Free Republic

These are not the Illuminati you are looking for

for read and study later

pony

for read and study later

pony

for read and study later

pony

Strangely enough, I was just like where you stand now around 10 years ago (as a high school student). At that time I believed the Bible's calls to care for the poor and needy nessiticated a cradle-to-grave welfare state system.

Actually, as a Christian, my thoughts about the care for the poor and needy have never really included a cradle-to-grave welfare state. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I've always understood that care should come from the Church, not the state.

What bothers me is the idea of "tough-love" approach from the state (which I agree with) being used to justify the inaction of The Church (which I don't agree with). Believe me, as an expat living in England, I see daily the downside to modern socialism from a political standpoint. However, this cannot be used as blanket reasoning for the abondonment of the poor and needy by the Church.

Honestly, how much of capitalism's overriding priority to accumulate wealth would Jesus have honestly condoned? Which doesn't automatically mean that Jesus would have immedately embraced communism or socailsism either! Doesn't Scripture say if a man not work, then let him not eat? Nowhere in the Bible is laziness and sloth encouraged, however nowhere is financial profit and the accumulation of wealth held up as man's highest goal.

Unfortunalty, what happens is that whenever a Christian calls out for action for the poor, or for social justice, or expresses concern for *gasp* the environment, suddenly they get labled this flaming liberal who is obviously deceived by Satan needs to be delivered from the evil spirits of communism/socialism/whateverism. I am extremely concerned about many conservative Christian's religious views being conformed by their political views, rather than the other way around.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, fire at will

pony

The question is should that be a government responsibility or individual persons and private organizations?

It kills me that the church has abdicated its role of caregiver.

Where I grew up, the main hospital was Queen of the Valley Hospital, a Catholic run hospital that was the best hospital for miles. Who runs hospitals now? How good are the state, or even just plain secular private hospitals, compared to the care historically the Church has given? How much better has the Church historically done with schooling, housing for the elderly or caring for the homeless?

Don't you see, your question, should care for the poor and needy be a government responsibility or individual persons and private organizations, leaves out the most important, and right answer, THE CHURCH! No, care for the poor and needy should never be a governmental responsibility, nor should it be left merely to "individual persons and private organizations", it should be the Church! US! Like it has been for upwards of 2000 years (longer if you take into account Israel's care, though according to the OT, they blew it off a lot as well, lol)

Sorry about the rant it's just that, again, the Church has abdicated one of it's most important roles in society, and left it for mindless petty bureaucrats while Christians relegate themselves to going to conferences, buying the latest Christian Self-Help book and whining about how bad everyone else is.

In His service

pony

I would have considered myself a biblical conservative but policital liberal up until about ten years ago. I wouldn't now, but not because I have strayed from biblical conservatism, but because the nature of liberalism is rapidly changing every moment. Clearly the Democratic party of John Kerry is nowhere near the Democratic party of FDR, or even JFK, something that life long Democrats like Zed Miller are thankfully making more and more people aware of.

I became a Christian while I was still deeply emersed in far left politic and ideas, and I thought that much of what Jesus taught fit right in with a lot of those ideals. In fact, I still do. While my own politics have become more conservative, much of what Jesus talks about, I believe, still doesn't sit too with much of what the Republican party, and conservatives in general, proclaim.

One has to only look at the seperating of the sheeps and goats in Matthew 25 to see that. When Jesus looks to the sheep and says, "I was naked and you clothed me, I was hungry and you fed me, I was in prison and you visited me", these are not describing actions of a political conservative, are they? More like, if a person was naked and hungry, they need to get a job so they can feed and clothe themselves. If a person was in prison, it's their own fault and they need to be responsible for their actions.

One has to merely look at the constant admonistion throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New, about care for the poor and the needy to see that modern conservatism's wholesale abandonment of the poor and the needy is in direct opposition to God's desire to how we treat each other.

I appreciate that this is an unpopular opinion, espically on a board like this. I would just ask, before anyone reacts to my post, just to re-read what Scripture has to say on things like care for the poor and needy, on the accumulation of wealth, on the priority of love, and see what it has to say, then see how that fits into your own political view, rather than taking your policital view and seeing how you can justify it thorough Scripture.

In His service,

pony

I'm at work now, will read later

pony

For read and study later

pony

for read and study later

pony

For read and study later

pony

Its funny you should reply to me well over a year after I posted this, on the morning after England lost to New Zealand in rugby and lost to France in football (after leading 1-0 most of the match and into the first minute of penalty time, only to have two England players foul two French players to give to penalty kicks resulting in England LOSING 1-2!!! AARRGGHH!!)

..but England won their Test against New Zealand, England completed a nine-wicket win over New Zealand in the second Test to clinch a 2-0 series victory! BRING IT!!!

pony

Its funny you should reply to me well over a year after I posted this, on the morning after England lost to New Zealand in rugby and lost to France in football (after leading 1-0 most of the match and into the first minute of penalty time, only to have two England players foul two French players to give to penalty kicks resulting in England LOSING 1-2!!! AARRGGHH!!)

..but England won their Test against New Zealand, England completed a nine-wicket win over New Zealand in the second Test to clinch a 2-0 series victory! BRING IT!!!

pony

for read & study later

pony

These are among a multitude of verses that show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons who are One, having a perfect unity of heart, mind, purpose, thought, action, etc.

Three Persons who are One is substance as well?

pony

However, if anyone has any philosophical insights, they are welcome to share them.

No, but I do have some philosophical questions. I ask these not for arguments sake (e.g. I already know what I think and i'm just dragging people into a "discussion"), I would just like to hear peoples opinions.

First, In John 16:7 Jesus says, "But i tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." If we work from the premise that The Holy Spirit is God (as Acts 5:1-4 and many, many others would affirm), and if one of the attributes of the Holy Spirit is omnipresence (as Psalm 139:7-10 would affirm), then why is it necessary for Jesus to "send" the Spirit when the Spirit is clearly already here?

Second, more practical question (and this one I do have some sort of opinion on, but I want to hear other views), can somebody be a Christian without having the Holy Spirit? And, if so, what are we to make of Paul's question to the Ephesians in Acts 19:2, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

Many thanks in advance for your input and viewpoints

pony

There are no insignificant details in God's word or in his work, most are passed over lightly

Brilliant. I'm going to steal that, ok? :-)

pony

I am a stickler for details. The problem that you have is that there are to many details. you cannot fit all of them into every sermon, time doesn't allow it. So the answer to you question, "Am I Wrong?" is yes. I think you lose this one an a technicality.

You don't think that the concepts of sin and repentance are foundational principles for a Gospel talk? I appreciate that every doctrine can never be fully expounded upon in any sermon, however, sin and repentance don't seem like insignificant details that can be passed over lightly.

Many thanks for your story. And thanks for the advise. I think that we won't be going anywhere in the immediate future, but either way I've given it up to God at this point. I feel strongly that I need to write a letter (more of a position paper actually) outlining with more detail my concerns about the teaching, as well as my issue with how the incident was handled.

I will be nice, I promise, lol. But, we will see what happens after that.

pony

In my case, it was me that needed the attitude adjustment, even though I still maintain that I was right on doctrine.

Oh, I hope I'm not coming across that I am some poor, persecuted soul. I absolutely need an attitude ajustment. I needed one as soon as I became a Christian, I need one now, I'm sure I'll go on needing one until I'm taken up to Glory.

One of the first messages I heard when I came to this church about two years ago was a gospel preach and alter call with absolutely no mention whatsoever of repentance, of turning away from sin (or hardly even a mention of sin at all), no mention of the cost of discipleship, nothing. The message was basically, "God is good, your life would be so much better if you had Jesus in it."

I was livid, and after the preach I confronted the pastor (which, btw, is where most of this current situation is rooted) and said that he should have talked about repentance. His response to me was that Paul didn't mention repentance in every single preach he did, therefore he didn't need to mention repentance either.

Which, of course, resulted in me explaining to him (in what was a less that loving manner I admit, lol) that there are certain fundemental elements of preaching a solid Gospel message, to which repentance is most certainly one (I ask again, "Am I Wrong?"). That didn't go over well, and I have been labled a troublemaker ever since.

So, yes, a good chunk of this is self-induced, I fully and openly admit. But, honestly, until the Holy Sprit completly overhauls my heart and I become a sensitive, meek, nice guy, I would rather be an annoying thorn in their side then let such poor, anaemic and even dangerous teaching go unchallenged.

It is quite possible that your church needs you to stay. I was in a similar situation and I stayed, no regrets.

That's exactly my wife's rap, that we need to stay to be a thorn in their side. I not overly convinced, but my wife is wise in Wisdom and Spirit in ways I can't even imagine, so I will more than likely heed her counsel.

You need to earn someone's respect, before they respond well to criticism. Church hopping doesn't get that done.

You are right, most of the time running away solves nothing for either side. Besides, when we moved over where we currently are two and a half years ago, we spent about seven months looking around for a decent church, and this was the best of the lot. I'm not too excited at the prospects of looking for another fellowship. Nor would it be good for our two kids to uproot them from church again.

thanks for your input and encouragement.

pony