A prosperity gospel shithead just ended city domestic partner (read: gay) benefits where I live

[charlie]

A year after El Paso's city council approved health benefits for partners of city employees, a "traditional family values" referendum was placed on the ballot. http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_16504987">It won yesterday.

The instigator and point man for the initiative is an unabashed bling-loving pastor:

When I saw the complete sacrifice of Christ on the cross, I determined that I would not allow one bit of suffering to go to waste. If Jesus died for my poverty, then, bless God! I was not going to be poor. Since He made such a great sacrifice, I would not allow the sacrifice to be wasted by me. I was going to make the most of the atonement, and be rich with His riches!
...

As I searched the Word of God concerning prosperity, these three keys brought a needed balance and wisdom concerning prosperity. When I saw these truths, I went back to God and praised Him, “Lord, I see very clearly the truth about prosperity. I believe in it and know I can proclaim it without apology.” To this day, I am proud to be a prosperity teacher. And I think every gospel preacher should be a prosperity preacher and proclaim the great truths about biblical finances.

http://www.tbm.org/prosperity_gospel.htm

The prosperity gospel, however, clashes with the traditional depictions of Jesus as poor. That's because the traditional image of Jesus as destitute is wrong, says the Rev. Tom Brown, senior pastor of the Word of Life Church in El Paso, Texas.

The proof, he says, is scattered throughout the New Testament. One example: The 12th chapter of the Gospel of John says that Jesus had a treasurer, or a "keeper of the money bag."

"The last time I checked, poor people don't have treasurers to take care their money," says Brown, author of "Devil, Demons and Spiritual Warfare."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/12/25/RichJesus/index.html

This clown inverts the old "give and it will come back tenfold" message and scares his flock by dooming them to poverty if they don't tithe generously. Your wealth is the measure of your Christian fidelity.

He also worded the ballot proposition so poorly, police and firefighter associations campaigned against it, because it might end benefits for all retirees. Lawyers are standing by.

Today I discovered I've been in his church. It's the polling station for my precinct!

I guess I shouldn't be shocked. I've voted in many churches, it was probably bound to happen sooner or later. I just never expected to be sent to a liberal hating, demon wrestling, tongue babbling, gay baiting, mob inciting, grifting asshat's house of crazy to do my civic duty. It's. Fucking. Wrong.

I happened to vote early this year at a station elsewhere. I guess I'll make a point of it from now on.

You can enjoy a couple minutes of Pastor Tom Brown's deranged flim flam here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjnuAYM0aRw

[sinkingfeeling]

1. So sad and dis-spiriting.

[AlecBGreen]

2. struggle4progress had this to say in another thread

"...almost everyone tailors his/her personal philosophy to justify his/her own personal behavior..."

In general I agree with it, and I think it applies to your post.

[Goblinmonger]

3. Read: He's not a "real" Christian. n/t

[AlecBGreen]

4. Is that how you take what I wrote?

[Goblinmonger]

5. That's how I take what s4p said.

But that might be based on a whole lot of other conversations I've had in that regard, if I'm being honest.

Just seems to me that when Christians do shitty things as Christians, other Christians tend to say that people can warp whatever they want to mean anything. Which means, to me, that they are committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

But I apologize for you thinking that was a shot at you. It wasn't. I should have told you to duck :evilgrin:

[AlecBGreen]

6. Thanks, no need to apologize

I can take it :)

As for the NTS fallacy, Ive been thinking about and I think its bunk. Here's why:

1) No TRUE triangle has four sides! (right?)
2) A person is born in Mexico, declared a Mexican citizen, moves to America as a child and stays here for the next 50 years. They are never naturalized. They are not a TRUE American even though they may love baseball and apple pie.

The point Im making is that we can say X isnt a TRUE X if it we have a definition of what X is. When it comes to Christianity, Christ gave us that definition. "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Obviously "love" is a harder thing to define than "having 3 sides" or "being a naturalized citizen" but it IS a criterion for being a Christian. The 2nd book of James is explicit on this:

"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

We can decide if something IS or ISNT X based on the definition. The trouble comes when the definition is not well defined. The 2nd issue is that God specifically commands his believers to not judge others.

So, in conclusion:

1) the pastor strikes me as someone finding a justification for their desire to have wealth and material comfort
2) when you hoard wealth and deny it to the less fortunate (especially when you are a pastor) you are breaking the spirit AND the letter of christ's message and therefore
3) you are not behaving as a Christian ought but
4) since it is not my place to judge you as being a Christian or not, I wont. I will merely comment on the behavior.

LOL does any of this make sense? I really shouldnt write such long posts after a day of work has turned my brain to oatmeal :)

[Goblinmonger]

7. I understand completely what you are saying

but where I diverge is that I don't think defining a triangle and a Christian are even close to the same process. We have a pretty clear-cut inclusive/exclusive definition of what a triangle is and can apply that objectively to any said geometric shape.

Not so easy which a Christian. The definition is very subjective. You point out a very solid passage from both from James and the Gospel of John. But there are others that will point to equally compelling bible passages as their litmus test for what a Christian is. The whole "deeds" thing from James is the cause for a lot of sects to have formed if I remember my church history right from seminary days. So when we have something subjective, it becomes easy to just say that someone isn't X just because you don't want them in your camp.