|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 10:41:55 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
Matthew 5:39
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=39&version=31&context=verse
are you a preacher??? if you are, how you don't know this confounds me...
my personal view is that the Osteen's SHOULD be the first and most willing to love as Christ's representatives, they could and are able to do this by giving her money in public after the fact, and inviting her to their church...the point is love...
garbage shines compared to truth and love...
Matthew 5:39 is not intended to indicate that Christians are to be door-mats allowing others to abuse them. While we may (and should) be willing to suffer innocently for the cause of Christ, we have a responsibility as Christian citizens to stand up for law and order and justice. This is the reason, I believe, that Paul refused to be quietly let out of jail and sent out of town in Acts 16:35.
Victoria Osteen was falsely accused – she was slandered. This was her “slap in the face”. Matthew 5:39 tells us we should not retaliate when we are wronged. It does NOT say that Victoria Osteen should not defend herself in court. A better interpretation is that Victoria Osteen should not retaliate against her accuser by suing her for slander. So far, I haven’t heard of any plans for that to happen.
As far as giving this gold-digger any money is absolutely absurd and NOT supported Biblically in any way. It seems to me that this woman wants a free ride. If you want to go around quoting scripture, how about 2 Thess 3:10, “For even when we were with you, we used to give you this command: “If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat.””
agreed, but i did mention all of this should be done after the fact...
no, we Christians are not doormats, and it probably would set a very bad precedent of the Osteens just giving money to any who offend them...i say just invite her to church...true wealth is there anyway... agree with you there too...
either way though, there needs to be a showing of love somewhere, and that falls on the Osteens...
let it be love.
Not sure what you mean by "after the fact" but as far as the restraint talked about by Jesus in Matthew 5:39, I believe that the Osteen's are showing great restraint by not counter-suing.
Indeed, I agree with you that love needs to be extended to this woman but how can you assume that has not happened. I find it hard to believe that the Osteens have not prayed for her and it would not surprise me if they invited her to Lakewood Church. Why does it have to be in the press or the media? I may not agree with the Osteen's theology but they have done nothing in the course of this lawsuit to make me think ill of them. All they have done is defend themselves. Even Christians are entitled to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 11:13:51 AM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
of course they are entitled to defend themselves, i laud them for doing so...
love needs to be publicized because the world shall know we are Christians by our love...
assuming it has happened or not, is besides the point...
and "after the fact" means after the trial and verdict...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 11:19:02 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
of course they are entitled to defend themselves, i laud them for doing so...
love needs to be publicized because the world shall know we are Christians by our love...
assuming it has happened or not, is besides the point...
and "after the fact" means after the trial and verdict...
So the verdict says nothing happened. What are you saying Victoria Osteen should or should not do?
Jesus made a point of condemning the public displays of righteousness of the Pharisees. I see no evidence that would suggest that the Osteens should make a public display of their love for this false accuser.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 11:26:49 AM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
agreed...
but any way, Victoria should love her the more...
when would turning the other cheek apply to you???
this will clear it up the confusion for me...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 11:45:00 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
agreed...
but any way, Victoria should love her the more...
when would turning the other cheek apply to you???
this will clear it up the confusion for me...
Not sure I understand your question.
As I said about Victoria Osteen's specific case, she is turning the other cheek by not retaliating with a counter-suit. The context of Matthew 5:39 is with the issue of retaliation as interpretted by Jewish Law. The "slap in the face" is an insult not personal injury, as is often interpretted. Victoria Osteen did not retaliate against the flight attendant - she merely defended herself.
As for me personally, there was a situation, a couple of years ago, where I helped defend a person in ministry of misappropriating ministry funds. I, and other elders, vigorously defended the accused without attacking the character of the accuser, another Christian. Those of us defending the accused regularly prayed for the accuser although the end result was a split in the ministry which has never healed to this day. Are we, the defenders of the accused, somehow responsible for the split? I believe we followed Biblical guidance throughout this ordeal, and frankly, it seems to me that the Osteens have done the same in their defense.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 12:19:36 PM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
agreed...
but any way, Victoria should love her the more...
when would turning the other cheek apply to you???
this will clear it up the confusion for me...
Not sure I understand your question.
As I said about Victoria Osteen's specific case, she is turning the other cheek by not retaliating with a counter-suit. The context of Matthew 5:39 is with the issue of retaliation as interpretted by Jewish Law. The "slap in the face" is an insult not personal injury, as is often interpretted. Victoria Osteen did not retaliate against the flight attendant - she merely defended herself.
As for me personally, there was a situation, a couple of years ago, where I helped defend a person in ministry of misappropriating ministry funds. I, and other elders, vigorously defended the accused without attacking the character of the accuser, another Christian. Those of us defending the accused regularly prayed for the accuser although the end result was a split in the ministry which has never healed to this day. Are we, the defenders of the accused, somehow responsible for the split? I believe we followed Biblical guidance throughout this ordeal, and frankly, it seems to me that the Osteens have done the same in their defense.
ok...what about these verses???
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
what do you say about that??? i mean, figuratively, Victoria was sued, why didn't she let her "have her cloak as well"??? is this another slap in the face, per say???
trying to follow your train of logic...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 12:34:09 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2337
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
Love is not just some touchy feely stuff but allowing a person to learn from their actions. This gold digging flight attendant should be fired because this wasn't the first time she sued someone for assault. She is a liability to her employer.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 12:50:31 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
agreed...
but any way, Victoria should love her the more...
when would turning the other cheek apply to you???
this will clear it up the confusion for me...
Not sure I understand your question.
As I said about Victoria Osteen's specific case, she is turning the other cheek by not retaliating with a counter-suit. The context of Matthew 5:39 is with the issue of retaliation as interpretted by Jewish Law. The "slap in the face" is an insult not personal injury, as is often interpretted. Victoria Osteen did not retaliate against the flight attendant - she merely defended herself.
As for me personally, there was a situation, a couple of years ago, where I helped defend a person in ministry of misappropriating ministry funds. I, and other elders, vigorously defended the accused without attacking the character of the accuser, another Christian. Those of us defending the accused regularly prayed for the accuser although the end result was a split in the ministry which has never healed to this day. Are we, the defenders of the accused, somehow responsible for the split? I believe we followed Biblical guidance throughout this ordeal, and frankly, it seems to me that the Osteens have done the same in their defense.
ok...what about these verses???
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
what do you say about that??? i mean, figuratively, Victoria was sued, why didn't she let her "have her cloak as well"??? is this another slap in the face, per say???
trying to follow your train of logic...
Actually, the lawsuit mentioned in Matthew 5:40 is in a different cultural context. Under the Old Testament borrowing laws, a poor person who borrowed money could provide a garment as a pledge or collateral to help ensure that he would pay the loan back. There was a provision that required that the garment be returned to the poor person every night for warmth. (Deut 24:10 – 13) So let’s say that the poor person took out a 30-day loan. No interest would be charged and the pledge, the garment, would have to exchange hands between borrower and lender every day twice a day for 30 days. The lender was not allowed to go into the borrower’s house and had to return the garment every night. The borrower was to turn the garment back to the lender each morning until the loan was paid back.
If the lender came, stood outside the house, and asked for the garment and the borrower refused, a lawsuit and court injunction might come into play and the Pharisees had detailed rules covering this kind of litigation.
The Victoria Osteen lawsuit had nothing to do with borrowing. It had to do with gaining monetary damages for personal injury. The “slap in the face” of verse 39 applies better. Victoria Osteen was “slapped in the face” by this false accusation. Victoria Osteen did not retaliate with a counter-suit so she has abided by the admonition of Jesus in this passage.
It is important to consider the cultural context whenever quoting Scripture to support an assertion. Jesus had some revolutionary ways of interpretting the Law. He does not set aside the Law but goes much deeper and goes well beyond the standards of the Pharisees but in order to understand the point He was making we must understand the cultural context.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 1:07:51 PM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
thanks for enlightening all of us...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 1:49:41 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5654
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
Matthew 5:39
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=39&version=31&context=verse
are you a preacher??? if you are, how you don't know this confounds me...
my personal view is that the Osteen's SHOULD be the first and most willing to love as Christ's representatives, they could and are able to do this by giving her money in public after the fact, and inviting her to their church...the point is love...
garbage shines compared to truth and love...
So you feel that by paying off an extortionist it would show Jesus in one's life; give me a break.
The flight attendant is a crook, a liar, and an extortionist as evidenced by the testimony of one of the witnesses who gave evidence that the same flight attendant had brought a suit aganinst her for "Attacking" this person; That case was also found to be a lie.
I think the Olsteens have turned the other cheek by not filing a counter suit against the liar or filing criminal charges against the woman.
Jeeezzzzz, please give me a break.
Thsnks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 1:56:00 PM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
Matthew 5:39
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=39&version=31&context=verse
are you a preacher??? if you are, how you don't know this confounds me...
my personal view is that the Osteen's SHOULD be the first and most willing to love as Christ's representatives, they could and are able to do this by giving her money in public after the fact, and inviting her to their church...the point is love...
garbage shines compared to truth and love...
So you feel that by paying off an extortionist it would show Jesus in one's life; give me a break.
The flight attendant is a crook, a liar, and an extortionist as evidenced by the testimony of one of the witnesses who gave evidence that the same flight attendant had brought a suit aganinst her for "Attacking" this person; That case was also found to be a lie.
I think the Olsteens have turned the other cheek by not filing a counter suit against the liar or filing criminal charges against the woman.
Jeeezzzzz, please give me a break.
Thsnks
RC
dually noted...but i already have ceded my point as noted above ya, buddy...no hard feelings...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 3:35:27 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6198
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
This gold digging flight attendant should be fired because this wasn't the first time she sued someone for assault. She is a liability to her employer.
Will she play the race card?
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/15/2008 6:16:37 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2337
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
This gold digging flight attendant should be fired because this wasn't the first time she sued someone for assault. She is a liability to her employer.
Will she play the race card?
Oh I'm sure. Greedy gold diggers usually use all available means of enriching themselves. I'm sure there are many many marks for her to sue in first class.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/16/2008 12:02:43 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Now that the trial is over, I’d like to ask why so many people on this thread are so angry over Victoria Osteen? Why is it so wrong to expect proper service? Aircraft cabins are supposed to be cleaned before passengers ever board. Why is it wrong to ask for a mess to be cleaned up? Why is that up to the passenger? I would have the same reaction as Victoria Osteen even if I was in coach.
Continental Airlines is based in Houston, where I live, and it is my preferred airline. I have flown coach, first class, and business first. I have always had excellent service and never had an experience like Ms. Osteen, but if I did I would raise a ruckus too. There is clearly a difference between the service I get in coach and first class, but let’s face it you pay for the service so it is not wrong to expect it. Mrs. Osteen is right to be upset with being handed a napkin to clean the spill herself. It should have been cleaned before she ever boarded and after having it pointed out to the flight attendant, the flight attendant should have been quick to have it taken care of.
A question for all who think Victoria Osteen was wrong to expect proper service, are you really that timid with all service providers? Or are you reacting to what you perceive as a self-absorbed rich person oppressing the working class attendant? Honestly, some of the hateful comments on this thread directed toward the Osteens is remarkable considering this is a Christian forum.
Many of the comments on this thread indicate objections over the Osteen’s doctrine. What does that have to do with expecting proper service? It should not matter who she is, what she does, or what her husband does. She paid for first class service and she deserves that. Nothing else should matter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/16/2008 2:00:25 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1311
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
A question for all who think Victoria Osteen was wrong to expect proper service, are you really that timid with all service providers?
Its called being humble and rolling with the punches. I would make my case and if it wasn't taken care of to my satisfaction I would write a letter to the airline later. Then this probably would have never happened. I'm not a fan of hyper assertive people when it comes to issues that really are insignificant. And working in the customer service industry like I used to, believe me its not just limited to the rich.
I know she deserved better service. She didn't get it in an area that is relatively inconsequential. It would have been better for all involved (including her and I'm sure she knows it) if she had just let it go.
But hey, I'm not mad at her. Being thrown off the plane and having to defend a frivolous lawsuit is a high price to pay for what was at worse a temper tantrum. Too high a price if you ask me, the punishment way exceeded the "crime". We all need to step back, take a deep breath and stop getting upset over the small stuff. Everyone ends up happier then (except flight attendants who want to be rich but at least you won't be their "mark").
quote:
but if I did I would raise a ruckus too
Why, so you can get sued as well?
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/16/2008 4:11:46 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
quote:
but if I did I would raise a ruckus too
Why, so you can get sued as well?
No, because I know Continental is capable of providing much better service. The service Mrs. Osteen was getting was not up to the standards of that airline.
I am not well known enough to be sued, fortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/16/2008 6:30:22 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1311
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am not well known enough to be sued, fortunately.
Maybe you sell yourself short.
Raising a ruckus didn't work out so well for Mrs. Osteen. I would think twice before doing the same thing that caused Mrs. Osteen so many headaches. Just lookin' out for you.
A firm but critical letter may have been more effective in correcting the problem for future passengers, and certainly less of a headache for Mrs. Osteen. But I will grant that the offending flight attendant may be more likely to be fired this way. Not that I like to see people get fired but when you start to sue people who complain about your lack of customer service (with a bunch of lies) a limit may have been reached.
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/16/2008 9:20:31 PM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3396
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
I doubt anyone would sue me for ten percent of my income. It wouldn't pay for the gas it took to get to court.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/17/2008 1:36:41 PM
|
|
|
tracydolls
Posts: 1839
Joined: 3/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Someone please tell me:
How can you have your "Best Life Now!" if you have to clean up spills?
Isn't that what Peasants are for???
LOL. Man, wiping the tears away. Why can't Victoria do like most of the mega-church people and get a private jet?
quote:
I guess this guy doesn't like giving real answers. Just like when he was on Larry King Live and asked if Jesus is Lord, if He is the only way for salvation".. his response? 87 'I don't know..."
Did he really say that? He seems so nice on TV......
_____________________________
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/18/2008 9:05:27 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2497
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
No, because I know Continental is capable of providing much better service. The service Mrs. Osteen was getting was not up to the standards of that airline.
I am not well known enough to be sued, fortunately.
Your right! She needs to go work for Delta. Those members of the airline gestapo (ahem - flight attendants) think that the Patriot Act 2 made them lords of the skies. I've always had a jerk attendant on EVERY flight I had with them. And unfortunately I've had to put up with too many of them.
"I don't care if our attitudes are "poor" (being nice). Just sit down and shut up and we won't have to summon the air marshalls! You are ours to toy with!" [Sound of diabolical laughter]
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/18/2008 11:44:13 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6198
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tracydolls
Did he really say that? He seems so nice on TV......
Yes, that and a lot more nonsense. The video documentation is in the Joel Osteen thread in the 'Church' sub-forum.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/19/2008 10:42:14 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did he really say that? He seems so nice on TV......
He says similar things all the time....gives the non- or ambiguous answer.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Victoria' secret? - 8/19/2008 10:49:25 AM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
quote:
Did he really say that? He seems so nice on TV......
He says similar things all the time....gives the non- or ambiguous answer.
such people you have to keep in question all the time...and hopefully lead the non-believers to other people instead of them...
Christianity, as well as any moral base, has to have declaration within it...
'tis rather disturbing though (in regards to the osteens)...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
