Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 22:31:46 GMT -5
I think the address law is required for packages over 16 oz...I do it all the time the no address thingy I only send cash... Can only say that I've had a couple of envelopes lighter than that refused at the post office counter because no return address. You sure your cash filled envelopes are even getting thru? And as workers have said the money usually comes with a letter and gifts by letter are often acknowledged with a letter in return and I know letters from friends also go out with cash or checks so it doesn't have to be always or maybe even usually anonymous - no different than in any other church. To whom concerned: safely back to Baton Rouge, La. Dot (Katie's mum) is now back to her place of abode, we are headed to a motel near the Baton Rouge Airport for tonight and tomorrow night. Theres been some nasty weather in those parts - stay safe. well one time they were able to figure out it was me that donated so I am ASSuming that some/most of my donations do get through. the address I send it to is just going across town, if it was going to another city I might have to put a return address on it though...
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 28, 2015 5:14:55 GMT -5
Like I said n the past, I'm comfortable the way we handle our money affairs and know it is very low pressure in comparison.
The thing that bothers me the most about my own church is how much we critisize other churches. If you think we don't, you are dillusional.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 28, 2015 10:14:39 GMT -5
The thing that bothers me the most about my own church is how much we critisize other churches. If you think we don't, you are dillusional. If there was nothing to find fault with then the others would not be wrong. Exclusivity requires in-group out-group bias. I don't see the two by two ever giving up on exclusivity. JMT --------------------------------------------------------------------- www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowdsHow to avoid avoid the dangers of the ingroup-outgroup trap. Here are some suggestions for tearing down some of those real and virtual fences: 1. Recognize the arbitrary nature of many ingroup-outgroup distinctions. The example of pedestrians and motorists is perhaps the easiest one for understanding this point. Your ingroup at one moment is your outgroup the next. 2. Put yourself in the place of the outgroup member. The little kids in Jane Elliot's classroom were sad and afraid when they were suddenly thrust into the role of outgroup member. Think about times when you've been put in an outgroup position and remember how painful that was. 3. Look for commonalities between opposing groups. Fans of opposing sports teams equally love the sport. People of different religions regard their faith as important to them. There are basic human needs that transcend particular labels. 4. Work on building your inner sense of security. People are more likely to stereotype when they feel they have something to lose. If you feel more confident about your own identity, you'll be less likely to criticize someone else's. 5. Pass along the lesson. We can't all be Jane Elliot's and go on a mission to change society one classroom at a time, but we can teach others the value of overcoming outgroup stereotyping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 10:41:18 GMT -5
Seems like I remember instruction from somewhere "to do unto others as they would have them do unto you...." XNA, for me that sums up the post you have just made, whatcha think?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 28, 2015 13:29:18 GMT -5
Seems like I remember instruction from somewhere "to do unto others as they would have them do unto you...." XNA, for me that sums up the post you have just made, whatcha think? That works as long as the other person is not a sadist, or masochist. "Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.” ― Confucius 479 BC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 19:50:55 GMT -5
Thanks Admin for starting this important topic. Many members of the church feel like they want to support the workers and the church in general and one way of doing this is to donate small sums of money to individual workers which I don't have a problem with. However there are some members who wish to leave large sums of money in their wills to the church when they die. There is nothing wrong with doing this if this is what their wishes are. The problem that arises is how to do this in the most effective and legal way. The will needs to specify where the funds are to go and when the church has no officially recognised name this can become a problem. I know of cases where the beneficiary of very large sums of money has been the local overseer personally named in the will without any specific instructions on how this money is to be used. This not only places the beneficiary in a somewhat difficult position, but also does not guarantee that the money will be used for the purposes that it was intended for by the deceased. A much better and more transparent way is for the will to nominate a family member or friend to be the Trustee for the deceased estate with a trust fund established with clear instructions on how and to whom the funds are to be distributed. In this way the deceased will be satisfied that their wishes will be carried out and that the necessary levels of accountability required by the operation of a trust fund will be adhered to in a proper fashion. Hi menatwork You asked me to comment on this post. I strongly agree with the point that people should have their wills as clear as possible should they choose to leave money to the work. i don't think they should leave it to named overseers personally , but ideally it would be left to the church (named with its registered name) and if the executor is a lawyer then give the current overseers name alongside. Thus, if the registered name of the church happens to be 'The Christian Church of NZ' say, I think the will should refer to leaving the money to The Christian Church of NZ whose senior minister is currently xxxx who can be contacted at the following address. (a main contact address in NZ in a main city) i do believe that most people leaving money to the work probably have a high deal of trust in the workers so probably they won't put any caveats on the use of the money in their will. If they do have concerns or feel very strongly around how the money should be used then the use of trusts is an ideal way to go,as you say. The downside is that you do have to have good trustees. If the trust is going to be in place for a long time then there needs to be on-the-ball trustees who will replace themselves and get others appointed as time goes by and they age. I do wonder how prescriptive you could realistically be with the use of funds, as if its too narrow, then the funds may not get used. e.g. if we take an extreme example and someone leaves it in their will that the funds should be used for the care of old workers when they are no longer active, then you run the risk that funds wouldn't get used at all - For example if others set the same instruction in their will. This may be a silly example but illustrates the point you can't leave stipulations too narrow without risks. In practice however, i don't think there will be many people set up their wills like this - because of the reasons above - i.e. (a) extra complications of trusts/trustees and (b) they are likely to trust the workers anyway. But I agree with the thrust of your post and would consider your approach myself if I was leaving money to the work
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 28, 2015 20:11:32 GMT -5
Seems like I remember instruction from somewhere "to do unto others as they would have them do unto you...." XNA, for me that sums up the post you have just made, whatcha think? That works as long as the other person is not a sadist, or masochist. "Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.” ― Confucius 479 BC On the other hand, if you're both masochists, then the sentiment is valid, although the execution(er) might be lacking
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 29, 2015 12:33:01 GMT -5
The thing that bothers me the most about my own church is how much we critisize other churches. If you think we don't, you are dillusional. If there was nothing to find fault with then the others would not be wrong. Exclusivity requires in-group out-group bias. I don't see the two by two ever giving up on exclusivity. JMT --------------------------------------------------------------------- www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowdsHow to avoid avoid the dangers of the ingroup-outgroup trap. Here are some suggestions for tearing down some of those real and virtual fences: 1. Recognize the arbitrary nature of many ingroup-outgroup distinctions. The example of pedestrians and motorists is perhaps the easiest one for understanding this point. Your ingroup at one moment is your outgroup the next. 2. Put yourself in the place of the outgroup member. The little kids in Jane Elliot's classroom were sad and afraid when they were suddenly thrust into the role of outgroup member. Think about times when you've been put in an outgroup position and remember how painful that was. 3. Look for commonalities between opposing groups. Fans of opposing sports teams equally love the sport. People of different religions regard their faith as important to them. There are basic human needs that transcend particular labels. 4. Work on building your inner sense of security. People are more likely to stereotype when they feel they have something to lose. If you feel more confident about your own identity, you'll be less likely to criticize someone else's. 5. Pass along the lesson. We can't all be Jane Elliot's and go on a mission to change society one classroom at a time, but we can teach others the value of overcoming outgroup stereotyping. Xna ~ I agree! Exclusivity seems to be the "glue" that holds the 2x2's together? If you take away the allusion that exclusivity gives to many of the 2x2 members, what would be left? That sense of "specialness" is sacred to a number of the Friends, although not all, such as those with more open minds. I would guess it would be like the walls of Jericho tumbling down for many of the Friends who revel in the exclusivity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 12:44:28 GMT -5
Now, when I was a young worker, quite a number of years ago now, we were clearly taught by example and by word also, that there was one matter that should never be mentioned from the platform. No servant of God, no true servant of God, should ever mention from a platform like this the matter of money. But I am going to mention one or two little matters this afternoon and I think it will help you understand where we are coming from on this subject. You are a false servant of God if you mention money "from the platform". Does this mean it can't be mentioned elsewhere? My church doesn't mention money from the platform either. It deals with it outside of worship services, and at the annual AGM, to which all members are invited.I am currently looking at different churches with the objective of some point joining one. Up to now I have been only looking at mainstream churches. I am not a 2x2, but have a family member who is.
As I go round these churches I have been intrigued by the way they have dealt with the subject of giving and their openness to discussing it. Unlike what you have described, the churches I have been looking at have dealt with it very openly in their main service on Sunday. It seems to me these churches have the common approach in giving a verbal presentation on the funding gap of the church, and they give out a leaflet to all present on the way out. For church members there is an envelope (with their name on it) waiting at the back of the church for each family to collect on the way out. The envelope contains a sheet so the family can reconsider their level of giving and let the treasurer know of any amendment they'd like to make regarding giving. The verbal message wasn't objectionable in any way, and was nicely done with empathy towards people's individual financial circumstances (i.e. not cranking up pressure) while at the same time making it clear what the church was looking to achieve finance-wise. The different churches had different needs- from the desire to install a balcony, to upgrade the rectory gardens, to balance books because some of the people had moved away, obtaining a children and youth worker, some additional repair work and so on.
I am intrigued by your church not mentioning money in their church services. Do they cover the same sort of stuff at another meeting (you mention the AGM). Because I've witnessed what I witnessed in a number of places, I just assumed this was the usual approach. Things probably do differ country to country but would you mind telling me what denomination you are in. Maybe I am focusing on too narrow a range of churches and should consider looking at some others as well who are maybe lower key in approach.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 29, 2015 14:10:37 GMT -5
If there was nothing to find fault with then the others would not be wrong. Exclusivity requires in-group out-group bias. I don't see the two by two ever giving up on exclusivity. JMT Xna ~ I agree! Exclusivity seems to be the "glue" that holds the 2x2 together? If you take away the allusion that exclusivity gives to many of the 2x2 members, what would be left? That sense of "specialness" is sacred to another of the Friends, although not all, such as those with more open minds. I would guess it would be like the walls of Jericho coming tumbling down for many of the Friends who revel in the exclusivity? When we professed we drove by dozens of churches on the way to the one true church in the home for worship. We understood those in the false churches had been deceived by the devil, lived for earths pleasures, god was not with them, they were following a hireling preacher, and being lead on a path ending in eternal hell. If we believed none of this exclusiveness we would have saved thousands of miles & hours driving.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Dec 29, 2015 17:39:46 GMT -5
Hi Pigeon, I don't know why the quoted text is not appearing here! Re money mentioning in church services: An offering is collected, but usually introduced with wording like "This is for our members who wish to give regularly. Please do not feel obliged in any way if you are a visitor". Money is mainly discussed at the Annual General Meeting, where members can see the income and expenditure for the past financial year, and see the budget for the next year. This is complemented by a small monthly report in the church newsletter showing income for the month. Members would be able to monitor this against the budget presented at the annual meeting if they wished, but the budget is generally not noted in the newsletter. If for any reason, income was far below what was expected (eg. forecast in the budget), this may be again noted by a small newsletter notice, rather than referenced in a worship service. Though I can't recall the last time this was done. Each week, in addition to the church offering, we have a "special offering" for a particular mission or cause; this enables people to choose to support particular relief efforts after natural disasters, for instance, or mission work in a particular country/region. All offerings are always anonymous. The idea of having financial goals that are pressed upon the congregation in a service, or envelopes with printed names on them, is completely foreign to me, though I'm sure this could be the case in some churches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 17:53:50 GMT -5
Like I said n the past, I'm comfortable the way we handle our money affairs and know it is very low pressure in comparison. The thing that bothers me the most about my own church is how much we critisize other churches. If you think we don't, you are dillusional. Hear hear brother, speak the truth and speak it ever, cost you what it will. God loved the truth, and He hates a liar. The truth should set you free.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Dec 29, 2015 18:04:04 GMT -5
...The claims that the workers “ridicule” other churches for taking money are subjective and dependent on the manner in which individuals have been impacted by the 2x2 group... ...I am puzzled by your focus on the fiscal operations (or lack of) in the meetings elizabethcoleman ...
Joanna, I continue to wonder just how much you know, if anything, about the meetings. Did you really sit through many gospel meetings and never hear about "paid hirelings" and "false shepherds" ? jondough sums it up: "The thing that bothers me the most about my own church is how much we critisize other churches. If you think we don't, you are dillusional." [sic] If you've read my other posts, you should realise by now, being a smart lady, that I don't criticize the giving and support, no matter how much you might disagree with it. I take issue with the workers propensity to criticise all other churches for being supported in effectively the same way that they are supported. If you were familiar with the meetings, you would know that this is the case. All of this stems from WIrvine's quite rabid preaching in the earliest days against the paid clergy.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 29, 2015 18:45:52 GMT -5
Xna ~ I agree! Exclusivity seems to be the "glue" that holds the 2x2's together? If you take away the allusion that exclusivity gives to many of the 2x2 members, what would be left? That sense of "specialness" is sacred to a number of the Friends, although not all, such as those with more open minds. I would guess it would be like the walls of Jericho tumbling down for many of the Friends who revel in the exclusivity? When we professed we drove by dozens of churches on the way to the one true church in the home for worship. We understood those in the false churches had been deceived by the devil, lived for earths pleasures, god was not with them, they were following a hireling preacher, and being lead on a path ending in eternal hell. If we believed none of this exclusiveness we would have saved thousands of miles & hours driving. Xna ~ I agree! If we knew back then what we know today, we would not have all that emotional baggage to deal with as a legacy from our sojourn in the land of 2x2ism.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 29, 2015 22:44:19 GMT -5
I'm sure you know this was not the purpose of Paul's request.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Dec 30, 2015 0:35:29 GMT -5
I'm sure you know this was not the purpose of Paul's request. Do the workers make the type of collection as outlined in 1 Cor 16? Or do they ignore this altogether?
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 30, 2015 0:48:25 GMT -5
G'day Emy,Ours is a mission Church we support o/seas and local needs,although we are a large congregation most of our monies go to mission of both scripture message and teaching and practical.A member and a man from another church own a 40 ton yatch, they take it once a year to Vanuatu's remote Islands.. Medical teams of many christian persuasians go and use this yatch as a mobile base.Dentists,physiotherapy, M.D,nurses,etc and helpers go from Island to Island and their practical Christian Mission has each year spoken to so many and feed back from the villages praise God for the devoted time of those,many it is in lieu of a vacation, We have contacts and people in as with other local churches together,Peru,Cambodia,Kenya,and several others. Two of our young new marrieds spent their honeymoons in a third world country and served amongst the homeless poor and orphans,beats Hawaii especially if you serve God. And local ours and other churches get together on the soup vans regardless the weather,and serve the homeless,abused including physical sexual,mentally ill,some just children usually running from criminal incest or CSA,ex prisoners,rejects,etc. That is where our monies go. But the Christian Cinventions of Victoria registered as an organisation and charity,do not, give out regular financial reports as legislated.. But every one of the churches in our area and administration give out financial reports and if you look at what goes out on charatable areas,,you will get a better why we struggle financially--Jesus said to the poor first. Australia and New Zealand experts say remove all charitable finances and work of the 3,major churches,both countries would face bankruptcy in three years. The Uniting church ( the amalgam of Methodist,Presbyterian And Congregational) has a budget of $2billion in Queensland State alone,that of course covers ariel medical, Pastoring,etc in huge remote area. Where does 2x2s reg'd charity spend their money? Definatly not on criminal worker CSA damaged victims.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 30, 2015 0:58:55 GMT -5
Hi Elizabeth, They avoid the Epistles the teaching to the church it's order and structure. Especially 1 Corinthians 9,vs 5/6 and Ephesians 4,vs 11/12. They cant grow out beyond the Gospels as it overides their minimal theological teachings,they are discouraged to look at the resurection side of the cross.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 19:14:58 GMT -5
I notice that a number of people have suggested on a number of threads that workers' funds have been used in defence of pedophiles. i'm interested if this is an allegation/assumption or is it a statement of fact? Is anyone able to clarify? If it has been acknowledged by overseers that the funds have been used in this way then it would be fact. Another possibility is that some dedicated 2x2'er saints may offer to obtain legal support for the accused and to meet the payment of legal costs. In this case any such allegation/assumption is incorrect and would not be a statement of fact. Anyone betting against Jerome F. having used the funds to hire that series of high-priced attorneys would certainly lose. Is this your way of saying it is definitely fact? Which overseer or worker has let you known this?. What I am seeing on this thread is people saying that because there is no transparency with the 2x2 funds they can't tell how the church money is being spent. I understand that point very well. i can't understand how people can then suggest that the church funds have been used in the defence of pedophiles, when any such costs could have been met from another source. Why make this sort of suggestion and run someone down when you have no proof. That feels very unfair. In all those other cases I think the defense funds came out of the donations too - where else does anyone imagine those tens of thousands of dollars came from - maybe the mouth of a fish? No , not the mouth of a fish !(good one!). Rather I expect the money has come from well-heeled dedicated 2x2 friends who have stepped forward to offer to pay the costs. Whether we would agree with that sort of action is not the point - it is their money which they can spend in this way if they so choose. Why do people not want to think that way but rather latch on to the suggestion that it was church funds involved? Has any of them actually relied on court-appointed defenders instead of hiring their own? Thats a possibility but I doubt many have. Some might have supporters that have offered extra to support an expensive defense but its not as if many don't also have their own accounts and donated money saved - I know some individual workers have. In this sentence you use the word 'many' and then the word 'some' . These words are quite different. Which one is true? About the situation of those leaving the work being without a cushion - some do indeed gather a cushion so thats not to do with going out on faith and some ministers in other churches have just as little cushion should they decide to change careers or get kicked out. There is quite a difference. The 'some' you mention here are the exception to the rule. The general situation is that those who leave the work, leave with nothing but a couple of suitcases max. The ministers who leave other churches do have the assets they own, whatever money they have saved and their accumulated pension pot. This is not an exception but the general rule. That is a very significant difference . Not much difference that I can see.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 30, 2015 22:54:18 GMT -5
I'm sure you know this was not the purpose of Paul's request. Do the workers make the type of collection as outlined in 1 Cor 16? Or do they ignore this altogether? Since we had 1 Cor. 16 for our study tonight, we had a little after-meeting discussion about this. Some of the places mentioned where funds have been "gathered" were Haiti, Katrina (hurricane) Grand Forks (flood)... I'm sure there are lots of others. Sometimes it isn't handled by the workers, but by someone the friends of the area trust to distribute the funds/gifts. A worker once said that is the office of a deacon. The "gathering" mentioned in that chapter was for believers at Jerusalem who were in desperate need, as Nathan stated.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 31, 2015 10:16:38 GMT -5
Do the workers make the type of collection as outlined in 1 Cor 16? Or do they ignore this altogether? Since we had 1 Cor. 16 for our study tonight, we had a little after-meeting discussion about this. Some of the places mentioned where funds have been "gathered" were Haiti, Katrina (hurricane) Grand Forks (flood)... I'm sure there are lots of others. Sometimes it isn't handled by the workers, but by someone the friends of the area trust to distribute the funds/gifts. A worker once said that is the office of a deacon. The "gathering" mentioned in that chapter was for believers at Jerusalem who were in desperate need, as Nathan stated. I don't know about Katrina but I know the funds for Haiti were mainly used for rebuilding the facilities that are used for convention hat were damaged badly during the earthquake. I also know that they are uses to support the workers laboring there. One worker I know was held at gun point two different times and robbed of all his money. He helps the friends back there with basic needs but he said that he is never quite sure if they are coming to meetings for that reason or for the right reasons. It's a really tough game they play. If people find out they will get help - they show up in drioves. Good people our worker back there is - trying to do what he feels is his calling. Very tough life in that area.
|
|
|
Post by thefinest on Dec 31, 2015 11:03:11 GMT -5
Are the funds just used to help "professing" people and conventions or are they also helping their "neighbor" as the Bible commands. Jesus taught in the Bible to Love your neighbor and he was always helping the poor and unfortunate...what outreach does the "truth" do to help other's in their community with the funds they receive?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 31, 2015 13:51:57 GMT -5
When Jesus fed the 5000 it was without any expectation that any of them would believe in him. That some did so would be a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Dec 31, 2015 22:48:49 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman "Joanna, I continue to wonder just how much you know, if anything, about the meetings. Did you really sit through many gospel meetings and never hear about "paid hirelings" and "false shepherds" ? jondough sums it up: "The thing that bothers me the most about my own church is how much we critisize other churches. If you think we don't, you are dillusional." [sic] If you've read my other posts, you should realise by now, being a smart lady, that I don't criticize the giving and support, no matter how much you might disagree with it. I take issue with the workers propensity to criticise all other churches for being supported in effectively the same way that they are supported. If you were familiar with the meetings, you would know that this is the case. All of this stems from WIrvine's quite rabid preaching in the earliest days against the paid clergy.So your criteria for determining whether a person is informed about the 2x2 group relies on whether they heard workers mention “paid hirelings” and “false shepherds”? This further supports my previous mention of the subjective nature of the 2x2 impact (last paragraph below). What I also find interesting is your tendency to question my claims that I was reared in the 2x2 and attended meetings and missions as despite having stated this, you still tend towards disbelief. Why not apply the same sceptical attitude to the bible, whose stories were recorded over hundreds of years, by ancient people and feature many characters whose existence and claims cannot be verified? Christians follow Jesus and apply the Hebrew Bible’s New Testament as a proscriptive text. They believe his words and strive to be more like him. Jesus clearly warned to beware of false prophets. What is the biblical directive which proves the workers should not quote that verse? Regarding the “paid hirelings”. The bible records Jesus’ words “So then, none of you can be my disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” Luke 14:33. The default position for most humans is to make money; so it would behove most priests, pastors & preachers (PPP’S) to skew the words to mean: pay me a wage. No matter how hard you or others try to standardise the 2x2's financial process and the unpaid workers with paid PPP’S: relying on others to fund you on an informal and ad hoc basis undermines independence and curtails spending habits. My worker relative did not have the freedom to go on a shopping spree or a fancy holiday, purchase a vehicle or make other autonomous decisions that those of us, including PPP's, in receipt of a wage are free to make. These workers are not supported in “effectively the same way” as their counterparts who receive a regular wage. The concept of a belief founded on faith and framed upon an ancient text is basically a recipe titled “Adapt as suits”. And the in excess of 30,000 christian denominations validate the bible’s ambiguity. It is an exercise in futility when a member(s) of one of these thousands upon thousands of Christian organisations aims to deride another christian church, as the bible narrative is so loose it invariably excuses a plethora of manipulations of biblical directives. For anyone to accuse others of like-mind for reciting the words of Jesus, they need to present the biblical verse which unequivocally proves that Jesus said “Thou shalt not ever repeat any of the words I have spoken, neither in private nor in public forums”. The alternative is to continue the same practice perfected by the religious; to cherry-pick biblical content so as to suit the religious groups', or one’s personal agenda. A consistent yet bizarre aspect of religion is the intolerance displayed between believers and with whom they share so many common traits. This accounts for religion being identified as a salient contributor to sectarianism which is too often of a violent nature. Therefore charging the 2x2’s with exclusivity is an interesting occupation. Jesus taught that he was the only way to gain eternal life; that the way was narrow and few there be that find it. Jesus is esteemed by christians and his teachings promote exclusivity. This excuses and encourages believers to follow suit: to make truth claims and present their belief system as the only way, and most do so. To avoid hypocrisy, any christian who accuses other religious adherents of exclusivity would not be associated with a singular Christian denomination; nor would they even remain attached only to the Christian doctrine. To negate the exclusive aspect believers would rotate attendance on their day of worship to evidence their acceptance of all religious belief systems. Probably a roster system would be required and a reliable sat-nav to help locate the synagogues, cathedrals, mosques, homes, halls and churches of all genres. In doing so the non-discriminating believer could then encourage others to engage in the same practice: break down the walls of exclusivity and so negate religion’s dangerous propensity for sectarianism. Surely at the least, most can detect the irony whenever a church-goer openly criticises another religion for openly criticising other religions. Maybe the workers/preachers did mention hirelings and false shepherds. My time in missions was spent striving to believe in the unbelievable and trying to subdue my ‘evil' human tendencies which involved reasoning that the bible is not a reliable text and has only literary value. All aspects of life are layered, and in the context of religion, you can remain immersed in a layer which constrains you within, typically a specific brand of religion, therefore inciting the persistent analysing of theological minutiae usually by negative comparisons. Or you can choose to remove yourself outside of the religious layer where you then have the opportunity to evaluate the ‘bigger picture’. When choosing the latter, religion can then be identified for what it is: an irrational entity.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 1, 2016 8:15:19 GMT -5
Joanna
Yes, Jesus said to beware of false Profits. No one is saying they are not out there - its up to us to decide who to listen and take advise from. It's not up to us to decide that everyone that does not chose as we chose goes to Hell.
In regards to your statement that if you are truly non-exclusive then you should be rotating churches. Why? I'm fine and content with whom I fellowship with. I'm only stating that I don't think that everyone else is going to Hell that doesn't fellowship with me. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 1, 2016 15:16:04 GMT -5
Like I said in the past, I'm comfortable the way we handle our money affairs and know it is very low pressure in comparison. The thing that bothers me the most about my own church is how much we critisize other churches. If you think we don't, you are dillusional. I think how funds are spent - even to hire lawyers - is an acceptable part of the business side of any organization tho the church itself surely has a right to know how their organization is being run even if there is no problem or objection to giving the overseers and the trustees a blank check as god-inspired money managers. Aside from the hypocritical criticism of other groups for doing essentially the same practices I'm also very troubled by the deception that continues to get spread about the finances and how things work in the work. The idea that workers don't take money has persisted in being told to outsiders along with things like that money isn't asked for and that there is no church funds or property and such. The appeals might take the form of barely disguised 'hints' and moaning about 'the needs' but they aren't really that different than any other church and the freewill contributions - some anonymous and some not - aren't different either. The closed and secretive way of handling things just allows the deceptions to continue to be spread and continues to be a breeding ground for legitimate questions as to how church funds are being handled. If things are being done well then theres no reason not to open up and be transparent about it all. @morriss - With the frandle case and similar cases like in australia you should be able to suss out that hiring a succession of high-priced lawyers isn't done on a whim without there being ready funds available to pay for that. Maybe someone stepped up to throw additional $thousands into the pot to help but how do think that would happen without asking when the friends weren't even told of what was going on at the time? I don't know of any worker who depended on a public-assistance legal defender but am allowing that there might be a case that that has happened. Do you know of any?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jan 2, 2016 4:37:18 GMT -5
Christians follow Jesus and apply the Hebrew Bible’s New Testament as a proscriptive text. They believe his words and strive to be more like him. Jesus clearly warned to beware of false prophets. (Emphasis mine)No. That the is Two-by-Two gospel. Not the Christian gospel. Striving to be more like Jesus will not get anyone into heaven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2016 5:30:55 GMT -5
Christians follow Jesus and apply the Hebrew Bible’s New Testament as a proscriptive text. They believe his words and strive to be more like him. Jesus clearly warned to beware of false prophets. (Emphasis mine)No. That the is Two-by-Two gospel. Not the Christian gospel. Striving to be more like Jesus will not get anyone into heaven. What in your opinion will get one into heaven. This is not meant to be a provocative question, just interested to hear your answer.
|
|