Oprah's dangerous New age philosophy

[Ilene Wright]

Originally Posted by rubyskye

I could care less about the Oprah show. I find it, for the most part, boring and silly.
I thought that she played an important role in the 80's because her shows, no matter how exploitive, did bring to light some of the shadowy aspects of this culture such as incest, rape, drug addiction, etc.
To dwell on such things is not helpful but to bring that which is hidden into the light is a good thing.
What i'd like to ask you is this. What specifically does Oprah do or say that convinces you that she is the "voice of Satan"?
She may not be your type of Christian (there are many, many Christians who are very different from you) but her general message over the years has always been about tolerance, love, acceptance, mutual understanding, child advocacy, overcoming racism, non-judgment, service, "charity", etc., etc.
Then of course there are the silly shows about what to wear to make you look thinner, makeovers, giving away junk (now that's scary ... the "my favorite things" ... you know when everyone swoons 'cause they're going to get a whole bunch of things). But that's all just silly t.v. non-sense. It's vapid and not exactly "food for the soul" but not the worst fare on the tube.
So again, how exactly is she serving the dark side friend?

Rather than repeat it, please see my last post to Agnostic Soldier.

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

I don't know of the verse that chielgirl is referring to but I do know that Matthew 6:5 essentially says the same thing in different words.

I believe you're right, Haaziq. I was reading the OT the other day after seeing something on here, most likely got them confused.

Thanks for the clarification.

[gracegirl]

What most concerns me about Oprahs religion is what is the foundation for her beliefs? THe bible is based upon eyewitness accounts of the events that took place. Recorded by scribes, acurracy was of great priority as error could have meant death. Would not a record of eyewitness accounts be more creditable than ideas expressed in a book or by a person thousands of years later?

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by gracegirl

What most concerns me about Oprahs religion is what is the foundation for her beliefs? THe bible is based upon eyewitness accounts of the events that took place. Recorded by scribes, acurracy was of great priority as error could have meant death. Would not a record of eyewitness accounts be more creditable than ideas expressed in a book or by a person thousands of years later?

Eye witness accounts are unverifiable thereby unreliable.Also, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The first records that such a man even existed were the gospels in 69CE, over forty years after the supposed death of Jesus. The first secular records were by Josephus, close to 100CE, which proved to be forgeries.

[gracegirl]

I have also researched and exhausted sources claiming to discredit the reliability of the earliest records known. What cannot be disproved however is that Jesus and the authors did exist. Both secular and religious can agree on that. Also, if in fact scripture is unreliable and fabricated then there would be alot that could not be explained. There are many references in scripture to geographic locations of tombs, wells, structures etc. that to this day may be visited, (in this instance a reliable record.) Further examination of Prophetic books unveils events in history that have taken place and continue to take place, as pre-recorded by scripture. The list goes on and on and I could share more about discoveries by Nasa, scientists and medical professionals that would agree that without scripture they have no explaination for their discoveries. I have wrestled with the who's, what, whys and whens of getting to the bottom of this and come to the same conclusion that it cannot be disproved.

[Tx08]

I don't watch her, can't stand her.