Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 7:33:47 GMT -5
Can we forget about this obsession with Workers for a moment?
When you hear of a church giving large sums of money to the "poor" there are some things I feel are not right:
1-Jesus gave NOTHING to the poor. 2-Jesus said there will always be the poor. 3-Jesus said charity was a personal thing, and not to be advertised. 4-Jesus did not believe in collective works - everyone is an individual before Him. 5-Jesus warned of practices, rife in the religious world then and now, of dispensing with simple commandments and replacing them with human virtues (ie today Pope Francis said "failing to care for the environment is a betrayal of God.")
Certainly, giving to the "poor" as a private individual, with discretion, is fine and virtuous. But it isn't the primary component of service to God, and is often used by people to defer their service to God (as exemplified by the story of the rich man who gave much to the poor but wouldn't surrender all and follow Jesus.)
Further more, there are very real problems with giving to the "poor." The following article in NextBigFuture warns of some of the pitfalls. The worst problem is the policies that some like Oxfam and now many churches, would promote which could do lasting damage to poor people and poor countries.
It's worth reading. nextbigfuture.com/2015/01/understanding-global-wealth.html********************************************************************************** It seems there are many people online who do not understand global wealth distribution and do not want to understand what would actually help the global poor or the poor in developed countries.
wealth = real assets + financial assets – debts
The bottom 10% of adults in the world have more debt than assets. The bottom 10% of adults have a combined negative $1.05 trillion in net worth in 2013. The estimate of this negative wealth increased from 2011 when it was negative $500 billion.
$135 billion was provided in foreign aid in 2013. Social security and medicare in the USA was $1.3 trillion.
Oxfam is calling on governments to adopt a seven point plan:
• Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals.
• Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education.
• Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labor and consumption towards capital and wealth.
• Introduce minimum wages and move towards a living wage for all workers.
• Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal.
• Ensure adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum-income guarantee.
• Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.
* In places like America very few of these things will happen because of the political situation. Even when things like increase minimum wage is implemented there is still the bottom 10-15% of americans with negative net worth. This is because Americans do not have the Depression era aversion to debt. Taking high interest loans and having debt on credit cards is the problem in America. If you have relatives who are bad with money, then you know giving them money usually does not get them out of debt in a lasting way.
* Good luck trying to get enough jurisdictions to successfully levy taxes on the world's billionaire's. They have the best lawyers and accountants working to prevent it and can position money around the world to avoid it.
Taxing the rich was not what got most of the people out of poverty over the last couple of decades globally
China was responsible for three-quarters of the reduction in extreme poverty over the last few decades. Its economy has been growing so fast that, even though inequality is rising fast, extreme poverty is disappearing. China pulled 680m people out of misery in 1981-2010, and reduced its extreme-poverty rate from 84% in 1980 to 10% now.
That is one reason why (as the briefing explains) it will be harder to take a billion more people out of extreme poverty in the next 20 years than it was to take almost a billion out in the past 20. Poorer governance in India and Africa, the next two targets, means that China’s experience is unlikely to be swiftly replicated there. Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the $1.25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it. When growth makes them even slightly better off, it hauls them over the line.
Global poverty results will depend more upon the governance of Prime minister Modi in India then on any increased aid.
Increased US income and corporate taxes would not go to international poverty reduction in Africa and India Less than 1% of the income in developed countries goes to foreign aid
Foreign aid has helped reduce infant mortality but has note helped with illiteracy.
Official development assistance in the world was $135 billion in 2013.
There are many studies asking if foreign aid works. This is because the evidence shows that it mostly does not work.
What do the global poor need
Clean water and safe sanitation Nutritious food Better basic healthcare Smoke free cooking and heating and lighting (prevent 4 million deaths per year)
Preventing stunting by getting more nutrition into their diet. Clean water and safe sanitation and smoke free cooking and heating would prevent deaths and improve health.
SOURCES - James Davies - Rodrigo Lluberas and Anthony F. Shorrocks global wealth distribution 2014 presentation
Author: brian wang on 1/19/2015
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 10:32:33 GMT -5
Yes I agree with all that is written above, maybe it would inspire those who are in a position to make a difference universally if they would read the following passages of scripture and take it to heart , but I very much doubt there would be any significant changes. The poor will always be with us but much can be done to make their lives more comfortable and bearable.
Matthew 25: 35-41; Isaiah 58:10 Proverbs 28: 27, and Prov 14: 31 James 2: 14-18 Luke 3: 11 1 John 3: 17-18 John 6:32-35 By the way one does not necessarily have to be religeous to be generous and many who give to charities are not religeous, and vice versa, many who claim to be religeous do not give to charities.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 20, 2015 11:33:46 GMT -5
Careful Bert. Jesus gave lots to the poor, inc. respect, time and teaching.
Jesus said there will always be poor WITH YOU. Don't leave out that last part as it changes the meaning. Maybe the poor are WITH US, because we want to be near them and help them (compassion).
When Jesus saw the poor widow casting in her two mites, was that public or private? Did Jesus tell her she was doing it wrong?
I think I know what you mean Bert, and I don't mean to suggest that every church is doing it in the best way. Certainly not. But there is a ditch on both sides of the road. Just because some churches go overboard doesn't mean it should all be private.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2015 13:18:53 GMT -5
Jesus was considered poor was he not? He did give the poor in the ways he could, time, healing, teaching. He may have not had money to give but he certainly volunteered his time to helping those around him. That would be rather public wouldn't it? He told us to take care of others (our brethern), he told us to love each other, he told us that taking in a stranger and helping that stranger was the same thing as helping or loving him. There is plenty of examples where he gave what he could to help the poor and most of that was done in a public forum. I think he was more concerned about people doing it because they wanted to look righteous. Done with that attitude is what he was against I believe. Done with an honest loving desire to help was never something he preached against I don't think. In a world of several billion people, many of those well below the poverty level, it makes sense that organizations that can help, should help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 16:18:33 GMT -5
Careful Bert. Jesus gave lots to the poor, inc. respect, time and teaching. Jesus said there will always be poor WITH YOU. Don't leave out that last part as it changes the meaning. Maybe the poor are WITH US, because we want to be near them and help them (compassion). When Jesus saw the poor widow casting in her two mites, was that public or private? Did Jesus tell her she was doing it wrong? I think I know what you mean Bert, and I don't mean to suggest that every church is doing it in the best way. Certainly not. But there is a ditch on both sides of the road. Just because some churches go overboard doesn't mean it should all be private. I haven't looked into it, but I suspect that many times Jesus mentioned "the poor" he meant the poor in spirit. In that sense even the rich people who came to Jesus were "poor." If God wanted to eliminate "poverty" he could have rained manna from the skies.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2015 16:41:08 GMT -5
Careful Bert. Jesus gave lots to the poor, inc. respect, time and teaching. Jesus said there will always be poor WITH YOU. Don't leave out that last part as it changes the meaning. Maybe the poor are WITH US, because we want to be near them and help them (compassion). When Jesus saw the poor widow casting in her two mites, was that public or private? Did Jesus tell her she was doing it wrong? I think I know what you mean Bert, and I don't mean to suggest that every church is doing it in the best way. Certainly not. But there is a ditch on both sides of the road. Just because some churches go overboard doesn't mean it should all be private. I haven't looked into it, but I suspect that many times Jesus mentioned "the poor" he meant the poor in spirit. In that sense even the rich people who came to Jesus were "poor." If God wanted to eliminate "poverty" he could have rained manna from the skies.Right. That's a pretty good excuse to get God off the hook for not doing anything for humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 20, 2015 22:27:10 GMT -5
Jesus said his purpose in coming was to preach the gospel to the poor. Bert, I believe our disagreement is twofold: 1) Who are the poor, and 2) what is the gospel.
Our preconceived ideas therefore lead us to two entirely different conclusions. Since you prescribe to an afterlife-oriented form of religion, you don't recognize what I see as the gospel of Jesus, and think what the poor need is the saving of an eternal soul.
This discussion goes way, way deeper than a few random verses. It is about who Jesus was at the most basic level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 22:50:54 GMT -5
True, at a deep level Jesus was foremost the "Lamb of God" who was "slain from the foundation of the world" to redeem His people from sin and death.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit" he cried. Blessed are those impoverished by what this world has to offer.
These who were "poor in spirit" came from the entire range of socio-eco groups, including those who were financially poor, those who were sick, those who were powerful and those who were rich.
And many (presumably) financially poor people Jesus turned away because they were fed of the fishes and loaves - and that is all they wanted from Jesus, "... truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 7:24:22 GMT -5
The problem I see is that individuals try to interpret and understand scriptures, (God's words and Jesus's words ) based on their own understanding. When we consider that our thoughts and our ways are not God's thoughts and ways, how can we be so sure that we have got it right and that others have got it all wrong? None of us can read God's or Jesus's minds, so it all boils down to matters of opinions which may or may not be correct; yet, we are urged in the same scriptures not to lean to our own undestanding in these matters. I suppose some will say that God will reveal it in good time, my question is, will He reveal it to everyone or just a few chosen believers?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 21, 2015 11:53:37 GMT -5
The problem I see is that individuals try to interpret and understand scriptures, (God's words and Jesus's words ) based on their own understanding. When we consider that our thoughts and our ways are not God's thoughts and ways, how can we be so sure that we have got it right and that others have got it all wrong? None of us can read God's or Jesus's minds, so it all boils down to matters of opinions which may or may not be correct; yet, we are urged in the same scriptures not to lean to our own undestanding in these matters. I suppose some will say that God will reveal it in good time, my question is, will He reveal it to everyone or just a few chosen believers? My question would be, how can you be sure you've had any revelation at all or that it is even true? We see a lot of people that judge other people based on what they feel God has revealed to them. I just don't buy it at all. I think it's just someone interpreting their thoughts to justify their judgments and say God said so. If you look at the number of things that have happened because 'God told me to' you will understand why I am skeptical that God talks to people and tells them things. More often then not when people say God talks to them or reveals stuff to them, it comes out as being a judgment against other humans. To me it gives me insight into the workings of that persons brain, but not into anything a divine loving being might reveal.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 21, 2015 12:24:29 GMT -5
Bert, are you not aware of the definition of fasting?
Bert, are you fatherless? Who do you think God is referring to here?
Bert, compassion towards the poor is a very common theme in scripture and rarely is the qualifier "in spirit" added.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jan 21, 2015 14:45:39 GMT -5
Bert, are you not aware of the definition of fasting? Bert, are you fatherless? Who do you think God is referring to here? Bert, compassion towards the poor is a very common theme in scripture and rarely is the qualifier "in spirit" added. This reminds me of a testimony by an elderly lady, lucky enough to still have a living husband. She was speaking on James 1:27...that we are visit the orphans and widows in their affliction and keep unspotted by the world. She said, direct quote, that "I don't have to worry about the orphans and widows, I just need to keep myself unspotted by the world." My Mom, sitting next to me, was a widow, and I thought she was going to fall out of her chair. This lady never once bothered to offer my Mom any comfort or help when Dad died, so she obviously believed it was unnecessary. However, she didn't explain why she could leapfrog over the first two requirements and I really wanted to ask her. She and her husband are worker focused, so maybe she felt that by taking care of them she was doing the first two. I will never know, as I didn't ask. My poor Mom was not sure whether she should laugh or cry, but it was a memorable moment for us all.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 21, 2015 15:34:14 GMT -5
Can we forget about this obsession with Workers for a moment?
When you hear of a church giving large sums of money to the "poor" there are some things I feel are not right:
1-Jesus gave NOTHING to the poor. 2-Jesus said there will always be the poor. 3-Jesus said charity was a personal thing, and not to be advertised. 4-Jesus did not believe in collective works - everyone is an individual before Him. 5-Jesus warned of practices, rife in the religious world then and now, of dispensing with simple commandments and replacing them with human virtues (ie today Pope Francis said "failing to care for the environment is a betrayal of God.")
Certainly, giving to the "poor" as a private individual, with discretion, is fine and virtuous. But it isn't the primary component of service to God, and is often used by people to defer their service to God (as exemplified by the story of the rich man who gave much to the poor but wouldn't surrender all and follow Jesus.)
Further more, there are very real problems with giving to the "poor." The following article in NextBigFuture warns of some of the pitfalls. The worst problem is the policies that some like Oxfam and now many churches, would promote which could do lasting damage to poor people and poor countries.
It's worth reading. nextbigfuture.com/2015/01/understanding-global-wealth.html********************************************************************************** It seems there are many people online who do not understand global wealth distribution and do not want to understand what would actually help the global poor or the poor in developed countries.
wealth = real assets + financial assets – debts
The bottom 10% of adults in the world have more debt than assets. The bottom 10% of adults have a combined negative $1.05 trillion in net worth in 2013. The estimate of this negative wealth increased from 2011 when it was negative $500 billion.
$135 billion was provided in foreign aid in 2013. Social security and medicare in the USA was $1.3 trillion.
Oxfam is calling on governments to adopt a seven point plan:
• Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals.
• Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education.
• Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labor and consumption towards capital and wealth.
• Introduce minimum wages and move towards a living wage for all workers.
• Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal.
• Ensure adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum-income guarantee.
• Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.
* In places like America very few of these things will happen because of the political situation. Even when things like increase minimum wage is implemented there is still the bottom 10-15% of americans with negative net worth. This is because Americans do not have the Depression era aversion to debt. Taking high interest loans and having debt on credit cards is the problem in America. If you have relatives who are bad with money, then you know giving them money usually does not get them out of debt in a lasting way.
* Good luck trying to get enough jurisdictions to successfully levy taxes on the world's billionaire's. They have the best lawyers and accountants working to prevent it and can position money around the world to avoid it.
Taxing the rich was not what got most of the people out of poverty over the last couple of decades globally
China was responsible for three-quarters of the reduction in extreme poverty over the last few decades. Its economy has been growing so fast that, even though inequality is rising fast, extreme poverty is disappearing. China pulled 680m people out of misery in 1981-2010, and reduced its extreme-poverty rate from 84% in 1980 to 10% now.
That is one reason why (as the briefing explains) it will be harder to take a billion more people out of extreme poverty in the next 20 years than it was to take almost a billion out in the past 20. Poorer governance in India and Africa, the next two targets, means that China’s experience is unlikely to be swiftly replicated there. Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the $1.25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it. When growth makes them even slightly better off, it hauls them over the line.
Global poverty results will depend more upon the governance of Prime minister Modi in India then on any increased aid.
Increased US income and corporate taxes would not go to international poverty reduction in Africa and India Less than 1% of the income in developed countries goes to foreign aid
Foreign aid has helped reduce infant mortality but has note helped with illiteracy.
Official development assistance in the world was $135 billion in 2013.
There are many studies asking if foreign aid works. This is because the evidence shows that it mostly does not work.
What do the global poor need
Clean water and safe sanitation Nutritious food Better basic healthcare Smoke free cooking and heating and lighting (prevent 4 million deaths per year)
Preventing stunting by getting more nutrition into their diet. Clean water and safe sanitation and smoke free cooking and heating would prevent deaths and improve health.
SOURCES - James Davies - Rodrigo Lluberas and Anthony F. Shorrocks global wealth distribution 2014 presentation
Author: brian wang on 1/19/2015
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 21, 2015 15:40:57 GMT -5
Bert The first section of your post is incorrect. Christ showed the apostles 'how to give and distribute all' that came in too their posession/hands. No bank accounts in those days. Just one who looked after the purse. Having the poor with us? Why do you think that is? Many use it as an excuse not to help. How many poor in your church? Do they have support? Given assistence? If not can they be called a new testament church? Any church who distributed the way the apostles did would not have problems with numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 21, 2015 15:45:04 GMT -5
Bert, are you not aware of the definition of fasting? Bert, are you fatherless? Who do you think God is referring to here? Bert, compassion towards the poor is a very common theme in scripture and rarely is the qualifier "in spirit" added. This reminds me of a testimony by an elderly lady, lucky enough to still have a living husband. She was speaking on James 1:27...that we are visit the orphans and widows in their affliction and keep unspotted by the world. She said, direct quote, that "I don't have to worry about the orphans and widows, I just need to keep myself unspotted by the world." My Mom, sitting next to me, was a widow, and I thought she was going to fall out of her chair. This lady never once bothered to offer my Mom any comfort or help when Dad died, so she obviously believed it was unnecessary. However, she didn't explain why she could leapfrog over the first two requirements and I really wanted to ask her. She and her husband are worker focused, so maybe she felt that by taking care of them she was doing the first two. I will never know, as I didn't ask. My poor Mom was not sure whether she should laugh or cry, but it was a memorable moment for us all. Hberry This is a problem. The workers are not homeless they have the friends. Workers who go to third world countries. Do they have financial assistence from the coffers? Or are they a burden on the poor they are there to help?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 21, 2015 19:56:07 GMT -5
True, at a deep level Jesus was foremost the "Lamb of God" who was "slain from the foundation of the world" to redeem His people from sin and death. "Blessed are the poor in spirit" he cried. Blessed are those impoverished by what this world has to offer. I'm aware of Matthew's spin on the "poor," Bert. I encourage you to read the beatitudes in Luke instead. In Luke’s version, the sayings are very down to earth, not meant in a spiritual way at all. In Luke, we’re not dealing with the poor in spirit, we’re dealing with the poor. We’re not dealing with those who hunger after justice, but with those who are truly hungry. It’s not about those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, but simply all who are persecuted. Luke is not about spiritual needs, but about stark reality. In Luke, Jesus is concerned about those with empty stomachs, the real have-nots, the people who are weeping now. I am convinced, given Jesus's example and teachings elsewhere, that Luke's version is the more authentic one. It's a primary topic in my latest book.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 21, 2015 22:01:39 GMT -5
Can we bring heaven to earth by devoting ourselves to the poor? Not if God has devoted the world to an exhibition of sin. If so it will not be immediately possible to realize heaven on earth. Can we know that God has devoted the world to sin? There are biblical indications it has been II Thessalonians 2:1-4. Does this mean God is evil? Not necessarily. There could be cosmic value in allowing sin to express itself for a time.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 21, 2015 22:12:32 GMT -5
Does this mean we shouldn't give to the poor? Not at all. Cosmologically-speaking, there's just no way to "do sin" and there not be victims. All the same, giving to the poor benefits us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 6:01:10 GMT -5
Quote - "In Luke’s version, the sayings are very down to earth, not meant in a spiritual way at all. In Luke, we’re not dealing with the poor in spirit, we’re dealing with the poor. We’re not dealing with those who hunger after justice, but with those who are truly hungry. It’s not about those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, but simply all who are persecuted. Luke is not about spiritual needs, but about stark reality. In Luke, Jesus is concerned about those with empty stomachs, the real have-nots, the people who are weeping now.
I am convinced, given Jesus's example and teachings elsewhere, that Luke's version is the more authentic one. It's a primary topic in my latest book."
Since when do Gospels repudiate one another?
Seems there must be a billion Jesus' out there. Everyone's got their own spin on the man.
Your Jesus is more like one who wants to discuss agricultural practices: pest control, irrigation, hybridization, fertilizers and what have you. Maybe Jesus was a guy who wanted to work in the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture, but didn't get the job?
Jesus said not to be concerned about physical things because God cared for those who loved Him - go figure. And as for the feeding of the five thousand - these weren't poor people but those who were with Him for three days. The miracle had the effect of attracting the wrong sort of people to Jesus, and He never repeated it.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 22, 2015 14:16:45 GMT -5
Jesus said not to be concerned about physical things because God cared for those who loved Him -
That doesn't happen though, does it?
If you believe that God takes are of the " physical things," of those that love him, -how do you account for all those Christians who are so poor they don't have enough to shelter & feed their children properly?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 22, 2015 14:30:09 GMT -5
Can we bring heaven to earth by devoting ourselves to the poor? Not if God has devoted the world to an exhibition of sin. If so it will not be immediately possible to realize heaven on earth. Can we know that God has devoted the world to sin? There are biblical indications it has been II Thessalonians 2:4. Does this mean God is evil? Not necessarily. There could be cosmic value in allowing sin to express itself for a time. Lee said: "Not if God has devoted the world to an exhibition of sin." "There could be cosmic value in allowing sin to express itself for a time." Lee, I have heard many an apologist trying to twist reason into a pretzel to make God look good, but I must say that yours really knows no equal. Congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jan 22, 2015 15:02:21 GMT -5
"For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. " via Matt 26:11
We don't have him in the flesh now. They didn't have him for long, either.
"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." via Matthew 25:35-40
There is a spiritual problem if we are not moved by poverty, sickness, etc. to act. For the sake of the sufferer and not for points in heaven. Because we actually have a loving, tender heart. There is a spiritual problem if we try to justify not helping. There is a spiritual problem if we criticize others for helping, or trying to. Maybe there is a spiritual problem with me criticizing criticizers. Ha.
There are ways to help that can have significant, lasting effects. We can research and see how we can do the most good, whatever our own abilities are. It's heartbreaking when people could be lifted out of a current ditch and they could go on to be productive-- and no one helps, because it's messy or we think it might be. It's not our place to decide what the poor are thinking or what got them there or what they will do with help. We just have to help in the best way we can.
Is it right to think worse of church charity initiatives than secular ones? I admit that I've done it, and it doesn't feel right now. Any encouragement to help the needy (that is legitimate) can't be a bad thing. If the organizer (religious or not) is doing it for recognition, that doesn't mean you or I can't participate and get help to someone. I don't have the means to start my own soup kitchen or go build wells in Africa...I'm thrilled there are organized efforts that individuals can give their meager amounts of time and money to for a bigger impact. I'm probably not going to wear a mask while doing it, or skip doing it, just to keep my charity private.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 22, 2015 18:16:11 GMT -5
Can we bring heaven to earth by devoting ourselves to the poor? Not if God has devoted the world to an exhibition of sin. If so it will not be immediately possible to realize heaven on earth. Can we know that God has devoted the world to sin? There are biblical indications it has been II Thessalonians 2:4. Does this mean God is evil? Not necessarily. There could be cosmic value in allowing sin to express itself for a time. Lee said: "Not if God has devoted the world to an exhibition of sin." "There could be cosmic value in allowing sin to express itself for a time." Lee, I have heard many an apologist trying to twist reason into a pretzel to make God look good, but I must say that yours really knows no equal. Congratulations!
Oh I don't know dmg, just how much fun would life really be if not for 'sin'? The church has ruled out anything fun as being a 'sin', so thank goodness for sin and the free will to indulge in it!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 22, 2015 19:51:52 GMT -5
Oh I don't know dmg, just how much fun would life really be if not for 'sin'? The church has ruled out anything fun as being a 'sin', so thank goodness for sin and the free will to indulge in it! Got a point there, snow!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 23, 2015 1:33:16 GMT -5
Can we bring heaven to earth by devoting ourselves to the poor? Not if God has devoted the world to an exhibition of sin. If so it will not be immediately possible to realize heaven on earth. Can we know that God has devoted the world to sin? There are biblical indications it has been II Thessalonians 2:4. Does this mean God is evil? Not necessarily. There could be cosmic value in allowing sin to express itself for a time. Lee said: "Not if God has devoted the world to an exhibition of sin." "There could be cosmic value in allowing sin to express itself for a time." Lee, I have heard many an apologist trying to twist reason into a pretzel to make God look good, but I must say that yours really knows no equal. Congratulations!
I don't know what world you live in but in the world I live in God is sovereign. There must be a cosmic-scale reason God allows evil. You and I do not grasp those reasons just yet, but then we're not God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 2:01:34 GMT -5
I don't know what world you live in but in the world I live in God is sovereign. There must be a cosmic-scale reason God allows evil. You and I do not grasp those reasons just yet, but then we're not God. Yes, I'm very glad to NOT live in your "God is sovereign" world where someone can call themselves god & who not only allows evil but commits quite a bit of evil himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 5:34:42 GMT -5
God permits evil because God permits free will.
ps I read in Luke's Gospel today that incident where he told his own townsfolk that only one woman was helped when there was a famine in Israel - and she wasn't even a Jew. Those people tried to kill Jesus for that. Saying that Jesus came to feed the physically hungry is a bizarre reading of even Luke's Gospel.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 23, 2015 12:47:54 GMT -5
" For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. " via Matt 26:11 There is a spiritual problem if we are not moved by poverty, sickness, etc. to act. For the sake of the sufferer and not for points in heaven. Because we actually have a loving, tender heart. There is a spiritual problem if we try to justify not helping. There is a spiritual problem if we criticize others for helping, or trying to. Maybe there is a spiritual problem with me criticizing criticizers. Ha. Thank you for quoting Matt 25. We will be rewarded for how we treated those who are without (i.e. food, clothing, liberty, etc.). This is a very common theme throughout scripture and workers would rarely teach on it. ALso, note
|
|