Millions of people love to hear this message either in person, on television or through his books. They enjoy the uplifting message. Obviously, the Slate writer doesn't. To each his own. It's quite a challenge to make religion relevent to our current times and many have come to see traditional churches and temples as boring. He's trying something different and it's working for many people so why dump on him?

I doubt it's millions and so what? MILLIONS BELIEVED HITLER,bush.clinton,bush,reaga­n.etc.

who's him?

dumb_blonde:

who's him?

I'm guessing the him in question is Joel Osteen:
<link>

It is amasing how he priostitutes his demi-deity to his own benefit.

Hitler? I've recently a heard a new expression, "straight to Hilter," that refers to the tendency of arguments to run off the rails by making an absurdly negative comparison. It's a variation of sticking "nazi" on any view one disagrees with, as in "femi-nazi," "eco-nazi," "etiquette-nazi," or, oh yes, "soup-nazi." Take a deep breath. Relax. Joel Osteen is hurting anyone, and he's helping some people get through the day.

Heleva:

It is amasing how he priostitutes his demi-deity to his own benefit.

My favorite quote that sums that up in the article is:

"an eerily collapsible spiritual narcissism that downgrades the divine image into the job description for a lifestyle concierge."

Screw freewill and all that other stuff, need a vote to go your way...God will fix it for ya, need to flip a house and make alot of money...God will make someone buy it from you at an inflated price. Need a seat in First Class...God will make sure someone misses the flight so you can get the upgrade.

"I've recently a heard a new expression, "straight to Hilter," that refers to the tendency of arguments to run off the rails by making an absurdly negative comparison."

Godwins Law is from 1990:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Ooops! Of course, I meant to say "Joel Osteen is NOT hurting anyone." If you are of the religious persuasion, you're simply deluded . . . to think the folks who gather round Osteen would otherwise be going to your church and GETTING THE CORRECT MESSAGE. And if you're not religious, you should be pleased that Osteen is giving people a psuedo-religious substitute.

Thanks for the info on Godwin's Law. I love it!

I suspect that his teachings "work" for many people for the same reason that horoscopes "work" for many people. My horoscope says something vaguely encouraging today, then when I get a nice parking spot later on I assume it's because it was "in the stars". Is that any different from thinking that nice stuff happens to you because God wants it to? It sounds to me an awful lot like football players thanking God when they get a touchdown.

I understand the appeal of that kind of thinking, because I used to believe in it myself until I went into medicine. I was on call a few years ago, and had to admit a young woman in her 20s to the ICU. She had leukemia, which had previously been in remission but had recently recurred, and was in septic shock when she was brought to the hospital. Her parents seemed like such nice, loving people and they had told me that they believed her previous remission was a "miracle". I could tell that they were hoping for another one--who wouldn't? They were with her all night praying, and had their friends and their pastor come in and do the same. She got all those prayers, along with all the pressors and antibiotics that could be given, but she died the next day anyway. Now, who can explain this? Were her parents not praying hard enough? Did they do it wrong? Why didn't God give them what they were asking for?

I understand why people like to hear this message--it feels good to think that God's looking out for you and will give you what you ask for. However, nowadays I find that whole idea overly simplistic and it does nothing to explain the problem of suffering.

Incidentally, in case I get flamed for being a "godless heathen" or something, I didn't stop believing in God that night. I just came to the conclusion that He must be tremendously more complicated than a lot of His believers think He is.

Iti's called Godwin's Law

<link>

or reducto ad hitlerum

<link>

when I see it, unless that subject is WWII history, I tune it out. it's noise.

His message sounds a lot like Jim Bakers message, and look where it got him.

Martin Short could do a great Joel Osteen.

Godwin's Law is OK as far as it goes; but, unfortunately, it gets misused in order to stop discussion. "OK, I call 'Godwin's Law'; you referred to Hitler, therefore anything else you say in your post is invalid."

Not every reference to Hitler is, per se, inappropriate.