161–170 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty wide brush you're painting with, there. There isn't just "one" modern Christian theology.
Name a modern American denomination that rejects prosperity theology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name a modern American denomination that rejects prosperity theology.
Almost all? Catholicism, Evangelical in general, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. It's most assuredly not remotely mainstream. Note that the megachurches you're referring to are in most cases not part of a branch of Christianity but stand alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty wide brush you're painting with, there. There isn't just "one" modern Christian theology.
Name a modern American denomination that rejects prosperity theology.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-is-americas-largest-p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans increasingly find these government ombudsmans as rogue. Companies should get to accost their customers, and if the customers don't like it, take business elsewhere. If a contract is violated, hire a lawyer and sue. Good people have money and can hire good lawyers. If you don't have money, get in line for a pro bono lawyer. It's completely reasonable and fair to have to wait years for this; afterall rich p…
It's not just Republicans, it's all the Christians they're in league with, and who vote for them. The philosophy you describe is modern Christian theology. It's called "Prosperity Doctrine", and basically boils down to "God rewards those he loves the most", so rich people are better people than the rest of us because obviously God loves them more and has bestowed gifts of wealth upon them. Go into any American megach…
But Republican elected officials have to keep trying to grow their market though. There simply aren't enough plutocrats to win elections. So they're going to continue their enhancements to the Nixon southern strategy until the party blows itself up (or the country, whichever happens first). You can pretty much see it's only the old GOP who have some sense of social moderation, that not all cooperation is collectivism, and not every government office or program is socialism, and sometimes those things have consequences society likes and wants. The Paul Ryan Republicans are basically a huge FU party, sometimes though they do say please GFY. So I guess they do have some standard of manners.
But even Paul Ryan is poor in the eyes of a proper plutocrat. He's a tool of power, not power itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously bank didn't even validate SSN: “Is the last four digit of your SSN not 5189 (not the actual digits)?” Sounds like brunt of this mistake lies with the bank.
Or who ever drafted the legal order to the bank. Could have been a typo there, and the bank is just following orders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name a modern American denomination that rejects prosperity theology.
Almost all? Catholicism, Evangelical in general, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. It's most assuredly not remotely mainstream. Note that the megachurches you're referring to are in most cases not part of a branch of Christianity but stand alone.
But I think you're wrong about every other denomination on your list. I've been to enough Baptist and Lutheran churches to feel justified in disagreement. The Presbyterians (including our president) feel much the same way.
The simple fact is that God's blessing = economic prosperity is practically biblical. "May his tribe increase" and all that.
Also I'm not OP and did not refer to megachurches.
If you know a little bit about legal procedure dealing with something like this shouldn't be too hard. You'd file against your local bank based on the address of the branch you go to for an order to show cause hearing where they are tasked to show up and show cause as to why the transfer of money should go forward. You'd state the basic grounds of mistaken identity, propose a temporary restraining order barring any f…
In California, I don't believe you can file against a local branch. You'd need to file against BofA at their central legal location for service, which I believe is in LA. However, I think (though not sure) you can still file the case itself in the county where you reside. I know this because I recently filed a small claims case that included Chase as a defendant, and this was the process. The small (<10k) amount of m…
Yes that's what I'm proposing. I don't know CA specifically but in general courts have what's called a "special term" or an "ex parte part" or something similar. In that court a judge is sitting during the day and is available to sign orders that relate to exigent circumstances, which this would qualify for.
Typically you can file an OSC and/or a TRO and seek temporary relief while you make arrangements to actually begin a proper suit. It's very commonly used, for example to prevent a business partner from cleaning out an office full of jointly owned supplies, or preventing the auction of a property when there's a dispute over ownership.
It's very different from the long slow plodding process by which an actual court case proceeds. But it's applicable here since this isn't an actual court case, it's mistaken identity. Once it comes to everyone's attention formally, with a judge's order, it's almost certain to end right there.
I know how to handle these dumb fucks. (I had a Mortgage with them, that makes me an expert) I had a problem with them coughing up an escrow refund check, although there is much more to the story that would have most of you boiling. I filed complaints with a total of 3 agencies and received my check via FedEx Priority overnight not long after. Suck it, BofA. * Filed complaint with CFPB * Filed with Texas State Attorn…
Also, switching to a smaller regional bank if you have the possibility is a good choice.
Remember Bank of America is the bank that took all the farms from the farmers during the Great Depression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it sounds a lot like you just regurgitated Republican talking points
Speaking of partisanship, the NPR links above are just as equally regurgitating democrat talking points. Lacking any type of critical analysis of the agency and instead focused entirely on the silly talking points of the republican guy with some added snark. NPR is hard left, I at least quoted a study from a bi-partisan agency that I found on Wikipedia
you can't be serious. NPR is what the American media complex calls "liberal" which should be translated to "center-right by global and historical standards, but left of the extreme right wing of contemporary American politics".