Prosperity Gospel - another observation

I went and 'googled' prosperity gospel and one of the results was an atheist website. I was a bit curious on what atheist had to say about this 'gospel' (I don't think this teaching even deserves the word 'gospel' in it). And one of the comments caught my attention:

The prosperity gospel is the most obvious way for Christians to totally abandon any sympathy for the poor or oppressed. This is the religion of Republican capitalism. The poor deserve to be poor. The rich deserve to be rich. The rich are more righteous than anyone else. It's all part of God's plan.

Any philosophy that is as self serving as this one sickens me, and this is one of the worst.

This is just sad. Very sad. What are we Christians portraying ourselves as? And we wonder why it is so hard to evangelize. For those who preach/teach this prosperity nonsense, woe unto you. Deepest judgement and wrath of God is reserved for you. You have led people astray, teaching false doctrines to enrich your selfish, carnal desires. The Scriptures say that such people will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Materialism has seeped into the churches. Churches want bigger buildings, the latest technology, etc. Some churches preach against materialism but do the aforementioned. On a more smaller scale, some Christians shake their head at prosperity teaching but their lives tell a different story.

The hypocrisy is clear. "Woe unto you Pharisees and scribes, you hypocrites!"

PS: I used strong language in this post. I am just very pissed off by these people (prosperity people) and how they are giving the true Gospel a bad name.

An 'Interesting' Video + My Comments

Disclaimer: The video link below contains elements that might cause some to doubt their Christian faith. It is by leading proponent of atheism, Richard Dawkins. If you think you might waver, please please please DO NOT watch it. You can read what I write below to get an idea on what the video is about.

Second Disclaimer: I am not an expert debater nor do I have super high knowledge of everything pertaining science and religion. If you think I have made an error in my reasoning, I would be glad if you pointed my error and show it WITH PROOF.

The link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLeztJkhi4U&NR=1

Quotes (all made by Richard Dawkins in the video):

1. Faith should be immune to criticism simply because it is faith. Without this convention in society, faith can’t withstand criticism as it does not have the resources at which it does the withstanding.



2. Where science is filled with doubt, skepticism, willingness to learn, openness to correction, faith is exactly the opposite.


-
3. This is science at its best: Knowing when you are wrong and being pleased at being disproved.

*****

In short:

• We should criticize faith


• Faith is arrogant and believing things to the contrary of evidence


*****

My response:

I believe that faith should be criticized, in the sense that we have to examine things carefully for ourselves. A group of people called the Bereans in the Bible examined the Scriptures to check if what Paul said was true. Note that they held the Old Testament as accurate and correct.

The Bible says that faith is being certain of things hoped for and being certain of what we do not see. So, faith is not uncertain but certain. But how do we arrive at that certainty? We have to examine the claims ourselves and decided if it is true or not. In the Bible, the disciple Thomas criticized the resurrection of Jesus, i.e., did not believe it. But according to the Scriptures, Jesus appeared and Thomas felt the holes where the nails once were and he believed. Thomas had been with Jesus 3 years. He knew the person in front of him was Jesus and not some imposter. He examined the holes and believed. He became certain.

Thomas was certainly open to correction. According to Dawkins, this would make Thomas a scientist of the first order. He willingly admitted his disbelief and corrected himself. But he turned to Jesus instead of away from Him.

It follows that faith should be able to withstand criticism because it is built on solid proofs. To say that faith does not have the resources to withstand criticism would imply that would not be real faith at all, since faith must be certain and to be certain, we rely on proofs.

In conclusion, it would seem the definition and nature of faith is gravely misunderstood.

*****

Interesting Quote from anime.

‎"All men ... are NOT created equal! Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different; Yes that is why people discriminate against one another, which is why there is struggle, competition and the unfaltering march of progress.." (Charles vi Britannia, Code Geass)