Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 22:09:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're asking. Not to worry, wally. ummm thanks but I think you mean fixit don't you?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 7, 2015 23:23:48 GMT -5
ummm thanks but I think you mean fixit don't you? You're right. Maybe I'll track him down.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 7, 2015 23:27:12 GMT -5
So what was the noun used for the ministry in the Bible? I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm wondering what collective noun would have been used for the equivalent of the 2x2 "ministry" in Bible days. Was it a "ministry", or a "posse", or what?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 8, 2015 4:03:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm wondering what collective noun would have been used for the equivalent of the 2x2 "ministry" in Bible days. Was it a "ministry", or a "posse", or what? What do you think the organisation was called?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 8, 2015 5:16:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm wondering what collective noun would have been used for the equivalent of the 2x2 "ministry" in Bible days. Was it a "ministry", or a "posse", or what? "Workers," of course.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 8, 2015 14:12:28 GMT -5
I'm wondering what collective noun would have been used for the equivalent of the 2x2 "ministry" in Bible days. Was it a "ministry", or a "posse", or what? What do you think the organisation was called? Why do you need to know what I think before you answer the question?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 8, 2015 16:33:51 GMT -5
What do you think the organisation was called? Why do you need to know what I think before you answer the question? Mostly to try to understand you enough to hold an intelligent conversation with you.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 8, 2015 20:14:47 GMT -5
Why do you need to know what I think before you answer the question? Mostly to try to understand you enough to hold an intelligent conversation with you. Ok. If I were going to discuss the "group" of all the workers/apostles/whatever in Bible times, I would refer to them as the ministry of Jesus' gospel. What would you say instead of "ministry" of Jesus' gospel?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 8, 2015 20:39:38 GMT -5
Mostly to try to understand you enough to hold an intelligent conversation with you. Ok. If I were going to discuss the "group" of all the workers/apostles/whatever in Bible times, I would refer to them as the ministry of Jesus' gospel. What would you say instead of "ministry" of Jesus' gospel? I would have a hard time seeing them as an organised "group", which means I wouldn't really have a need for a name.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 8, 2015 21:13:01 GMT -5
Ok. If I were going to discuss the "group" of all the workers/apostles/whatever in Bible times, I would refer to them as the ministry of Jesus' gospel. What would you say instead of "ministry" of Jesus' gospel? I would have a hard time seeing them as an organised "group", which means I wouldn't really have a need for a name. Why not use the word for such a group - ministry. The workers use it. We speak English, not Christian. Come to think of it, they (the Biblical ones) couldn't even call themselves a "group" -- English hadn't been invented then.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 8, 2015 22:10:46 GMT -5
I would have a hard time seeing them as an organised "group", which means I wouldn't really have a need for a name. Why not use the word for such a group - ministry. The workers use it. We speak English, not Christian. Come to think of it, they (the Biblical ones) couldn't even call themselves a "group" -- English hadn't been invented then. I haven't noticed the English bible use "the ministry".
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 8, 2015 22:51:23 GMT -5
I suspect you don't really believe that - there is far too much documented evidence pointing to organisation.
If you mean that they did not have a legal structure which is required of organisations today then no, they were not an organised group.
Then again, I don't believe such requirements were necessary in NT times.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 8, 2015 23:26:07 GMT -5
I suspect you don't really believe that - there is far too much documented evidence pointing to organisation. Do you mean the emerging Catholic Church?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 9, 2015 0:29:33 GMT -5
I suspect you don't really believe that - there is far too much documented evidence pointing to organisation. Do you mean the emerging Catholic Church? No, I mean what I see in NT writings.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 9, 2015 1:40:19 GMT -5
Do you mean the emerging Catholic Church? No, I mean what I see in NT writings. I'm not doubting you, but can you give examples?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 9, 2015 2:13:08 GMT -5
No, I mean what I see in NT writings. I'm not doubting you, but can you give examples? Sure. Paul is a great example of an organiser - he organised meeting places, who was to be in charge and what the duties were to be, he organised a hierarchy of responsibility, and he presented doctrine in an organised and logical manner. We don't read much about the work of Peter and James but I suspect that they too were doing similar things to Paul. And was it Antioch where they were first known as Christians ......... a name for their organisation.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Oct 9, 2015 2:25:24 GMT -5
So what do we have here…..We have a still photograph, and an audio presentation. In the photo we see a gentleman’s ear and a pair of ginger buns. Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light……Sorry wrong song. Up ahead in the distance we see a man standing, speaking to a group of people including ear-man and the two ginger buns. The audio is of a man preaching a Christian message, obviously to a group of people. The photo and audio are not necessarily related. Both audio and photograph are of poor quality and combined do tend to conspire to present the scene in a very poor light, whether intentionally or not. It would appear that may be the intention.
Retracting back through the camera lens, and back again through several computer screens, we have a number of people proffering critical comments regarding the scene, and regarding their own past experience in similar situations.
But the whole and complete picture is far from presented accurately and truthfully in the OP.
You see ear-man in the photograph is in fact old Bob, a boy-hood buddy of the speaker, Glen. Bob sees old Glen up there and reminisces of the good old days when he and Glen were getting up to no-good, racing around the town in their ’58 Chevys ,,or down at the milk-bar with the Potchinsky sisters…..Or maybe that was down at the milking shed and the Potchinsky sisters weren’t really there…. but the lads wished they were. Bob ended up marrying Gloria Potchinsky. Agnus Potchinsky went into the ministry and spent forty years of her life in Pakistan, preaching the word and ministering to the needy. Bob and Glen kept in close contact of course. Glen helped Bob through some difficult days in his life. Their mutual respect for each other is incalculable.
The ginger buns are in fact Ruth and Sylvie, close friends from Watchatar County. They have often provided hospitality to Glen in their respective homes. When he’s relaxed, Glen can be a very funny guy. They have each other on, Glen enjoys a bit of verbal sparring…And he’s a great cook. All these folks love having him in the home. They appreciate his wisdom, and they appreciate his sincerity. Old Glen might be a little dry in his verbal presentation, but they love the man, and they love and respect his counsel.
So beyond the apparent dullness presented here, and despite the criticism leveled at the participants in the scene and the mocking and the scorning of what these good folk believe, there is a vibrancy and a dynamic permeating their mutual fellowship which sustains and feeds them, and provides a quality of life and meaning that their detractors do not necessarily have. It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it.
We’ll now close with ‘Ear we part’.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 9, 2015 8:04:40 GMT -5
Rob Sargison "So beyond the apparent dullness presented here, and despite the criticism leveled at the participants in the scene and the mocking and the scorning of what these good folk believe, there is a vibrancy and a dynamic permeating their mutual fellowship which sustains and feeds them, and provides a quality of life and meaning that their detractors do not necessarily have. It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it". The mutual fellowship you refer to (when personalising the people featured in the gospel meeting / convention video in this thread), is common to many religions and is consistent with the claims that religion is a social construct. You may have read the work of Emile Durkheim. He stated that 'religion gave humanity its' strongest sense of collective consciousness'. " It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it" does not appear to consider the process by which the majority of religious adherents come to believe in what ever brand of religion they are to be found in. If it were not for the indoctrination of children, many people would not be religious. This process infringes on the rights of (typically) the child to apply natural and free inquiry. The indoctrination process is designed to overpower children and others, and coerce them to conform even when it does not suit them. When considering this, it is reasonable to query whether immense contentment is really achieveable.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Jones 'kyblue' on Oct 9, 2015 8:37:31 GMT -5
Walker, this has to be Glenn. But, I could only stand about 20 seconds - just enough to recognize the voice.
|
|
|
Post by bluejay on Oct 9, 2015 15:02:59 GMT -5
So what do we have here…..We have a still photograph, and an audio presentation. In the photo we see a gentleman’s ear and a pair of ginger buns. Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light……Sorry wrong song. Up ahead in the distance we see a man standing, speaking to a group of people including ear-man and the two ginger buns. The audio is of a man preaching a Christian message, obviously to a group of people. The photo and audio are not necessarily related. Both audio and photograph are of poor quality and combined do tend to conspire to present the scene in a very poor light, whether intentionally or not. It would appear that may be the intention. Retracting back through the camera lens, and back again through several computer screens, we have a number of people proffering critical comments regarding the scene, and regarding their own past experience in similar situations. But the whole and complete picture is far from presented accurately and truthfully in the OP. You see ear-man in the photograph is in fact old Bob, a boy-hood buddy of the speaker, Glen. Bob sees old Glen up there and reminisces of the good old days when he and Glen were getting up to no-good, racing around the town in their ’58 Chevys ,,or down at the milk-bar with the Potchinsky sisters…..Or maybe that was down at the milking shed and the Potchinsky sisters weren’t really there…. but the lads wished they were. Bob ended up marrying Gloria Potchinsky. Agnus Potchinsky went into the ministry and spent forty years of her life in Pakistan, preaching the word and ministering to the needy. Bob and Glen kept in close contact of course. Glen helped Bob through some difficult days in his life. Their mutual respect for each other is incalculable. The ginger buns are in fact Ruth and Sylvie, close friends from Watchatar County. They have often provided hospitality to Glen in their respective homes. When he’s relaxed, Glen can be a very funny guy. They have each other on, Glen enjoys a bit of verbal sparring…And he’s a great cook. All these folks love having him in the home. They appreciate his wisdom, and they appreciate his sincerity. Old Glen might be a little dry in his verbal presentation, but they love the man, and they love and respect his counsel. So beyond the apparent dullness presented here, and despite the criticism leveled at the participants in the scene and the mocking and the scorning of what these good folk believe, there is a vibrancy and a dynamic permeating their mutual fellowship which sustains and feeds them, and provides a quality of life and meaning that their detractors do not necessarily have. It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it. We’ll now close with ‘Ear we part’. Thanks for the real story behind this picture/audio! No need for apologies though Rob. You were VERY correct in quoting this song. And the answer to those who ask why we "exes" care and post here is contained in the last two lines of this wonderful song ..... "You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave".
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 9, 2015 20:50:23 GMT -5
So what do we have here…..We have a still photograph, and an audio presentation. In the photo we see a gentleman’s ear and a pair of ginger buns. Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light……Sorry wrong song. Up ahead in the distance we see a man standing, speaking to a group of people including ear-man and the two ginger buns. The audio is of a man preaching a Christian message, obviously to a group of people. The photo and audio are not necessarily related. Both audio and photograph are of poor quality and combined do tend to conspire to present the scene in a very poor light, whether intentionally or not. It would appear that may be the intention. Retracting back through the camera lens, and back again through several computer screens, we have a number of people proffering critical comments regarding the scene, and regarding their own past experience in similar situations. But the whole and complete picture is far from presented accurately and truthfully in the OP. You see ear-man in the photograph is in fact old Bob, a boy-hood buddy of the speaker, Glen. Bob sees old Glen up there and reminisces of the good old days when he and Glen were getting up to no-good, racing around the town in their ’58 Chevys ,,or down at the milk-bar with the Potchinsky sisters…..Or maybe that was down at the milking shed and the Potchinsky sisters weren’t really there…. but the lads wished they were. Bob ended up marrying Gloria Potchinsky. Agnus Potchinsky went into the ministry and spent forty years of her life in Pakistan, preaching the word and ministering to the needy. Bob and Glen kept in close contact of course. Glen helped Bob through some difficult days in his life. Their mutual respect for each other is incalculable. The ginger buns are in fact Ruth and Sylvie, close friends from Watchatar County. They have often provided hospitality to Glen in their respective homes. When he’s relaxed, Glen can be a very funny guy. They have each other on, Glen enjoys a bit of verbal sparring…And he’s a great cook. All these folks love having him in the home. They appreciate his wisdom, and they appreciate his sincerity. Old Glen might be a little dry in his verbal presentation, but they love the man, and they love and respect his counsel. So beyond the apparent dullness presented here, and despite the criticism leveled at the participants in the scene and the mocking and the scorning of what these good folk believe, there is a vibrancy and a dynamic permeating their mutual fellowship which sustains and feeds them, and provides a quality of life and meaning that their detractors do not necessarily have. It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it. We’ll now close with ‘Ear we part’. VERY well put. Thank you for that, Rob.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 9, 2015 20:57:06 GMT -5
" It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it" does not appear to consider the process by which the majority of religious adherents come to believe in what ever brand of religion they are to be found in. If it were not for the indoctrination of children, many people would not be religious. This process infringes on the rights of (typically) the child to apply natural and free inquiry. The indoctrination process is designed to overpower children and others, and coerce them to conform even when it does not suit them. When considering this, it is reasonable to query whether immense contentment is really achieveable. Valid point, but no different than the indoctrination of children into capitalism, atheism, socialism, humanitarianism, free-trade-ism, universalist unitarianism, cannibalism or any other -ism. What do you suggest as a solution to encourage children to apply natural and free enquiry and, ultimately, conformity to something which "suits them" and will lead to "immense contentment?"
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 9, 2015 21:12:35 GMT -5
Hello Gene, "What do you suggest as a solution to encourage children to apply natural and free enquiry and, ultimately, conformity to something which "suits them" and will lead to "immense contentment?"" The below comment sums up what I see as a reasonable approach to avoiding indoctrinating children. However as "immense contentment" is subjective, it is impossible to provide a conclusive suggestion on how each person could achieve this.
"....We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles." secularhumanism.org
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 9, 2015 21:21:36 GMT -5
Hello Gene, "What do you suggest as a solution to encourage children to apply natural and free enquiry and, ultimately, conformity to something which "suits them" and will lead to "immense contentment?"" The below comment sums up what I see as a reasonable approach to avoiding indoctrinating children. However as "immense contentment" is subjective, it is impossible to provide a conclusive suggestion on how each person could achieve this. "....We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles." secularhumanism.org This appears to hinge on an undefined morality: moral education, moral virtues, moral awareness and moral practices. Do you have a definition for "moral" or an explanation of "rational moral principles?"
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 9, 2015 21:29:12 GMT -5
Yes Gene: this presents as a reliable set of moral principles. What are the moral principles taught in the bible? Given the religious of all denominations tend to credit their individual beliefs as being the source of their morality despite the many contrasting interpretations of scriptural texts, do you consider religiosity as a reliable construct on which to base moral judgments?
Non-malificence: Do not harm yourself or other people. Beneficence: Help yourself and other people. Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices. Justice: Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequals unequally. Utility: Maximize the ratio of benefits to harms for all people. Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead. Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality. David B Resnik Bioethicist
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 9, 2015 21:43:25 GMT -5
Yes Gene: this presents as a reliable set of moral principles. What are the moral principles taught in the bible? Given the religious of all denominations tend to credit their individual beliefs as being the source of their morality despite the many contrasting interpretations of scriptural texts, do you consider religiosity as a reliable construct on which to base moral judgments? Non-malificence: Do not harm yourself or other people. Beneficence: Help yourself and other people. Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices. Justice: Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequals unequally. Utility: Maximize the ratio of benefits to harms for all people. Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead. Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality. David B Resnik Bioethicist I absolutely do not believe religiosity is a reliable construct on which to base moral judgements. Do you believe Resnik's list is comprehensive?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 9, 2015 23:17:21 GMT -5
Rob Sargison "So beyond the apparent dullness presented here, and despite the criticism leveled at the participants in the scene and the mocking and the scorning of what these good folk believe, there is a vibrancy and a dynamic permeating their mutual fellowship which sustains and feeds them, and provides a quality of life and meaning that their detractors do not necessarily have. It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it". The mutual fellowship you refer to (when personalising the people featured in the gospel meeting / convention video in this thread), is common to many religions and is consistent with the claims that religion is a social construct. You may have read the work of Emile Durkheim. He stated that 'religion gave humanity its' strongest sense of collective consciousness'. " It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it" does not appear to consider the process by which the majority of religious adherents come to believe in what ever brand of religion they are to be found in. If it were not for the indoctrination of children, many people would not be religious. This process infringes on the rights of (typically) the child to apply natural and free inquiry. The indoctrination process is designed to overpower children and others, and coerce them to conform even when it does not suit them. When considering this, it is reasonable to query whether immense contentment is really achieveable. Most children just take for granted what their parents and teachers tell them, whatever that is. However, at a certain age they begin to think critically about what they have been told and begin their own journey. Most religions, including the friends, have a process where a young adult can make a commitment to the religion after they reach an age where they can think for themselves. That doesn't mean they're still not subject to social and other pressures, or to 'a priori' assumptions, or that all their belief processes are completely rational. But it's not quite as dire as you make out, in or out of religion. Incidentally, how did so many young people become National Socialists in pre-war Germnay? Somehow being outside of a religion doesn't inure people to indoctrination and ideology.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 9, 2015 23:44:31 GMT -5
What Hat "Incidentally, how did so many young people become National Socialists in pre-war Germnay? Somehow being outside of a religion doesn't inure people to indoctrination and ideology". Hitler was a roman catholic who quoted the bible as a justification for the Nazi's intention to destroy the Jewish people. The Nazi's motto on their belt buckle was " Gott mitt uns" or 'god with us'. Facism was the right wing version of the roman catholic church. National socialism was impacted by diverse influences however it cannot be classed as secularist. Apparently 50% of the Nazis were confessing catholics. The only Nazi who was ex communicated was Joseph Goebbels due to having married a protestant. So your claim that National Socialists were 'outside of religion' is incorrect. From biblical times, genocides and other atrocities have been conducted in the name of god(s).
|
|