For Christians: A Feel-Good Religious Culture

[Deeje]

That Hagin fellow was an abomination. He is credited by many as the main influence of con men the likes of Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. People with no interest in knowledge of scripture past what they can twist into a money making scheme. I would be surprised if they even believe in God at all. Makes me sick.

Its people like him who give Christianity a bad name. He will soon see what God thinks of him...that demonic giggle.....

 

[David1967]

Its people like him who give Christianity a bad name. He will soon see what God thinks of him...that demonic giggle.....

The hissing noise you hear in the video is him. He is hissing at people as he walks around like the serpent he was. He passed away a few years ago but his son is carrying on his legacy as well as the minions of televangelists following in his footsteps. Prophets for a profit.

 

[Deeje]

The hissing noise you hear in the video is him. He is hissing at people as he walks around like the serpent he was. He passed away a few years ago but his son is carrying on his legacy as well as the minions of televangelists following in his footsteps. Prophets for a profit.

Oh dear....sins of the father, passed on to the son.....how on earth can people fall for this stuff?

 

[David1967]

Oh dear....sins of the father, passed on to the son.....how on earth can people fall for this stuff?

Unfortunately this disease is growing like a cancer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read this all and I have to tell you honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I wasn't raised christian and read the bible years ago; so, all I know is stuff online. To give you context.

I am saying that if Christians want to indulge their flesh and kid themselves about God's moral standards, then faith, hope and love are completely missing. By their choices, people eliminate themselves from contention.

I don't see the difference between "them and JW and any other christian" really. Every other evangelical christian says pretty much the same. I get what you're saying, just I don't see the world like that.

God is choosing the citizens of his kingdom right now. Like when we decide to move to another country and we need to comply with the rules of citizenship there. If we fail to qualify, citizenship will be denied. Who is to blame? The person seeking the citizenship or the country that has its own rules?

That's a crude comparison. Only those who choose to go to the other country without being familiar with it I guess "are to blame," if you like. Those of us who can't go, why are we held accountable for other people's actions?

You completely miss the point.....no one has ultimatums or coercion to force them to be Christians. If you feel like that, you have automatically disqualified yourself. No genuine Christian ever feels coerced or forced to do anything against their will. If our will is the same as God's will, it is a willing and loving submission.....not slavery.

You missed it. Of course a christian doesn't feel coerced and forced. He 'wants' to go to god. That's fine.

Those who do not want to shouldn't [just going by your belief system] feel coerced to either believe and benefit of love, faith, and hope or be damned [however defined].

I'm just saying only christians benefit from god. That is fine. I don't see the love, faith, and hope given to those who do not believe. They either have to believe to get these things are be punished. That's an ultimatum. Not to christians but to those who do not believe.

That's fine and all. My thing is how it affects other people not the belief itself.

His love is expressed in his creation,in his purpose for this earth and the quality of life that he intended for his human creation all along. His will is going to "be done on earth as it is in heaven"....and this will happen with us or without us.

That makes sense. I can't say he doesn't.

If we want to live in his world according to his rules then forever will be spent enjoying and exploring what God created....if not, then it will not be forced on anyone against their will. That to me, it totally fair. God owes us nothing...we owe him everything.

That's where the ultimatum comes in: "you will not be forced 'and' if you don't follow you have consequences."

Wouldn't it be better to be a slave to god than say, "oh. It's your choice. but, by the way. it's the wrong one. You're to blame."

While I don't like slavery, at least the former is upfront and everyone wins. Love, faith, and hope doesn't have favorites. If the latter, that's just. Wrong.

I get what you're saying. I never saw the logic in it. [six months later and I still don't get it. Forgone conclusion]

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They are often hedonistic, self-indulgent and the epitome of frivolity like many a civilization that are no more

Very "nice" way to put it. That's probably why we have wars. Modern feel-good hippies challenge the traditional status quo and religious outlook. I read something about that: how "because it's in the past or there is authority, it is true or moral." Fallacy of sorts.

Star Trek with captain kirk had a similar view. In This Side of Paradise, I believe, the crew went down to a X planet. They saw all the residents were "feel good" people. That's how they survived. So, Captain kirk, like many, said "no. you guys are supposed to be like us-crawl, gabble, fight." Man rather fight than have peace; confronted with something they aren't used to. "Inherited sin" challenged with inherited blessings.

I live in society that has the inherited-sin concept but I was always opposed to it. Just don't reinvent the wheel and we're be fine with our "opinions."

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Modern feel-good hippies challenge the traditional status quo and religious outlook.

I don't trust hippies.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That Hagin fellow was an abomination.

Was he related to Festus?

No. He was "Hagen". Never mind.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

A Feel-Good Religious Culture

Commenting on the situation in the United States, Newsweek magazine candidly stated: “Many clergy, who are competing in a buyer’s market, feel they cannot afford to alienate.” They fear that if they make great moral demands on their hearers, they will lose them as parishioners. People do not want to hear that they should cultivate humility, self-discipline, and virtue or that they should heed their nagging conscience and repent of their sins. Hence, many churches are adopting what the Chicago Sun-Times called “a therapeutic, utilitarian, even narcissistic ‘all about me’ Christian message [and] leaving the gospel behind.”

The outgrowth of this type of thinking is a religious culture that defines God in its own terms, churches whose focus is, not on God and what he requires of us, but on man and what will increase his self-esteem. The sole aim is to cater to the needs of the congregation. The fruit is religion emptied of doctrine. “What fills the hole at the center, where the Christian moral code used to be?” asks The Wall Street Journal. “An ethic of conspicuous compassion, where ‘being a nice person’ excuses everything.”

Logically, the harvest from all of this is the attitude that any religion with a feel-good effect is just fine. Anyone adopting such a view, observes The Wall Street Journal, “can embrace any faith, so long as it makes no real moral demands—consoles but does not judge.” And the churches, in turn, are willing to accept people “exactly for who they are,” without making any moral demands on them.

The foregoing may remind Bible readers of a prophecy penned by the apostle Paul in the first century C.E. He said: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

When religious leaders excuse sin, deny its existence, and ‘tickle’ the ears of their congregants by telling them what they want to hear instead of what the Bible says, they are doing people a grave disservice. Such a message is false and dangerous. It represents a travesty of one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Sin and forgiveness occupy a central position in the good news taught by Jesus and his apostles.

Excerpt from Sin—What Has Changed? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

So has the definition of sin morphed into a definition of permissiveness? Will the churches answer for their failure to uphold the teachings of the one they claim to worship?

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by “feeling good” and why it is wrong for others to “feel good?”

What is also wrong with “accepting others as exactly who they are?”

Give some examples if you would like to.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Its people like him who give Christianity a bad name. He will soon see what God thinks of him...that demonic giggle.....

Do you ever give God a bad reputation by anything that you ever say?

 

[joe1776]

I hope you understand that this is exactly why Jesus took his teachings to large crowds. He was looking for his words to reach receptive ears. Among those crowds were those who responded to his words. He wasn't going to appeal to everyone and he knew it, but he never chased after people or forced them to do as he said. He left it to them. So do we.

The point of making any statements on an Internet forum is to have your say, state what you believe, and hope there may be others who see something of value in what you say. Like Jesus, we are not going to appeal to everyone, but we already know this. No matter what we believe, there will always be opposers.

I would expect that Jesus was able to make persuasive arguments that would influence the minds of the unbiased minority in a large group since, if he could not, he would be wasting his time.

I did not criticize you for posting arguments for your position. My criticism was, as I explained, that the argument you made would not be persuasive to unbiased minds and there's no point in making arguments to persuade those who already agree with you.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

What is also wrong with “accepting others as exactly who they are?”

Because sometimes they are *** holes or psychopaths and I am not very accepting of those people

 

[Neutral Name]

A Feel-Good Religious Culture

Commenting on the situation in the United States, Newsweek magazine candidly stated: “Many clergy, who are competing in a buyer’s market, feel they cannot afford to alienate.” They fear that if they make great moral demands on their hearers, they will lose them as parishioners. People do not want to hear that they should cultivate humility, self-discipline, and virtue or that they should heed their nagging conscience and repent of their sins. Hence, many churches are adopting what the Chicago Sun-Times called “a therapeutic, utilitarian, even narcissistic ‘all about me’ Christian message [and] leaving the gospel behind.”

The outgrowth of this type of thinking is a religious culture that defines God in its own terms, churches whose focus is, not on God and what he requires of us, but on man and what will increase his self-esteem. The sole aim is to cater to the needs of the congregation. The fruit is religion emptied of doctrine. “What fills the hole at the center, where the Christian moral code used to be?” asks The Wall Street Journal. “An ethic of conspicuous compassion, where ‘being a nice person’ excuses everything.”

Logically, the harvest from all of this is the attitude that any religion with a feel-good effect is just fine. Anyone adopting such a view, observes The Wall Street Journal, “can embrace any faith, so long as it makes no real moral demands—consoles but does not judge.” And the churches, in turn, are willing to accept people “exactly for who they are,” without making any moral demands on them.

The foregoing may remind Bible readers of a prophecy penned by the apostle Paul in the first century C.E. He said: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

When religious leaders excuse sin, deny its existence, and ‘tickle’ the ears of their congregants by telling them what they want to hear instead of what the Bible says, they are doing people a grave disservice. Such a message is false and dangerous. It represents a travesty of one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Sin and forgiveness occupy a central position in the good news taught by Jesus and his apostles.

A Feel-Good Religious Culture

Commenting on the situation in the United States, Newsweek magazine candidly stated: “Many clergy, who are competing in a buyer’s market, feel they cannot afford to alienate.” They fear that if they make great moral demands on their hearers, they will lose them as parishioners. People do not want to hear that they should cultivate humility, self-discipline, and virtue or that they should heed their nagging conscience and repent of their sins. Hence, many churches are adopting what the Chicago Sun-Times called “a therapeutic, utilitarian, even narcissistic ‘all about me’ Christian message [and] leaving the gospel behind.”

The outgrowth of this type of thinking is a religious culture that defines God in its own terms, churches whose focus is, not on God and what he requires of us, but on man and what will increase his self-esteem. The sole aim is to cater to the needs of the congregation. The fruit is religion emptied of doctrine. “What fills the hole at the center, where the Christian moral code used to be?” asks The Wall Street Journal. “An ethic of conspicuous compassion, where ‘being a nice person’ excuses everything.”

Logically, the harvest from all of this is the attitude that any religion with a feel-good effect is just fine. Anyone adopting such a view, observes The Wall Street Journal, “can embrace any faith, so long as it makes no real moral demands—consoles but does not judge.” And the churches, in turn, are willing to accept people “exactly for who they are,” without making any moral demands on them.

The foregoing may remind Bible readers of a prophecy penned by the apostle Paul in the first century C.E. He said: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

When religious leaders excuse sin, deny its existence, and ‘tickle’ the ears of their congregants by telling them what they want to hear instead of what the Bible says, they are doing people a grave disservice. Such a message is false and dangerous. It represents a travesty of one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Sin and forgiveness occupy a central position in the good news taught by Jesus and his apostles.

Excerpt from Sin—What Has Changed? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

So has the definition of sin morphed into a definition of permissiveness? Will the churches answer for their failure to uphold the teachings of the one they claim to worship?

Jesus said:
Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, what is the most important commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus answered:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. 38 This is the first and most important commandment.
39 The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, “Love others as much as you love yourself.”
40 All the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments.
In 22:40 Jesus is referring to all Jewish Scriptures in the Old Testament.

Jesus also stated that many of the old ritual laws were no longer in affect. For instance, he stated that he was the sacrifice so that sacrifices no longer should be made on the alter.
Jesus also said that there should be no more circumcision and that it is permissible to wear two types of fabrics together along with other changes.

Changes were even made in the Old Testament. In the Covenant with Noah, Genesis 9:9-16, God told Noah that it was permissible to eat anything on earth.
Yet, in Leviticus, there were many laws stating that many things could not be eaten.

So, one must carefully read scripture to ensure that the intent of Jesus is kept when reading the Old Testament. Everything must be measured in love.

What I object to the most are those without love in their hearts who call themselves Christians.

What I object to second is that many churches preach the prosperity gospel to obtain money from parishoners when there is no such thing. The Bible, not only does not speak of the prospericy gospel,
but it states not to build up treasures on earth, to let God take care of our needs, to give to the poor, etc. These wolves in sheeps' clothings are defrauding people which does go against God.
They are lying when they say that they are Christians. They are not. If they were, they would have love toward others and would help others instead of building compounds and buying jet planes for themselves.

Those without love for their fellow man are not Christians because they are not following Jesus.

So, which behaviors are happening in churches which you object to?

 

[Deeje]

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by “feeling good” and why it is wrong for others to “feel good?”

Absolutely nothing wrong with feeling good, provided that it isn't done at the expense of making God feel bad.

"Feel good" religion tends to focus on yourself, not God. It is usually about what God can do for you, rather than what you can do for God. It has a tendency to operate purely on emotion rather than knowledge, which makes it nothing like the Christianity that Jesus taught. Or some twist the scriptures or ignore portions of it completely to facilitate what they want. Religion based on emotion has no solid foundation....religion that adulterates God's word likewise.

What is also wrong with “accepting others as exactly who they are?”

Nothing at all in the wider scheme of things.
But God has laws and moral standards, all of which should govern human behavior in a world where moral standards are fast disappearing. Should God's standards then disappear along with them? For a Christian, the answer is an emphatic NO! They are not negotiable, even though many try to reinterpret them that way.

Give some examples if you would like to.

Accepting people "exactly who they are" is not the problem because no one can control their genetics or their predisposition towards certain immoral behaviors. Pedophilia for example is practiced by those who have an unnatural sexual attraction to young children. Do they choose to be pedophiles? No! Most "normal" people do not have such an attraction, but is it OK to "accept them exactly who they are"? Don't we find their behavior "sick"? Would we want them around our children?

Those with that disposition usually feed their appetite by viewing child pornography. What if feeding that 'sickness' made it grow into actively attacking an innocent child? You see, the disposition cannot be helped, but it can be controlled if the person wants to. It's the 'wanting to' that makes the difference. God hates the sin, not the sinner. We can control what we feed our minds and we can control our actions and are therefore responsible for them.

Another very sensitive area right now is gay marriage. It seems strange indeed that so many straight people aren't bothering to get married, yet gay people demand it. But gay marriage cannot be condoned for Christians because marriage is God's arrangement for the production of a family. SS couples cannot be scripturally married (even though they may be legally married) so we have to appreciate the difference if we are Christians. Any sexual activity between unmarried people of any gender is against the law of God.

The "feel good" religions will water down God's standards in order to make gay couples feel at home in their church, but it comes at the expense of throwing away God's moral standards. It comes down to sanctioning what the Bible condemns. Is it PC these days to hold such a view? You are usually howled down if you do. But does God care about what is PC?

Again, no one can help their predisposition to being attracted to a person of the same gender, but if one is serious about pleasing God rather than themselves, God's laws are clear.....no marriage...no sex.

For Christians, the road is "cramped and narrow" for a reason....there is not a lot of wriggle room to accomodate what God says is immoral. There is sacrifice involved and a love of God was the primary requirement for a Christian. Loving God in this instance requires restraint, just as any unmarried person requires control over fleshly desires.

We can't help our genetics but we can control our actions....that is what being a Christian is all about.

For those who make the sacrifice, there are many blessings to compensate. This is our experience with gay people in our congregations, many of whom are a great asset. They make themselves "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom". (Matthew 19:12)

 

[Deeje]

@Diana Montgomery can you please edit your post as I cannot reply to it in its current form....thanks.

 

[Deeje]

I would expect that Jesus was able to make persuasive arguments that would influence the minds of the unbiased minority in a large group since, if he could not, he would be wasting his time.

I did not criticize you for posting arguments for your position. My criticism was, as I explained, that the argument you made would not be persuasive to unbiased minds and there's no point in making arguments to persuade those who already agree with you.

I think you left out a whole other group of people....the undecided.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

"Feel good" religion tends to focus on yourself, not God. It is usually about what God can do for you, rather than what you can do for God.

What would God need from a powerless human being? From what I see, most human beings do need themselves built up.

God hates the sin, not the sinner

I’ve heard this a lot. But it wouldn’t be the sin that gets judged, and put through any kind of hellfire, it’s the sinner. Or the sin going to the grave, it’s the sinner.

Another very sensitive area right now is gay marriage.

If I were to treat others as I’d want to be treated, than gay marriage would be okay. If that were the entire law.

If it were true that the entire Bible was inspired by God, since he puts us through tests and trials~how would we know he didn’t have false and silly stuff put in the Bible to test us to see where our minds and hearts are at?

I do agree with a lot of things though, mainly that unconditional love is a sham. Even God would have conditions then. And yes, nobody should just accept anyone or anything in their particular current states. Some things are changeable and some aren’t.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

From what I see, most human beings do need themselves built up.

Build themselves up as what? They are already egotistical.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Build themselves up as what? They are already egotistical.

True story. Yet part of building themselves up would be losing the crummy ego if it were from God I’d imagine. Is there a good ego too?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

True story. Yet part of building themselves up would be losing the crummy ego if it were from God I’d imagine. Is there a good ego too?

That's building themselves up on a foundation of sand. The ego is inherently self-seeking. Just ask Freud

"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9