issue and man has said: No. Is this a defense for her? In a legal sense yes. As to her professed doctrine…I do not agree with Joel’s doctrine and if Mrs. Osteen has ratified it by her conduct, I do not agree with her. Can either or both change? Absolutely. Saul became Paul. Anything is possible with God including Yochee and Boo Boo’s Dad both getting new web names and realizing that unless it is over…we do not know the final outcome of a person’s salvation experience unless that person
audibly and in actions wilfully renounces orthodoxy Christianity. If they do that, mark them and have nothing to do with them.
(MN: By the way, I don’t refer to her as a pimpette because of the incident on the plane. She was a pimpette before she ever stepped on the plane. )
The way I see it, questioning Ms. Osteen’s salvation over an issue like this is a little like examining a crack in the ceiling to explain why a house got blown away in a tornado. Meaning this: how can any believer here assume that people who have enriched themselves like the Osteens have off their “ministry” can be saved?
This fact about them (or anyone else who are rich the same way) makes the Osteens ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing (with smooth words dripping like saliva off those enormous teeth of his) if I understand at all what Jesus means by that term. The incident in the airplane is the crack in the ceiling, the tornado is their wealth and the house is their lives. In connection with their predatory self-help ministry, the airplane incident fits very well. They can praise the Lord all they want for the jury’s verdict, but will such goodness shown to them lead to repentance?
Either, her defenders here are unlearned and gullible believers (I was once); or, they themselves are wolves-in-training. There can’t be a third option. So, the question should not be “how dare anyone question her salvation over this incident,” but, rather, “how in the world can those two get saved after profiting off a worldly gospel?” The answer is if they both repent of ripping off the Body and restore this ill-gotten wealth somehow. Barring a major miracle (and a huge Zacchean effort), I don’t see that happening. If it does, I’ll be first in line to shower praise on them. Until then, I’ll “pick up a weapon, and stand a post” against them and all like them (the weapon being a vigilant use of the rightly-divided Word of God).
Boo Boo’s Dad: I again do not condone pimps or pimpettes. You can assume what you may from my remarks but I will not join the merry bandwagon and go at this woman because you have her classified as a “pimpette.” Talking out of both sides of my mouth? Is that translated that what I said you simply do not understand and it was not simplistic enough for you? We are talking about an apology not being given! Now, that she has been found not guilty and which also means THERE WAS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR…!!!!does that change your rage/venom or will you simply say that she dodged a bullet? Now, if she was found guilty…you and Yochee would be in high celebration and you could smile at your righteous remarks and you could strut your stuff for all to see and marvel at. Sorry. The verdict says: NO NEED FOR AN APOLOGY…YOU DID NOTHING WRONG MRS. OSTEEN! Boo Boo’s Dad and Yochee, I know that it (the not guilty verdict) is a bitter pill to swallow but I have found that if you take the pill with a small bit of humility and a touch of grace and a large serving of compassion, it goes down real nice!
Well, I hear what you’re saying and all, but just because a court doesn’t find you not guilty, doesn’t mean you’re truly not guilty.
I believe the FAA fined her for a reason. I mean, they just don’t fine folks ordinarily, for nothing at all.
I think this was a civil court trial, similar to OJ’s trial. He was found innocent of criminal activity in the criminal trial, but was found guilty in the civil trial, where he had to cough up some money.
In this case, it was just the reverse. Even though the FAA isn’t a “criminal court”, nor have criminal jurisdiction, nevertheless they, in their own way, found Victoria guilty of untoward behavior (behavior she may have not apologized for), whereas she was found innocent in a civil trial, that was seeking monetary (not criminal) damages.
I think this is how it broke down. I could be wrong…
Seekerman: I believe that the FAA found her in violation as to her attempts to interfere with the pilot/cockpit/cabin issues when she wanted to present her protests to the captain of the plane.
Now, if we go for jury nullification, we can absolve the jury of their verdict and place our opinion in lieu of theirs and still find Mrs. Osteen guilty because such a finding of guilt is what we seek in order to build up the rock pile and give her a good drubbing….after all, she deserves it. She is the wife of “that” Osteen apostate so we could club her along with her husband (the fact that I have not heard her personal testimony is only a small trifle that is in the way of the aim of my rock!).
Again, if she has written or spoken against orthodox christianity, I would say we can reprove her and rebuke her and with the hopes that she will repent and correct her doctines. If not, mark her and leave her alone. Some times, rich christians act just like worldly rich non christians…God loves them both…hates their sin but loves them both. Somewhat reminds me of how God did us.
Lafe said:
“I believe that the FAA found her in violation as to her attempts to interfere with the pilot/cockpit/cabin issues when she wanted to present her protests to the captain of the plane.”
My response:
And in the process, did she do what the plaintiff, and her witness, said she did, and that is elbow the attendant in the chest? That’s what I want to figure out.
Likewise, did she ever apologize for her behavior, based on the FAA fine, or did she just pay the fine, and said “Oh well,” to the rest.
Even though I wasn’t there, I do think something happened between the attendant and Victoria, HOWEVER, having said that, I didn’t believe in the bogus lawsuit, but I do believe Victoria should’ve offered an apology.
She should’ve been gracioius and offered an apology to someone, whether it be the FAA or the attendant, because she obviously was found guilty of something, for her to have paid a fine.
According to the FAA, Mrs. Osteen DID do something wrong - she and her family had to deplane after what the FAA called an “altercation” resulting in her hindering the air crew’s flight duties.
This caused a delay of more than 2 hours for the passengers on the flight as the Osteen’s baggage was pulled to be sent on its merry way to Vail.
As Melvin pointed out, the jury only had to decide if a physical assault took place that deemed the awarding of damages. Even a passenger testified that Mrs. Osteen had a war of words, or battle of the wills with the flight attendant, and inidcated that Osteen blocked the aisle inappropriately, but did not hit the flight attendant.
I think that this “battle of the wills” (which caused a disturbance serious enough to warrant them having to deplane and inconvenience the other passengers )deserves an apology from Mrs. Osteen. Although Ms. Brown was probably rude in return, Mrs. Osteen remembering that a “soft answer turneth away wrath” could have ameliorated the ignited situation, before they had toleave the plane…. before the FAA fine…before it all came this far…..
(MN: Good word, by the way. )
Lafe,
I have read other comments you have made elsewhere on this site and I realize that you do not necessarily defend ALL pimps and pimpettes, but you have ferociously defended this one! It’s as if you take PERSONALLY anything that has been said against her, and I am simply amazed by that … who is this woman to you what has she done to warrant such blind devotion and support? I am simply amazed and quite frankly dumbfounded how you cannot see her for what she is! I do not have anything personal against you Lafe, and I am certainly not trying to change your mind, but it appears that you do have something personal against me when it comes to me calling Mrs. Osteen a sinner in need of repentance. I said you were talking out of both sides of your mouth because you do indeed refuse to acknowledge that she is a pimpette and thus defend her, while at the same time saying you do not defend pimps. Additionally, for some reason, instead of trying to understand that I was calling you on this, you take offense at my words try to insult me as if I were too simplistic to understand. However you meant it, I shall take it as a compliment … I do admit, I try my best to keep things as simple as I can. I think the problem here lies in the fact that for some reason you do not think she is a pimpette and I do, and it is as simple as that.
Secondly, you keep telling me that what we are talking about is an apology not being given, and I have already told you that is not what I am talking about. Stop trying to drag me down a road that I am not trying to go down … how many times must I keep saying here that it is NOT about her lack of an apology with me???? Unsaved people do not (always) apologize for what they do, and I do not EXPECT Mrs. Osteen to do so, so why do you think that I am angry at her for not apologizing? And why do you assume that I am trying damn her to hell simply because she hasn’t apologized for the act on the plane???? I have said it before and you still haven’t gotten it … her lack of an apology is NOT the issue, but a SYMPTOM of a bigger issue: she is not saved. I am taking issue with the fact that she is a non-christian passing herself off to be a christian and leading unsuspecting followers down the wrong road, and her uncontrite performance is one of the ways I see that. “Why canst thou not understand my speech?”
And lastly (because with this comment, I am truly finished with this pointless conversation), as if it weren’t enough for you to tell me what I am talking about (so perhaps you could be justified in reviling me?), you now sit there and try to presume how I feel about the verdict? What makes you think that I would be in “high celebration” or smile at my “righteous remarks” if she had lost … or what makes you think that her winning is a “bitter pill” for me to swallow? Lafe, you are being presumptuous of me I think simply because you do not LIKE me. Because I dare to call the pimpette an unsaved individual, does that make me some kind of self-righteous bigot in your eyes? I know you do not like me Lafe, but my true feelings are far from what you think. This whole situation is a sad affair that I wish had never happened, because it does indeed bring shame on Christ’s name in the eyes of the world, and ALL of it could have been avoided if Mrs Osteen (as a professed christian) only knew the basics of how professed christians should act vis a vis the world. If she had been any other sinner out there would this even be an issue? No. But the world latches on to the unchristlike actions of these high profile pimp preachers (and their wives) for the sole purpose of bringing shame on Christ’s name and if there were anything that you could accuse me of being angry about, that would be it. It ain’t about no stupid lack of an apology!!
Lafe, I have truly done my best in all of my comments here to go out of my way in explaining where I am coming from. I make all of my comments here in keeping with what I understand the purpose of this site to be and that is to warn the people about the falsehood of pimps and pimpettes. And if you really want to know what is truly a “bitter pill for me to swallow” it is how you just don’t get that! And after all you have said against me and the others here who have endeavored to speak the truth boldly to you, if you really want to continue with the accusations of being self-righteous, you might want to go have a look in the mirror.
I am through talking to you about it Lafe. This has been a very unpleasant experience for me, so it’s probably time for me to go back to just being a reader again if for no other reason but to keep the peace here. I believe I have adequately presented where I stand regarding pimps. Keep up the good fight Melvin … this site is a work of God!
(MN: No!! No!!! Don’t go back to just being a reader! Just learn that you don’t have to respond to every awful thing someone may say to you. I give the readers credit for being smart enough and honest enough to read the whole conversation. )
An BooBoo’s Dad:
Nur Leser??
Das sei ferne, mein Bruder!
Peter.
and an ee-bo-bo-sha-ta-la-bo-shay! to you too, petros.
LOL Mrs Mav!!! The only thing I understood from that was “bo-bo!” (you talkin about me??)
At least there is someone who can interpret what Pete said. By the way, I never did get to come back here and read the rest of these comments back in August, because somehow they were all missing. I’m glad to see that some of these old posts are back up and working again!
By the way, I’m still here although school is pretty tough. Have been pulling clinicals in the OR witnessing surgeries up close and personal, and then in the post-anesthesia care unit as they wake up from those surgeries. Sometimes they wake up calm and easy and other times panicked and in pain (have given lots of morphine and demerol injections IV). In a couple of weeks, I’ll be working in labor and delivery … (I’m a little apprehensive about that, as the only experience I have is delivering puppies!). Anyway, just wanted to pop in and say hello. I missed you all while this site was down. All I saw was a white screen that said “it works!” Glad to see now that it really does!
By the way … I have no hard feelings towards you Lafe !!! I hope you feel the same towards me … truce?
To quote the legendary Yogi Bear……….
“HEY BOO BOO !!!” Nice to see you back my friend!!
Hey Pete!
Ich hab von dir seit langem nichts gehört! Wie gesagt, ich werde bald nur selten die Zeit haben, Kommentare hier zu machen, aber ich gehe nirgendwo! Freut mich, daß du noch da bist! Sei herzlich gegrüßt mein Freund!
Well Mel, to be truthful one of the reasons I have had the time recently to add my 2¢ worth here is because at present I am in between the summer and fall semesters in school. I am a 46 year old full-time student at the University of Arkansas in Fort Smith, and it really isn’t as easy for me going to school now as it used to be … the nursing courses are grueling and the clinicals at the hospital are even more so, and it takes just about every bit of free time I have to do all I have to do, so when school starts back on August 25, I might not have any other choice but to get in a quick “read” from time to time. But be assured, I am not going anywhere!! I love this site and even though I may not always sound like it, I love all of you. I have sat silently at the feet of GaryV for years on this site and so have him to thank for most of my of my pertinaciousness, for I have learned from him that because pimps will stop at nothing to retain their hold on the sheeple, so should we be all the more dogged in our polemic for the TRUTH whereby they might be made free. I know this, for I was helped by what I have read here, and I shall not now be moved.
Boo-Boo’s Dad,
Please stay out here in the open, Warrior! I’ve been seeing this on other blogs as well - christians who contend against scripture. They usually take the position that the biblically sound Christian and /or blog is being ‘unkind/unloving/judgmental’ and when all else fails they lob the charge - “Pharisee”. That will usually shut down anyone who reads the Word of God, fully and who is willing to contend for the faith.
What Lafe and others like her fail to understand is that the biblically-sound, God-fearing Christian can carve the dreck away from an issue simply by noting when a self-professing christian rebels against the Word of God. They simply will not submit to its authority. They not only rebel themselves, but protect and, in many cases applaud, the wolves who are being exposed as rebels against God Himself.
Bottom line, we’re seeing two rebels in action in the Osteens. He for his false gospel, and she for being a co-pastor. It doesn’t matter if they are sweet as sugar from now until the Rapture of the Church. The fact that they are rebels against the Word of God - which constitutes rebellion against Him personally - negates any behind the scenes chats with them. Call the spade a spade. Better yet, let me quote Someone, a couple of “white-washed tombs full of dead men’s bones.”
And before any christian can pull out ‘judge not lest ye be judge’, let me answer now from the Word of God:
1 Corinthians 5:11-13 (ESV)
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
So, BBD….please stay out here with the rest of us Pharisees. Iron sharpens iron.
At least the parts you post, right Mel?
BLD, let me assure you that nothing I have written has been edited or agridged by Mel.
By the way, I’ll leave this posting open for comments until tomorrow morning.
Melvin
Well, if that’s the case, I guess my last post addessed to Lafe will be my last one…
Lafe,
In all honesty your splitting hairs. It is obvious by the FAA that Vicky was causing a disturbance for the pilot. Lafe are you saying the Govt. was lying? It is also obvious that she was fined for this disturbance. In fact lets put aside the plaintiff which was clearly out to bilk the Osteens out of their multi-millions OK. What is important is that she was clearly fined and cited by a government agency.
Basically Vicky had a tantrum and a hissy fit and she felt justified in causing a commotion and demanding her seat cleaned as any good Pimptress would do. She probably did push/nudge the person in question but not because of racism but because of class. She like all Pimps black or White put themselves in the “anointed” category. They in their minds assume that God himself has anointed them to a level beyond the common person. They assume themselves untouchable and think it is you who needs to serve them.
In closing lets look at this with some common sense Lafe. If you get into an auto accident and you were cited for failure to yield the right of way and paid the fine did you not agree to the charges? Yes of course! Now lets assume the person you hit is a gold digger and brought you to civil court and you won. That does not negate the fact that you were at fault it just could not be proved in a court of law that your misdemeanor caused harm to the plaintiff.
Kyle