We should still encourage Rush's giving without criticizing where he chooses to contribute or how much he chooses to contribute (not you specifically, but anybody in general). That's where the slippery slope begins, none of us want to come across as knowing how much, or where a person should give, better than that person themself. Let's just be happy there is cheerful giving going on. God loves a cheerful giver!

I'm glad that Limbaugh gives, to take your word for it. But what matters is not how much, but rather what percentage, and in what spirit it is given, as Jesus clearly indicates. If Limbaugh gives away 80% of his wealth, that would be great. Hey, if he gives away 10%, that would be impressive. Far more impressive than if he gives away 200,000 and makes 20 million a year.

Frankly, I find it inappropriate and not in accordance with the guidelines of this website for you to judge me that I am judging.

I observed the faith of my youth as it morphed into a belief that not only would God intervene to heal your body, but He would also make you rich. And while my childhood pastor might be invited to our home to share our meager Sunday dinner, the clergy from the Word of Faith Movement would drive their Cadillacs to the best restaurants for steak and lobster. When I visited the PTL Headquarters prior to their implosion in the 80s, I was offended by the extravagance and I instinctively knew that something was terribly out of kilter.

Like you, I know several people who are associated with that movement, and I am reluctant to say or write anything that might be offensive to them. But I believe that I have a right to criticize the leaders of that movement, who like their counterparts of the Middle Ages, are selling their indulgences to the masses while enriching themselves.

I kid, I kid.

See you all when a serious post is made.

That’s my opinion, you are free to disagree with it.

Chill out, and have a nice day!

I try to read comments independent of name most of the time, because I try to respond to what's said, not who's saying it.

If you want to dispute something with me, then please do. Don't dismiss me because I've only been posting for three weeks. That's ridiculous.

When I wrote what I did, I was obviously upset — because the Word of Faith post hits so close to home.

If you didn't grow up in it, it seems absurd that anyone could ever read Jesus' words and come up with that. However, if you did grow up in it, you most likely love very dearly people who hold those teachings dear. It's frustrating to have people make fun of it so flippantly as a result.

“I think today's display of immaturity from this website has just convinced me to quit reading.”

My immediate (inappropriate) reaction was that if you are so sensitive to adverse comments on April Fool's Day, then losing you as a contributor would not represent a great loss. But I really did not mean for you to stop responding and I apologize for the harshness of my remarks.

…you're not (since “You’ve been posting on God’s Politics for a total of three weeks.”)

Flip the paragraphs.

You are obviously entitled to disagree with me. But had you grown up as I did, I doubt you would think I'm overreacting. I haven't said anything to attack anyone personally. I've only disagreed with ideas and specifric comments and I think I've done so respectfully. If I have not, please show me how I haven't, because that's not my intent.

Does being a relatively new poster mean I can't disagree with people who've been here a long time? It's not as if this is a private chat group or something… it's a public blog with a comment box, right?

If you want to explain to me how you think I'm overreacting, I would be glad to engage you in conversation. But, if you're not willing to at least explain how my ideas and comments are misguided, at least don't be dismissive. In other words, if you don't like what I have to say, explain to me why, because then perhaps both of us can learn from each other. Simply telling me to “back down” won't produce anything productive.

SisterMarie may have an abrasive sense of humor, but she is also an important contributor to the conversations that occur on this blog.

IMO, you’ve overreacted and need to back down.

Under the Madeoff post, I've made a further argument, that every culture has there times when the rules are suspended. In our culture, parody is allowable when it takes place in Late Night Comedy. It is allowable for everyone at Roasts, where you can make fun of the President of the US in front of him in a way that would be totally inappropriate at any other time. And our culture has decided you can do so on April 1st of every year, when everyone knows this is the time you poke fun- but it's always better if you are also poking fun of yourself, as 3/5ths of the April Fools' posts do here in general, and one (the one right before this) in specific.

Secondly, as I also said under another thread, there is a long tradition of the prophetic revealing truth, and even through humor and parody. I see this ocassionally in the words of Jesus as he talks to the pharisees, and especially in the OT prophets, like Jeremiah. Yet Jesus doesn't do this towards anyone- he does it only to those who claim righteousness and purity, and yet are hypocrites; those who demand others do justice and yet live off the backs of the poor. In other words, people like Rush Limbaugh. So yes, just like any prohetic parody in the Bible, I learned something from this article, too.

————–

This is exactly the type of thing I'm objecting to. I admire your conviction and most likely share many of them.

However, what good does it do anyone to tell people you disagree with to get out of “your” website? How is this building God's Kingdom in any way, shape, or form?

O