5 wide, I almost didn't add Joel but the Larry King interview I saw he had a great chance to answer some tough questions, but didn't fair too well. He is a great speaker but needs to study scripture.

 

I don't have a problem with a list. I was just commenting KYNINERSFAN's choice to single out Osteen...I've listened to all but two of them (maybe three depending on who "the guy in Louisville last weekend" was) on multiple occasions, some more than others naturally. But, I've listened/watched them all enough to get a good idea of what they're about (at least I feel like I have). If I were going to single one of them out, it certainly wouldn't be Osteen.

 

I do agree with your comments about Larry King. I would have preferred some more straighforward answers. As for his sermons, I think they're pretty good. My only problem is that they're all very similar and don't present a complete and balanced view of what the Bible says. By trying to focus on the positives, I think it can mislead people (who don't read the Bible for themselves). A person could get the idea that faith and obedience in Christ combined with positive thinking is 100% assurance of physical and financial prosperity and that your problems will vanish. He seems to ignore verses and passages that suggest a Christian will suffer trials and persecutions because they follow Christ, i.e., "All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution."

Since an Inquisition is out of the question I just let the softer side (i.e. Rockmom), handle it for me.

 

:thumb::lol:

The problem I have with Osteen is the opposite I have of some of the others on the list. He's very charasmatic, very positive and very motivational. But I find, listening to him, that he's more of a motivational speaker, that someone teaching the word of God. There's no mention of negative consequences in his preaching. He only tells of the good things that can come. His church is filled with people who want to be uplifted, but isn't it also the role of a preacher/priest/minister to warn of the consequences of sin?

 

It's easy to think you're on the right path if no one is there to warn you. It's easy to think all will be roses and sunshine if no one is there to let you know that regardless of all the good that can come, there are pitfalls that you have to watch out for. I feel he's pandering to all the people who want to ignore the warnings, and only want to feel good about themselves.

 

Anyway...just my two cents.

 

I didn't mention the thought that he comes off more as a motivational speaker than a preacher in this thread, but I have before.

 

From reading your post, I think you and I have the exact same opinion of Joel Osteen.

I'd rather have Joel doing what he is doing than nothing at all. And he is different from the others on my list. I agree with 5wide and RockMom.

 

In Alabama as a child there was a church that would wash eack others feet.

 

Once I wanted to wash the feet of My 4th grade Sunday School class but Momma talked me out of it. Times have changed she said I might get in trouble.

I'd rather have Joel doing what he is doing than nothing at all. And he is different from the others on my list. I agree with 5wide and RockMom.

 

In Alabama as a child there was a church that would wash eack others feet.

 

Once I wanted to wash the feet of My 4th grade Sunday School class but Momma talked me out of it. Times have changed she said I might get in trouble.

 

Amen there.

The problem I have with Osteen is the opposite I have of some of the others on the list. He's very charasmatic, very positive and very motivational. But I find, listening to him, that he's more of a motivational speaker, that someone teaching the word of God. There's no mention of negative consequences in his preaching. He only tells of the good things that can come. His church is filled with people who want to be uplifted, but isn't it also the role of a preacher/priest/minister to warn of the consequences of sin?

It's easy to think you're on the right path if no one is there to warn you. It's easy to think all will be roses and sunshine if no one is there to let you know that regardless of all the good that can come, there are pitfalls that you have to watch out for. I feel he's pandering to all the people who want to ignore the warnings, and only want to feel good about themselves.

 

Anyway...just my two cents.

 

Amen on the bolded.

 

As I have mentioned before, from his church's website, those negative things do appear to be done IN A SMALL GROUP SETTING where it is more personal.

 

It seems he feels that doing it in his sermon on television where there is no personal contact is NOT the place for that to be done.

 

I am not sure that approach is not the best approach.

 

Would the bolded not be better done in a manner in which the person has a close, personal relationship with the other rather than by some preacher on television?

Amen on the bolded.

 

As I have mentioned before, from his church's website, those negative things do appear to be done IN A SMALL GROUP SETTING where it is more personal.

 

It seems he feels that doing it in his sermon on television where there is no personal contact is NOT the place for that to be done.

 

I am not sure that approach is not the best approach.

 

Would the bolded not be better done in a manner in which the person has a close, personal relationship with the other rather than by some preacher on television?

 

I don't disagree. I would still like to see him offer a little more balance though...

 

My question would be this: Which group is larger, his church or his television audience?

 

My guess is that more people see him on television than in person. I'm not calling for him to become a fire-and-brimstone preacher or completely change his approach...just take a page out of the Fox News playbook...fair and balanced.

 

Right now he is the Jack Van Impe of "the power of positive thinking".