AMEN! You are absolutely correct my brother!
List Of Ten Riches Pastors In The World
- Thread starter daily devotion
- Start date
AMEN! You are absolutely correct my brother!
I mean capitalism that is is not allowed to run rampant over people and laws. ie. Ethical.
Then the answer would be NO!
I will not accuse you of negativity my friend
Can we look at Colossae's history in order to examine Paul’s reference to philosophy? For Greek influenced philosophy which Paul rejected from prison was riddled with competing mysticism, manufactured transcendent agents, and philosophical syncretical teaching to establish religious homogeneity? Can we agree that Paul’s reference to this philosophy in Collossae also rejected the monotheistic God-head which he preached? Do we not have many historical examples of contrived philosophy engineered in this era that would remove Christ from the salvation covenant for how it was designed? Can it be that my analogy in contrast would advocate that Christ is front and center? For Christ is the Great Physician, and used an allopathist analogy Himself, which now affords me to awkwardly mimic His incomparable example.
I argue in my point that “ministry” is well to be prosperous in order that it may accomplish much, and will argue that it is the mechanism of choice by God to deliver help to the helpless. Can we with vigilance judge the works of each ministry according to their doings and not condemn wealth or ministry in of itself? Though wealth tolls the broad-road with every kind of hindering and intoxicating seduction, can we also agree that it also provides the substrate for all practical exchange where the rigors of strategic and honest success can eliminate the cesspools of wretched poverty?
In kindness can you provide the ethical premise you are referring to?
What is Capitalism? Can it be that "voluntary exchange" absent of intervention will define it best?
He and his family members believe the Mormon church is NOT Christian.
He removes Mormonism is a cult from his site to support Romney.
And now that Romney is not in the White house, what's he do?
It may have been Graham's son that pushed for this. Because conceding to remove the cult of Mormonism from the cult list is a compromise of truth to what is perceived as power. Making promises it would never keep if Graham but supported it in this or that. It's a sell out of truth for fiction.
And now that Romney is not in the White house, what's he do?
It's a sell out of truth for fiction.
Well, of course BG/FG should proclaim again that the Mormon church is a cult. They know they should. Maybe they are hoping Romney runs again in '16.
Without being privy to their political strategizing conversations with the Romney camp, I am guessing they took the "more" desirable of the two and decided to support Romney in the election and conceded to Romney's request. So, let's move on from the hardline Graham bashing and start to pray harder for our Christian leaders and influencers. Remember, God is sovereign.
I'm not bashing Dr.Graham nor his son. I grew up in a house where Dr.Graham's revival was on in the family TV room whenever he was preaching.
We are told to recognize when our leaders transgress. How do we grow if we ignore what they do?
We are told to recognize when our leaders transgress. How do we grow if we ignore what they do?
Good to know you are not bashing. I have attended events lead by both Franklin and Graham.
Leaders are oftentimes in very difficult positions. It is very easy for us to say they "transgress" when they make a decision we feel is wrong. We don't know the whole story - how they came to their conclusion. No decisions -- especially decisions made by influential leaders -- are black or white. Neither are their decisions made in a vacuum and oftentimes leaders choose the least disagreeable decision - knowing some will disapprove and feel they have committed a transgression.
Not sure how to respond to your "grow if we ignore what they do" except to say that we grow by listening to a wide variety of leaders. Some of whom will disappoint at times, some will hit home runs at times and others will always miss the mark. Our leaders are only human. Letting a leader know you didn't think a decision he/she made is not a bad idea.
To be clear, I think you misunderstand that there is a great difference between not agreeing with someone's decision, and bashing them.
I'm not at all bashing the Graham's. Never have. However, I disagree entirely with their decision to remove Mormonism from their cult list. And that they did so after speaking to a cultist who was running for the highest office in this nation is suspect. One doesn't have to know what transpired behind the scenes to realize and witness the outcome. Mormonism was removed from the list of Cults the Graham's had compiled long years before.
Now, what we do know about that is that Dr.Graham, when he elected to rightly place Mormonism on the Cult list long years before, was not at all ignorant of Mormonism. Nor was he unaware of what qualified it to be considered a cult by him.
What we do know is after speaking to a Mormon cultist running for office, he removed Mormonism itself from the Cult list.
Romney doesn't change what Mormonism was, is , and remains to be.
So what did change?
The Graham's! Who decided to remove the cult of Mormonism, established by a man of ill repute it should be noted, from the Cult list.
That isn't bashing!
That's observing what transpired and holding an opinion that says, I disagree with Dr.Graham's decision.
I'm not at all bashing the Graham's. Never have. However, I disagree entirely with their decision to remove Mormonism from their cult list. And that they did so after speaking to a cultist who was running for the highest office in this nation is suspect. One doesn't have to know what transpired behind the scenes to realize and witness the outcome. Mormonism was removed from the list of Cults the Graham's had compiled long years before.
Now, what we do know about that is that Dr.Graham, when he elected to rightly place Mormonism on the Cult list long years before, was not at all ignorant of Mormonism. Nor was he unaware of what qualified it to be considered a cult by him.
What we do know is after speaking to a Mormon cultist running for office, he removed Mormonism itself from the Cult list.
Romney doesn't change what Mormonism was, is , and remains to be.
So what did change?
The Graham's! Who decided to remove the cult of Mormonism, established by a man of ill repute it should be noted, from the Cult list.
That isn't bashing!
That's observing what transpired and holding an opinion that says, I disagree with Dr.Graham's decision.
Ah ethics not acceptable.
Money is money. The eye of the needle is going to mighty hard to get through.
I am talking about a Christian version of Capitalism. Where we follow The Second Great Command in business. We do not try and filch the consumer, nor make the consumer a thrall, nor pervert law to give ourselves a greater power over consumers.
You know morals, ethics. Not the law of the jungle as it is now.
And on top of that pay your fair share of tax, no Dutch with an Irish sandwich. You know back to the Eisenhower days.
Moral, ethical business practices.
It may be that Dr. Billy has not been in charge of the operation for some time now and his son Franklin has. I do not know that to be a fact, but it seems very logical to me.
I really do wish I knew what you were talking about!
You said.......
"Ah ethics not acceptable".
What does that even mean????
Very possible, considering how ill Dr.Graham has been for years now.
As a Christian I can agree with you with enthusiasm that we should follow the second greatest commandment and that it should indeed translate into all our doings, whether in or out of business exchanges.
May I broaden this statement's contextual perceptive for the sake of "sound ethics", if it will not offend?
Can it be that we are "ethically" required by Gods delegation to "never steal property" (or filch) regardless if its a consumer, a business, a church, an organization or any facilitator of honest property? Can it also be synonymous with "ethics" that we are "ethically" required by Gods delegation to "never" arbitrarily deploy, or administer violence, force, or deceit (indirect force) causing any individual on earth to become a "thrall", consumer or not?
Also what is it to "pervert the law ethically?" I will contend that "just-law is ethical" and "unjust-law is unethical."
Thus what makes a law just?
Please forgive my inquiries for clarification
What is the law of the jungle, for that is typically an lawless-term? May I ask if you will differentiate what is "ethical law" and "law of the jungle?"
How do you "ethically" justify a tax?
How is "fairness" decided ethically?
Who decides "fairness" ethically?
What "ethics" did Eisenhower advocate in his farewell address?
Please again forgive my inquiries, but ethics are the substrate for "how" the law may be formulated and then applied. What ethics do you use to allocate a law to be "just" or "unjust". For fairness is subjectively tossed left and right with every wind.