Evidence for God from Science

windy wrote:
I think there may be a bit of legalism happening here. I agree that the word "our" is not found in the Luke 14:33 verse, but what we're trying to do is to understand the spirit of Jesus teachings. What is the purpose of Jesus asking people to forsake their attachments to materialism? It sounds like you've taken the "I do it in my heart approach" which could be fair enough. But what I've noticed is that the "in my heart" teaching seems to have become a loophole for millions of Christians which they use to avoid change. It's so easy to talk about theoretical spiritual discipline. I think this is why Jesus gave a command to actually do it.

I agree that it's good to understand the spirit of the teachings. Many times, Jesus was giving a specific message to a specific audience. But he also meant it as a message that we can apply to our lives.

But I think we have a fundamental disagreement as to what believers are supposed to do, if anything, regarding forsaking materialism. I would contend, that a good message we can take from Jesus' teachings to others, is that by the spirit of his teachings, we should not hold onto the things of this world, as if they were of greater importance than things that bring eternal rewards. And it seems that you and rain believe all material possessions are not something a believer should have, in any circumstance. I believe Jesus knew the hearts of those to whom he was speaking. In the case of the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus knew that the man's possessions were his god. But not all believers are the same. Money or mammon is not evil. The love of money or mammon, is the root of evil. There is a difference.

windy wrote:
You've not yet addressed the teaching where Jesus tells his disciples to go into all the world teaching other people to do as they themselves were taught to do. As for the forsaking of material possessions and living in community, we can see the disciples following Jesus' last instruction to them by teaching thousands of new Christians to forsake their material attachments and to share all things in common. Sharing is a fundamental value of the Kingdom of Heaven. Letting go is another.

What do you want me to address about it? I have no issue with what Jesus said. My issue lies with your interpretation of what he said. You are assuming that all commands that Jesus gave, automatically apply to us.

And again, as far as forsaking material possessions, and living in a community, you haven't shown from proper interpretation of scripture, that it's what we should do.

And I agree that we should share what God has richly blessed us with. And I agree that we shouldn't hold onto possessions like the RYR did. But I don't take it to the extreme that you do. And like I said before, if you feel you are called to give away your possessions and live in a community somewhere, that's between you and God. But not all believers are called to do that.

RickD wrote:
If you want to take a message from that text, and apply it to us, the message would probably be to seek things of God first, and not be distracted by material possessions.


windy wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I've very happy to hear that you're willing to consider these teachings from a point of view which you'd normally not agree with. Could you please clarify for me what you think would constitute being "distracted by material possessions?" Thanks.

Simply, don't serve two masters.

Rick wrote:
So, the "whosoever" is the same in both verses. But the qualifier "you" or hymōn, is not found in John 3:16.


windy wrote:
I think this could be another case of legalism rather than getting the spirit behind the teachings. In luke 14:33 the context is that Jesus was talking to a "great multitude". This could have been hundreds of people. The "you" is obviously plural in meaning. Using the example from the discussion rules I posted, the "you" is obviously not meant to be only for the people who happened to be reading the forum on that particular day when the rules were posted. It's a "you" meant for anyone who wants to participate in forum discussions here. It would be legalistic for a person to argue that the rules must be posted afresh for him each time he visits so that he can be certain the rule is meant for him.

I believe you are using a similar logic when it comes to Jesus' teachings on the root of all evil. It would be legalistic to expect Jesus to give a new personal revelation to each person in the world about forsaking materialism when he's already done so to his disciples whom he commanded to pass on the teaching to their disciples and their disciples pass the teaching on to their disciples etc.

Again, it gets back to what seems like a fundamental disagreement to how or if forsaking materialism applies to us. I see that the love of money/mammon is the root of all evil. Money or mammon itself is not evil. It almost seems like by giving away all possessions, and commanding others to do so, means that you think either mammon itself is evil, or all believers would be tempted beyond reason, if we owned anything at all.

Forsaking all is also a consistent theme throughout the NT. There are so many verses which talk about it; not only possessions, but friends, family, respectability and even our own lives.

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with what you think it means to forsake something.

Anyway, forsaking is a method for applying the golden rule (i.e. do to others what you'd have them do for you). For example, lets pretend that you need help, but you don't have the money to pay for that help. Wouldn't you be happy if the person decided to help you for free, just because you need the help? Now you can understand the position of the majority of the world.

Sure. That's the duty of the church( all believers). It's the duty of believers to help those in need. And it can be accomplished, and is being accomplished without all believers living in Christian communities.

Or maybe you could argue that the example is flawed because you DO have the money to supply all your needs so you don't need to rely on charity from another person. But isn't that a problem, too? Money gives us the freedom to NOT rely on one another for help. I realize the average Christian probably doesn't think about it this way, but that's exactly what the atheist uses money for. He doesn't need faith. He doesn't need to be thankful for food, or rain, or sunshine or life. He's doesn't need to trust an invisible God for his daily bread. He's got money.

Money also allows us the freedom to bless others in their time of need. And just because atheists have all they need to physically live, without needing to trust God, it doesn't logically follow that all believers don't trust in God, just because we have food on the table. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists or non Christians in Africa who don't have enough food to feed their families. So, that argument is moot.

When it comes to who we really trust for our daily bread there's not much practical difference between the 9-5 atheist and the 9-5 Christian.

Maybe where you live, and in your experience. But, in my life, that's a crock of crap. You cannot tell me that I'm not thankful to God for everything He has blessed me with. And I know plenty of others who feel the same.

From what I can see, rain posted several verses from the NT about forsaking all. You commented on Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33 basically saying you believe you are an exception to the teaching about dealing with materialism. What did you think about the examples from Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:34-37 which show the disciples teaching thousands of new Christians to forsake all?

That's fine. In that time and place, it worked. At least in America, it doesn't universally work that way. I'm starting to think you're forgetting who the most generous people in the world are. America has been richly blessed. And Americans are very generous.

I quoted Luke 12:15 where Jesus warns his followers to beware of covetousness because life is more than the things we own. You didn't comment on that.

What do you want me to comment on it? It's good advice. But being aware of greed doesn't mean sell everything, and move into a Christian Community.

There is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus; clearly a teaching about our relationship to money (Luke 16:19-30).

I see it more of a parable about a rich man who loves his money and possessions more than he loves his neighbor.

There is the parable about the sower; the seeds which fell in the thorns were choked by the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches (Matthew 13:22).

Then there is the parable of the rich man who built bigger and bigger barns to store more of his wealth (Luke 12:18-21). God called him a fool.

In Matthew 6:19 Jesus says not to store treasure on earth, but rather treasure in Heaven. In Luke 12:33 he says we get treasure in Heaven by selling what we have and using it to help the poor. You say this teaching only applied to the disciples of Jesus' time, but you can't really on the same "you" argument that you do for Luke 14:33 because he doesn't say "you". In fact, the record shows that he's talking to an "innumerable" crowd in this context.

In John 6:27 Jesus admonished the people who came looking for him because they were only interested in the food rather than the truth. He tells them to stop working for the food that spoils, but rather to work the works of God. This is nearly identical to what he said in Matthew 6:24-34 where he tells his followers to stop working for money and the things money can buy (i.e. mammon) and to start working for the kingdom of Heaven first.

All good advice. Don't have two masters. Don't love money and possessions. It certainly doesn't mean sell everything we own, and move into a Christian Community.

He says we should not allow worry about food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith. He says all the world seeks after these things, but that we should not be like them. We are called aside. Set apart. Born again. Transformed by the renewing of our minds. We are meant to be different. We can't do that when we continue living by all the same values of the world.

Yes, I agree. But having money and possessions, doesn't cause us to live like the world. Loving money and possessions may lead to us living like the world in that regard.

This them carries on when, in Luke 10:4-7 he gives his followers instructions on how to apply these teachings about seeking God's Kingdom and God taking care of them. He tells them to take nothing for their journey, no food, not extra shoes or cloak etc and that they should eat whatever people share with them along the way. Later, in Luke 22:35 Jesus references this same situation by asking them, "when I sent you without anything, did you lack anything you needed"? and they answered, "nothing".

That's fine. They had a specific mission, at a specific time, in a specific place. Not everyone in all places, at all times, have that same mission to accomplish in that same way.

Anyway, I could carry on with dozens more examples of this theme about materialism but I hope by now you'd be willing to acknowledge that this issue of materialism IS a consistent theme throughout the new testament.

Sure. The love of money is the root of all evil. Owning possessions, and having money, is not evil.

I think this is a good message for all of us, from Colossians 2:20-23
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

rain wrote:Hi Paul,

So the teaching from Jesus to his disciples about ''loving one another the same as I have loved you'', IS one that you believe we should follow? I too agree with that, but I am wondering how you arrived at that conclusion, seeing as (according to your interpretation) he was just speaking to his disciples?

Jesus never taught his disciples to do something that he himself did not do, and that includes forsaking all. And that's where I agree with the point that windywherever said, and that is forsaking materialism is very much about loving God and others, the way that Jesus loved us. We're not free to love God if there are things we are attached to in this world.

The verses from Matthew 25 are good, and I agree that Jesus will separate us according to what we have or have not done. However, one only needs to look at the rest of the his teachings to see that there are other things we will be judged on to, e.g. fearfulness/laziness Matthew 25:26. Do you think just because Jesus does not mention lying, theft, adultery, fornication, blasphemy, greed, pride, that we will not be judged on these too, when clearly in the book of Revelation these ARE reasons given for how judgment will be based e.g. Revelation 21:6-8. Or how about when Jesus said in Matthew 12:35-37, that we'll be held accountable for all our words, and that ''by our words we shall be justified, and by our words we shall be condemned''? You see, there is definitely MORE to the picture, isn't there?

But the bottom line again, is Jesus said in John 12:47-48, that it is HIS teachings i.e. the WORD that he has spoken that will judge us in the last days.

All of his teachings ARE good news, and that includes forsaking all. It can be scary to let go of what we hold onto so tightly, but God has something infinitely better for us in return. Like Jesus said to his disciples in Luke 18: 28-30, anyone who leaves family, possessions and lands, for him and for the gospel will not fail to receive manifold in this life, and in the world to come everlasting life.

You keep speaking for "forsaking all" yet Christ did NOT ask ALL to forsake all and His apostles most certainly did NOT forsake all.
if YOU want to or fell you MUST, that is up to YOU and will be between you and Our Lord.
Just don't go around saying that the Gospel is telling us to forsake all when it is not.

Forsaking materialisim is, I agree very important BUT does NOT equal giving up or forsaking everything.

windywherever wrote:

Paul wrote:While CHOOSING to not work MAY be an option for some ( very few), even Paul and the apostles worked.
Even Christ worked ( up into the point he started His ministry).
To work is NOT to be materialist.
To value materials things OVER God is to be materialist.

Hi Paul. I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I never suggested we should not work. The issue is about who (or what) we work for. In Matthew 6:24 Jesus talks about two masters. He says one is God and the other is mammon. Mammon is a word used to describe money and the things money can buy.

Jesus wants us to stop working for the sake of gaining material things and start working for the sake of loving our brothers. We show that we value material things over God when we decide that we will not help our brother unless he pays us for that help. I hope this helps to clarify my position.

Yes, I agree 100% that we should not work for the sake of gaining material things.
That said, having materials things ( like a home or a car for example) is NOT the same as being slave to them, not the same as being "slave" to them.
Nothing is more important than God but God does NOT ask us to live on the street naked and asking strangers for food for our children when we are able to provide for them and for ourselves and, more importantly, for others.

We must be charitable and take care of those in need.
It is up to those that have much to share with those that have little, in all regards.

But it must be out of love, from the heart, not because the HAVE TO, but because they love to.

The verses from Matthew 25 are good, and I agree that Jesus will separate us according to what we have or have not done. However, one only needs to look at the rest of the his teachings to see that there are other things we will be judged on to, e.g. fearfulness/laziness Matthew 25:26. Do you think just because Jesus does not mention lying, theft, adultery, fornication, blasphemy, greed, pride, that we will not be judged on these too, when clearly in the book of Revelation these ARE reasons given for how judgment will be based e.g. Revelation 21:6-8. Or how about when Jesus said in Matthew 12:35-37, that we'll be held accountable for all our words, and that ''by our words we shall be justified, and by our words we shall be condemned''? You see, there is definitely MORE to the picture, isn't there?

The judgment of unbelievers ( as described in Matthew and Revelation for example) is a judgments for those that did not put their faith in Christ but decide that what they did was more important than believing and putting their faith in what Christ did.
As Christ said in John 5
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Those that do not believe, do not put their faith in Christ, in what Christ DID, BUT put their faith in doing THINGS to "deserve" being saved or in "giving up" things to be saved, they will be judged by the very measure they judge others.

Rick wrote:Thank you for your honesty.

I'm concerned about what's happening here. I don't think rain was dishonest in anything he said. You've certainly not shown any dishonesty. The purpose of his OP was not his personal life. The purpose of his OP was to talk about the teachings of Jesus. For you to make it an issue of dishonesty that he does not share details about his personal life is, in itself, a dishonest representation.

You did something similar in an earlier post when you said;

Rick wrote:Windy or rain,

Before we continue with this discussion, you need to address something I brought up, that you have yet to answer.

Do you two belong to the same Christian Community, or whatever term you give it?

This needs to be answered. If you two come to this forum at the same time, preaching the same beliefs, it makes you look like you have an agenda.

Thank you for your cooperation.

This is a confusing post. You've not put your mod hat on here, but your speech implies that you are speaking as a moderator. You say the discussion will not be allowed to continue unless either rain or I give you details about our personal lives. You also say this needs to be answered, again giving the impression that you are speaking as a mod, though you don't clearly say so.

Is it part of this forum's ethics that a moderator is allowed to use his position of authority to pressure people for details of their personal life? I've never known that to be the case, officially, on any other forum, though I've seen some moderators get away with it.

I see that rain has gone ahead and addressed your question, though I really feel he should not have had to and that it was unfair for you, a moderator, to put either of us in a position where the discussion can longer move forward unless we give you personal information about ourselves.

Lets discuss the topic, not individuals. Thanks.

rain wrote:
And Jesus clearly teaches his disciples to ''Go into all the world, teaching people to obey all things that I have commanded YOU''. There's that hymōn again This verse has been repeatedly mentioned throughout this discussion as evidence that Jesus does want his disciples to teach others to do what he taught them to do. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, as I feel this verse is significant?

RickD wrote:

Yes. Jesus did tell the disciples to do as he commanded them to do.

This is the closest you have come to answering the above question, yet you still side step it. The issue is not whether Jesus told his disciples to do as he commanded them to do, but whether Jesus told his disciples to teach OTHERS to do as he commanded THEM to do. Can you see the difference? It would be good to hear your thoughts on that.

Really, this verse from Matthew which you, and others have had such a hard time acknowledging really gets to heart of this issue for me. It's incredibly clear that Jesus expects us to do as his disciples did. You say I am misinterpreting scripture, but I'm just saying ''Look, Jesus tells us to do what his disciples did''. What from the teachings of Jesus can you present to suggest that he DOESN'T want us to do what he commanded his disciples?

There are other issues from your posts that I could respond to, but I think there is no point, until/unless we can get some agreement on this verse from Matthew 28:20, because otherwise I'm going to keep saying ''we need to do what Jesus commanded the disciples to do'', and you're going to keep saying ''oh, but your reading into scripture, what Jesus told the disciples isn't for us''.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Rick wrote:Simply, don't serve two masters.

This was your response to me asking you to explain what you mean by "distracted by possessions". I don't think you've given much of an answer. In one part of your post you say there's nothing wrong with working for mammon, so long as we don't love it, yet that's not what Jesus said when he taught about the two masters. He didn't say it's okay to work for it as long as we don't love it. He said we will choose one or the other. So your answer doesn't really address the issue of being distracted by materialism.

Maybe it would be helpful if you gave some practical, real life examples of what it means to be "distracted" by materialism. Also, since you stressed that it is the LOVE of money which is the root of all evil, could you give some examples of what it means to love money?

And, I have a problem when someone comes along and says we need to do something that Christ or scripture never told us we need to do.

The problem I'm seeing is that you're choosing which teachings should apply to you and which shouldn't. In some cases I can see some merit for this. But with you it all seems to be about the money. When it comes to "doing to others what you'd have them to do you" you have no problem trying to apply this teaching. You probably have no problem with the Lords prayer and no problem with any number of teachings about loving one another (at least, a love in your heart).

It only seems to be when we talk about teaching on money that you say the teachings are only meant for the disciples of Jesus' day. The argument could easily be made that the "golden rule" was only addressed to Jesus' disciples of that time. Clearly he was only talking to them. He specifically said "you". That's the argument you use for Luke 14:33, but you don't use it with the Golden rule. Why? Because Luke 14:33 deals specifically with attachment to possessions; greed. It's a decisive teaching which doesn't leave any wiggle room; you either do it or you don't do it.

Rick wrote: Loving money and possessions may lead to us living like the world in that regard.

The opposite is also true.

Paul wrote:That said, having materials things ( like a home or a car for example) is NOT the same as being slave to them, not the same as being "slave" to them.

Do you think it is an indication of being a "slave" to money when you believe you cannot live without it? Think about what money actually does (or doesn't do). It does not make food grow. it does not make rain. It does not build homes. It does not sew clothing. It does not create warmth. It does not create animals and it does not create humans. It does not sustain life and it does not create wisdom or knowledge. Money doesn't do anything. The only value it has is the value we choose to give it. And yet the majority of the world believe they will die without it. Yes, that sounds like slavery.

Paul wrote:Nothing is more important than God but God does NOT ask us to live on the street naked and asking strangers for food for our children when we are able to provide for them and for ourselves and, more importantly, for others.

Jesus asks that we choose to work for love rather than for money and the things money can buy. He says we should NOT allow worry about food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith, because God knows what we need.

Now look at your comments. You've given this shocking picture of people and their kids living naked on the street. It certainly is a fearful picture you paint. Surely no one will believe what Jesus said when they are so often exposed to such scary illustrations of what a life of working for love (instead of money) could be like. Fear, fear, fear.

God asks us to lay our lives down for him. But hey, that's probably another one of those teachings for the others guys...

windywherever wrote:

Paul wrote:That said, having materials things ( like a home or a car for example) is NOT the same as being slave to them, not the same as being "slave" to them.

Do you think it is an indication of being a "slave" to money when you believe you cannot live without it? Think about what money actually does (or doesn't do). It does not make food grow. it does not make rain. It does not build homes. It does not sew clothing. It does not create warmth. It does not create animals and it does not create humans. It does not sustain life and it does not create wisdom or knowledge. Money doesn't do anything. The only value it has is the value we choose to give it. And yet the majority of the world believe they will die without it. Yes, that sounds like slavery.

Paul wrote:Nothing is more important than God but God does NOT ask us to live on the street naked and asking strangers for food for our children when we are able to provide for them and for ourselves and, more importantly, for others.

Jesus asks that we choose to work for love rather than for money and the things money can buy. He says we should NOT allow worry about food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith, because God knows what we need.

Now look at your comments. You've given this shocking picture of people and their kids living naked on the street. It certainly is a fearful picture you paint. Surely no one will believe what Jesus said when they are so often exposed to such scary illustrations of what a life of working for love (instead of money) could be like. Fear, fear, fear.

God asks us to lay our lives down for him. But hey, that's probably another one of those teachings for the others guys...

You don't seem to not understand what I wrote or choose not to.
Either this fine, not really my problem.
Believe what you wish since what we do and WHY we do it is between God and Us.
For myself, my conscience is clear in what I do, WHY I do it and for WHOM I do it.

Paul wrote:Nothing is more important than God but God does NOT ask us to live on the street naked and asking strangers for food for our children when we are able to provide for them and for ourselves and, more importantly, for others.

I think another significant point to this quote from Paul is the sense that when we have money we don't need to depend on the charity of our brothers/sisters. Money seems to have created an environment where, if you force people to pay you for your help then you can be proud , but when it comes to depending on charity/generosity from another person then it is somehow shameful.

How did the concept of sharing become shameful while the concept of payment has become the acceptable standard?

windywherever wrote:

Paul wrote:Nothing is more important than God but God does NOT ask us to live on the street naked and asking strangers for food for our children when we are able to provide for them and for ourselves and, more importantly, for others.

I think another significant point to this quote from Paul is the sense that when we have money we don't need to depend on the charity of our brothers/sisters. Money seems to have created an environment where, if you force people to pay you for your help then you can be proud , but when it comes to depending on charity/generosity from another person then it is somehow shameful.

How did the concept of sharing become shameful while the concept of payment has become the acceptable standard?

You are so off here BUT it is fascinating that you understood what I wrote in THAT way.
It shows how preconceived notions will interpret things in such an extreme way that one sees what is NOT there.

To be able to provide for us and others and to NOT do it is what that quote is about.
For someone that is not able to take care of themselves, to be taken care of by another, requires that this other BE ABLE to take care of themselves AND others.

Are we to forsake helping others? of course not BUT how does one help others when they choose to not even help themselves?

Paul wrote:Are we to forsake helping others? of course not BUT how does one help others when they choose to not even help themselves?

By "help ourselves" I'm guessing you mean working for money, since that's what we're talking about. You suggest that the method we should use for helping people is to charge some people money for our help, and then use a portion of that money to provide for others what they need. But is that really help?

The people you want to help (by giving them a portion of the money you charged other people) only need the help in the first place because someone is charging them money (which they don't have) for the help they need. In other words, you're saying we need to demand money for our help so we can help the people who don't have money to get the help they need. It's a ridiculous system.

All this stuff about helping people with money is just a convenient doctrine to make us feel better about our own service to mammon. God doesn't want our money; he wants our time and our loyalty.

windywherever wrote:

Rick wrote:Thank you for your honesty.

I'm concerned about what's happening here. I don't think rain was dishonest in anything he said. You've certainly not shown any dishonesty. The purpose of his OP was not his personal life. The purpose of his OP was to talk about the teachings of Jesus. For you to make it an issue of dishonesty that he does not share details about his personal life is, in itself, a dishonest representation.

You did something similar in an earlier post when you said;

Rick wrote:Windy or rain,

Before we continue with this discussion, you need to address something I brought up, that you have yet to answer.

Do you two belong to the same Christian Community, or whatever term you give it?

This needs to be answered. If you two come to this forum at the same time, preaching the same beliefs, it makes you look like you have an agenda.

Thank you for your cooperation.

This is a confusing post. You've not put your mod hat on here, but your speech implies that you are speaking as a moderator. You say the discussion will not be allowed to continue unless either rain or I give you details about our personal lives. You also say this needs to be answered, again giving the impression that you are speaking as a mod, though you don't clearly say so.

Is it part of this forum's ethics that a moderator is allowed to use his position of authority to pressure people for details of their personal life? I've never known that to be the case, officially, on any other forum, though I've seen some moderators get away with it.

I see that rain has gone ahead and addressed your question, though I really feel he should not have had to and that it was unfair for you, a moderator, to put either of us in a position where the discussion can longer move forward unless we give you personal information about ourselves.

Lets discuss the topic, not individuals. Thanks.

No where was Rick saying we will stop your postings here. Read the quotes from Rick again. He is asking a question, are you both currently involved in a Christian Community Group or not? If so, which one.

We have had folks from the Anabaptist here as well as a few others Christian groups and they were more than happy to declare openly their associations. Many folks glean a lot of good info about these groups with no hard feelings or attacks. However, Windy and Rain, your delay in answering is odd as folks from Christian Community groups were all more than willing speak openly about their respective group.

This is a public forum, and a wide array of folks come and read during the day. We, as Moderators have a Christian obligation to protect readers from falling prey to error. Quakers, Anabaptist, Eastern Orthodox community groups represented by posters easily reveal their associations with no problems or issues with some lively discussions too.

So note our concern is why you do not willing mention the groups you both are associated with? Maybe you have on another thread that I am not aware of. Even with that can you please let us know?
-
-
-

windywherever wrote:

Paul wrote:Are we to forsake helping others? of course not BUT how does one help others when they choose to not even help themselves?

By "help ourselves" I'm guessing you mean working for money, since that's what we're talking about. You suggest that the method we should use for helping people is to charge some people money for our help, and then use a portion of that money to provide for others what they need. But is that really help?

The people you want to help (by giving them a portion of the money you charged other people) only need the help in the first place because someone is charging them money (which they don't have) for the help they need. In other words, you're saying we need to demand money for our help so we can help the people who don't have money to get the help they need. It's a ridiculous system.

All this stuff about helping people with money is just a convenient doctrine to make us feel better about our own service to mammon. God doesn't want our money; he wants our time and our loyalty.

YOU are the one stating that "help ourselves means working for money", you are the one associating working for a livelihood as being a slave to materialism.
If you feel that way then I agree, YOU shouldn't.

Rick wrote:
Thank you for your honesty.


windy wrote:
I'm concerned about what's happening here. I don't think rain was dishonest in anything he said. You've certainly not shown any dishonesty. The purpose of his OP was not his personal life. The purpose of his OP was to talk about the teachings of Jesus. For you to make it an issue of dishonesty that he does not share details about his personal life is, in itself, a dishonest representation.

windy,
I didn't say nor imply that rain was being dishonest. I just thanked him for being honest. We have had more than our fair share of people coming to this board with the specific purpose of pushing their unbiblical beliefs, or to push some kind of agenda. Then, when you and rain both came to the board and started posting about a subject that I cannot recall ever being discussed in the 5 plus years I've been here, caution flags start to go off in my head. I wasn't asking you or rain to share anything about your personal life that wasn't obvious from what you already posted. You both believe, and are promoting the same thing. And you both came on around the same time. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to deduce that you two probably live in the same community. I just wanted it to be in the open, so those reading can understand.

windy wrote:
You did something similar in an earlier post when you said;

Rick wrote:
Windy or rain,

Before we continue with this discussion, you need to address something I brought up, that you have yet to answer.

Do you two belong to the same Christian Community, or whatever term you give it?

This needs to be answered. If you two come to this forum at the same time, preaching the same beliefs, it makes you look like you have an agenda.

Thank you for your cooperation.


windy wrote:
This is a confusing post. You've not put your mod hat on here, but your speech implies that you are speaking as a moderator. You say the discussion will not be allowed to continue unless either rain or I give you details about our personal lives. You also say this needs to be answered, again giving the impression that you are speaking as a mod, though you don't clearly say so.

FYI, I always have my mod hat on. Think of me as a G&S police officer. Just as police officers are always on duty, and are vigilant for something fishy going on, so am I. It is my duty as a moderator, and a believer, to make sure people aren't allowed to promote an unbiblical doctrine, without it being addressed. So, part of the reason for discussing these things with you and rain, is to try to ascertain if what you are posting is biblical, and why you are posting it. If you are here to have an open discussion, are willing to obey the forum rules, which includes yielding to the moderators, then everything will be fine. If on the other hand, you are here to promote an unbiblical doctrine as biblical, and demand that moderators allow you to post on your own terms, then you will be heavily moderated.

windy wrote:
Is it part of this forum's ethics that a moderator is allowed to use his position of authority to pressure people for details of their personal life? I've never known that to be the case, officially, on any other forum, though I've seen some moderators get away with it.

See my above answer.

windy wrote:
I see that rain has gone ahead and addressed your question, though I really feel he should not have had to and that it was unfair for you, a moderator, to put either of us in a position where the discussion can longer move forward unless we give you personal information about ourselves.

See my answer above.

windy wrote:
Lets discuss the topic, not individuals. Thanks.

Let's not try to manipulate the moderators.