Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreg
Ha!Ha!Ha! I get it, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. When it comes to dissing other ministries WL doesn't have anything on you.
Interesting theology here, WL's sins makes all of his teachings suspect or "you can't get blessing and cursing from the same mouth".
|
Unfortunately, you haven't bothered to read all of my critiques and have tried to make anything I have said similar to Lee, therefore either just as bad, or just as good.
But on the whole, my stance on Lee is mostly based on the constant juxtaposition of the unrighteousness that was visibly surrounding him and his family and his claim to be something so special in "God's move on the earth." In several places, the writers of the epistles, mostly Paul, but also John and I think even Peter, warn us of bad teachers and bad teachings. Paul gave some warning signs. Things like caring for their belly, and teachings things like endless genealogies and things that result in disputings. And it seems like there was always a lot of that. The result of so much of Lee's teaching was disputing the "Christian" in "Christianity."
And when the split among the churches in Taiwan focused at least partly on Lee saddling the church with his private business debts, and then we come to the US where an ingeniously structured business venture resulted in a continued stream of money for the Lees at the expense of his followers — first in the loss of their investments in that scheme, and then with the nearly-forced purchase of merchandise from the revamped factory (I believe that certain stacking chairs came from it). Yes you can point to other "Christian" ministers and say that there are similar things going on. And for those, I suggest that the same rejection should occur.
My wholesale rejection of Lee's ministry is not to say that nothing he said was true, but to warn that too often even the truth was nuanced with something false. Or altered just enough to create pride about it, such as through the superior thoughts of better terminology for otherwise common things of the faith. If Lee had taught nothing true, even most of the truly weak-minded would have seen through it and left. So he had to start with a sound base.
You also probably think that only Lee is a bad teacher in my mind. You would be far from right.
But let's forget all of what I have mentioned above and return to your complaint. Let's say that you are right and I am just like Lee. Then you defense of Lee is a defense of me. But you didn't actually defend him, but instead attacked me. And David. Solomon. Moses. You think that all failure is like failure. In the sense that we are all fallen man, you are correct. But beyond that, there are degrees. And there is timing.
And there is repentance. David repented. As did Moses, Solomon, and others.
And the same can be said of many modern ministers. There's Jim Baaker who boasted in code of his sexual encounters with a secretary only minutes before a big speaking event. And it uncovered a belly fed by sex, excesses of wealth, and much more. Even if he repents, he is ruined.
Then there are those like Lee, and Jimmy Swaggert, who can be caught in their sins and they either refuse to admit that it ever happened, or refuse to step down from ministry and a whole bunch of people follow them blindly.
But with or without any of that, forget whether there are a lot of bad examples in Christianity or none. Whether there is a way to discredit the messenger. Just focus on what is said about Lee. Defend that or fail. The way you are going about it is to say "everyone is corrupt — so what!!"
Ha!Ha!Ha! I get it! Don't consider the evidence that the emperor has no clothes. Attack anyone who suggests he doesn't. Avoid even considering the claim and trying to find evidence against it. You might discover that the claim is correct. Then what do you do with your years of blind, loyal following.