Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2008 7:36:00 GMT -5
quote from Cherie - "life dictated by workers - self-denial, suffering, persecution."
Dictated by workers?! I believe most, if not all, of the people who identify with the mocking nature of this board will relate to one or more of the following excuses...
Jesus was not giving commandments but general principles. Jesus was speaking in hyperbole. Jesus referred to the spiritual realm, and not the human. Some clergy may attain this standard, but the laity need not concern themselves. Jesus’ sermon is contradicted by other texts. Jesus is referring to attitudes, and not the actual act. Jesus gave the commandments because he thought the world was about to end. The present condition of the world makes the commandments unlivable. Jesus made his precepts unobtainable, therefore we will learn repentance. Another age will begin on the earth where these standard can be achieved. Jesus was speaking for what he would do in our stead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2008 8:16:10 GMT -5
Bert, how do you interpret and live in the context of Matthew 6?
Mat 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Mat 6:26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Mat 6:27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? Mat 6:28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, Mat 6:29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Mat 6:30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Mat 6:31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' Mat 6:32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Mat 6:34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
Karl
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Jan 31, 2008 9:00:01 GMT -5
I'm currently professing in the F&W way. I'd like to answer your question about the verses in Mthw 6 if I may Karl. My understanding is that this is about priorities. God first, then follow the rest.
|
|
|
Post by heal on Jan 31, 2008 9:15:41 GMT -5
Thanks a million for posting this...It won't be easy for the next generation to redeem themselves
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2008 9:32:44 GMT -5
I'm currently professing in the F&W way. I'd like to answer your question about the verses in Mthw 6 if I may Karl. My understanding is that this is about priorities. God first, then follow the rest. Hi Timber- I'd like to discuss this a bit, as I am currently trying to figure this one out for myself- in the sense of how literal is it, and what does this passage really mean. It may become an "argument", but there are good arguments too! I used to believe as you state, but now, after some time, some testing, and seeing how God has been true to this promise I wonder if He doesn't mean exactly what He says? If He does- and there's no real reason- outside of impracticality- to think that He's not intending to be understood literally, what does that mean? Have we missed the life that God has for us, materially too, because it would be impractical? I think about Israel , the Sabbath, the Sabbath year, and the Jubilee year and can see where they missed years of not having to work to feed themselves. I have thought of what a testimony that would have been to God, and how they never kept these- they did not ever find out what the life God had for them would be like, instead they provided for themselves and we know how that worked out... I am believing more and more, and seeing more and more, that He is being literal in this passage. Not in a limiting way, but in a freeing way. What do you think Timber? How do you actually live in this? Karl
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Jan 31, 2008 9:53:02 GMT -5
Your post has made me think Karl. I'd like to believe as you do Karl - that this is literal. I guess I do hope in that part of the Lord's prayer that says "Give us this day our daily bread". I hope that God will literally provide bread for me that day! I also hope that all my brethren ( and that includes you too Karl) will also recieve the bread that they need. Paul also encouraged or should I say strongly urged (was it the Corinthians) that they should work with their own hands or provide for themselves. Is it that God will bless my labor? I believe that God miraculously provided a job for me one time. I had been laid off and was on my last severance check when that job came through. In summary, I don't believe in the wealth ministries that some put out there - that is, that if you only would ask God, he will give you that BMW, but I DO believe that God will provide our daily bread - enough to live on. I am not sure about the amount of effort that one has to put out - perhaps there is a fine line between working for the extras and working for what is needful. Thanks again for your post Karl and I apologize in advance if mine seems confusing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2008 10:36:25 GMT -5
Your post has made me think Karl. I'd like to believe as you do Karl - that this is literal. I guess I do hope in that part of the Lord's prayer that says "Give us this day our daily bread". I hope that God will literally provide bread for me that day! I also hope that all my brethren ( and that includes you too Karl) will also recieve the bread that they need. Paul also encouraged or should I say strongly urged (was it the Corinthians) that they should work with their own hands or provide for themselves. Is it that God will bless my labor? I believe that God miraculously provided a job for me one time. I had been laid off and was on my last severance check when that job came through. In summary, I don't believe in the wealth ministries that some put out there - that is, that if you only would ask God, he will give you that BMW, but I DO believe that God will provide our daily bread - enough to live on. I am not sure about the amount of effort that one has to put out - perhaps there is a fine line between working for the extras and working for what is needful. Thanks again for your post Karl and I apologize in advance if mine seems confusing. No confusion at all... I'm with you on the wealth ministries- they turn God into a vending machine... I think that God wants us to be radically dependent on Him- making all decisions based on that. I think He wants to glorify HImself through us in this way. While the world, and sadly, much of Christendom, plans its future- we are on ly commanded to follow the One who knows, and is in fact, the Way. Imagine our testimony in a world where self is God and where our self image is sooo tied up in our professions and incomes and things that go along with that- if believers could live in such a way that God is undoubtedly not only in charge- but providing for His children as a loving Father does. We would be one weird people- and our God would be recognized, maybe not loved or worshiped by, but certainly recognized by the world. We would be open, fearless, and our life would be a gift. What a difference. I am finding that this is so, and I believe that you, Timber, are doing the same. Thanks for your encouraging testimony! And great conversation... Karl
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 31, 2008 11:48:56 GMT -5
professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201711847&page=1#1201719360ali: "Yes, Clearday is very straightforward and IMO honest. I like him."clearday: "Ali? Bienvenue en arrière ! You're too kind!"wanttobewithgod: "clearday: I hope you're not insinuating that that's going to make you a trendsetter....SOME (please read, SOME) here are very good at that already...too late! M."Gem: "HMMMM Michelle who do you consider a trendsetter on the board? Gem"wanttobewithgod: "Heheheeh...not at trendsetting, Gem...I meant some are very good at bashing Exs and some at bashing F&W on this board already....so Clearday couldn't be a trendsetter in that regard...so I hope he wasn't pinning his hopes on that! M."This conversation is good example of TMB doublespeek wanttobewithgod said one thing then tried to take it back pay close attention - devil in the details professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201711847&page=1#1201720378wanttobeabove: You obviously have no idea what you're on about, so never mind. It's not my problem if you can't read AND interpret both. M> Don't ask me why I respond to this garbage....lol. ;D professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201711847&page=1#1201730238"that" inotherwords "straightforward and IMO honest" is the same as "very good at bashing Exs" and "bashing F&W on this board" interesting professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201711847&page=1#1201733113It would be nice if you just spit out exactly what you mean...because all of the little quotes and insinuations are completely lost on me. I have NO idea what you're on about. If you would explain what you're referring to, perhaps I could explain what I was referring to!? Thanks! M. professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201711847&page=1#1201743858wanttobewithgit (or Michelle Landless) has history of double speak - she says something going down one path then when asked to clarify changes her story - just like example above oh well - some people have trouble letting go of 2x2 behaviors professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201711847&page=1#1201753815You're wrong. But...>I wouldn't expect you to see that...if you had the ability to read (correctly) I wouldn't have to tell you you were wrong. My name is not Michelle Landless, thanks...I have a husband I love very much, and that's not his last name...nor mine. Nor do I "wanttobe" with anyone aside from him AND God, always. Again, in this thread now, have the last word...it's all the time I have to spend on your ridiculous behavior right now. Have a pleasant evening! M. What Michelle said wasn't really doublespeak. It was more of a poorly worded retraction. Some people just aren't very good at stating things plainly, especially when it comes to admitting they made a mistake. For those of you into the details (stealing some text from earlier and underlining for emphasis): ---------------------------------------- ali: "Yes, Clearday is very straightforward and IMO honest. I like him."clearday: "Ali? Bienvenue en arrière ! You're too kind!"wanttobewithgod: "clearday: I hope you're not insinuating that that's going to make you a trendsetter....SOME (please read, SOME) here are very good at that already...too late! M."Gem: "HMMMM Michelle who do you consider a trendsetter on the board? Gem"wanttobewithgod: "Heheheeh...not at trendsetting, Gem...I meant some are very good at bashing Exs and some at bashing F&W on this board already....so Clearday couldn't be a trendsetter in that regard...so I hope he wasn't pinning his hopes on that! M."---------------------------------------- Michelle's dual use of "that" (underlined) clearly refers to the description of Clearday as "very straightforward and IMO honest" (underline). Later, she stated; "I meant some are very good at bashing Exs and some at bashing F&W on this board already". Her later statement was the poorly worded retraction. Before her retraction, her effective statement was: " clearday: I hope you're not insinuating that being very straightforward and honest is going to make you a trendsetter....SOME (please read, SOME) here are very good at being very straightforward and honest already...too late! M." After her retraction, her effective statement was: " clearday: I hope you're not insinuating that being very good at bashing Exs and F&Ws on this board is going to make you a trendsetter....SOME (please read, SOME) here are very good at being very good at bashing Exs and F&Ws on this board already...too late! M." Hopefully this clears things up. Now let's move on. RETRACTION: Michelle, aka wanttobewithgod, has made it clear that she believes her later statement was not a retraction. I was wrong to defend her and I hereby apologize to the individuals to whom I addressed this post. Let this be a lesson to anyone who decides to defend her in the future; Such an endeavor is as fruitful as spray-painting a water fall.Edit: Retraction.
|
|
|
Post by double on Jan 31, 2008 12:15:05 GMT -5
Move on to what?
|
|
|
Post by smile on Jan 31, 2008 12:22:33 GMT -5
A smile is a frown turned upside down!
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jan 31, 2008 15:33:21 GMT -5
NO. FRANK. Still wrong! I would have thought that since I put a comma after Clearday it would indicate I was SPEAKING to Clearday and not *responding* to ali, which makes the context entirely different. He mentioned bashing exes AND F&W in HIS post. I said, I hope he wouldn't think that would make him a trendsetter...there are those on either side that do that already. Why would I post a ;D otherwise, for one thing? (Is being straightforward and honest amusing in any way?) My first *effective statement* YOU wrote...doesn't even make sense...but...that was your INTEPRETATION and not what I wrote. For once I would like to see someone admit they interprted it wrong and it WASNT because I wrote it in a garbled fashion. (no matter what you say.) Of course I could have been more clear; many of us use the words that, her, it, etc. too often in writing....but my meaning SHOULD have been obvious instead of picked apart in post after post. It really wasn't important enough to have wasted so much time on. After all, I was making a point for BOTH sides...some here pick on Exs, some pick on the F&W. D'oh!!!! How ridiculous! Now, we got one of our tax returns and I'm off out to do some shopping! Adios! M. (waiting for her son to get home shortly) If you're going to post all sort of links, post the *original link* so people (who I'm sure are quite unconcerned with all of this nonsense anyway, most of them!!) can read in context. HERE it is: www.professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201522053&page=2Do you not notice my response as... Clearday: (colon...indicating I was speaking TO him....where he says maybe I'll start bashing the ............) Wow. Seemed pretty obvious to me. Oh well. Always someone trying to stir the pot around here! NOW I'm off out....C. will be home soon.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 31, 2008 16:28:08 GMT -5
I should have known. Now what? Do tell! And with great detail, please. Only if Clearday and ali were posting in different contexts. They were not. Both were responding to diet coke who had made a sarcastic statement regarding the polarization of the 2x2s and the ex-2x2s here. Clearday's response, though sarcastic, made it clear that he preferred the "moderate" approach, as opposed to the "outspoken" tack. professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201522053&page=2#1201657445Sorry dc. I'll try to start calling the exes as unwashed and unsaved, and promote the workers as Christ on earth. Or, maybe bash the workers as evil brainwashers and the friends as their accomplices. Maybe that will liven things up around here.....I mean, why let the truth get in the way of a good time? Ali's direct response praised Clearday for his "moderate" approach, not mentioning an "outspoken" course. professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201522053&page=2#1201657944Yes, Clearday is very straightforward and IMO honest. I like him. Clearday then responded to ali, thanking him. professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201522053&page=2#1201659940Ali? Bienvenue en arrière ! You're too kind! Clearly, the two were addressing the issue from the same context.I'm glad I'm not the only one to recognize the difficulty you seem to have in expressing yourself effectively. Have you ever considered using the quote feature of this message board to better define the subject and/or person(s) you are addressing? If it happens, I'll be one of the first to admit it. Thank you. Yes. You'll have to pardon those of us without a magic 8-ball. Words mean things and if you can't state your case clearly, be prepared for a misunderstanding or two. I thought the same thing. Obviously some nut thought your contribution had value. Hopefully everyone's got it now. Don't spend it all at once. Believe it or not Michelle, you are the only one in your head. It's up to you to interpret that mess up there for the rest of us. Learn how. <doublespeak>Some pot stirers are more creative than others.</doublespeak>
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jan 31, 2008 16:44:47 GMT -5
omg!! I am doubling over with laughter, here. Is this thread for real? If somebody wants to know what wtbwg meant, ask her! What's she gonna do, lie to you??? omg, rofl. Instead, we analyze away, pretending the source isn't right in front of us.
I wonder: Do we practice so much theological debate here that it warps us? Seriously: Do we get so used to posturing and pretending to understand the mind of God, when of course we're unable to ask God a simple clarifiying question, that we carry that habit over to squabbling about what's in the mind of real people?
|
|
|
Post by degem on Jan 31, 2008 17:22:02 GMT -5
Since when has posting on the board become an English class? If Michelle wants to express
herself in the way she wants to what's the problem with that? Just Qurious...remember
that poster Michelle?
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jan 31, 2008 17:56:18 GMT -5
I too take issue with Cherie's euphemisms. I confess to skipping her posts ever since I read her comment about needing to bring in psychologists to analyse the reaction of the Friends to the VOT. It may be outside of Cherie's experience, but people do tend to get impassioned when beliefs are at stake: in apologetics circles you will seldom find a friendly debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants; and we see that even Hillary Clinton gives Obama (a fellow democrat) a good roasting in the South Carolina Black Caucus debates.
Such a comment is just plain ridiculous, and not inconsiderably malicious; it's akin to giggling behind one's hands after writing evil things about people on the toilet-block walls and then seeing how angry passer-bys become.
She first begins by setting the stage with a list of conventional euphemisms that are, in some cases simply a matter of political correctness. Everyone hates political correctness, right? So therefore everyone should hate euphemisms, and never use them, and should hate how "2x2s" speak.
2x2 Harsh Reality - Euphemism Substitutes: Disagrees with beliefs - lost his vision
When a man exits Cherie's church vowing to become an atheist and never to have anything again to do with religion, has he "lost his vision"? I'm just checking to see how far in extent this example would apply.
We speak of vision as relevation. When a person goes out of the Fellowship, they have truly lost the revelation. They have lost their vision. And while they may claim to recieve a brighter, better revelation; they are no longer "of us". I think both terms are quite acceptable.
Difference of opinion - wrong spirit
Nope. You failed 2x2-101, Cherie. A wrong spirit is evinced in an attitude and habit of comportment that is alien from what Jesus would uphold. Bitter divisions; strive; and not being of one mind (all things the Apostle Paul condemned - but then... who takes those Apostles seriously anyway... after all, this IS the 21st century, right?) such things are not from the Holy Spirit of Jesus, but from the "prince of the power of the air".
There is a method of disagreement that can be done compassionately, with love, and motivated by a desire for reconcilliation. Then there is prideful disagreement, wanting to prove everyone else wrong, or wishing to place oneself over and above others - thinking oneself to be more right, etc.
Doesn't buy everything - lack of faith, loves the world
Doesn't buy everything? I look into my bag of American idioms and presume this means "doesn't believe everything". A man who will not ascribe fully to the teachings of Jesus surely must lack faith and have love for the things of this world. Which life standards advocated by the Workers do not have a scriptural basis, Cherie? Where do the "rules" of the Church find disharmony with the Word of God, Cherie? Point it out, rather than slandering the Church, and I will gladly discuss the matter politely and in friendly terms with you.
You show me a teaching not in keeping with the Bible, and I will show you a man who doesn't know his Bible.
Going to hell - lost eternity
What else would you call hell? This one's a bit pathetic, even for you Cherie.
Worker's Rules - standards of the kingdom
Where are the "rules" inconsistent with the Bible? Rape - taking advantage of ; groping a feel to rape - taking liberties
I love the maliciousness of it. The spite! Plonking this example in the list as if to suggest it is so commonplace that turns of phrass need to be used to disguse it. By the way, I've not heard these terms before, so again, maybe this comes from an American-centric view of the Church.
empty talk - good visit
Vacuous nonsense.
life dictated by workers - self-denial, suffering, persecution
How curious that Jesus himself advocated all of these things! If a man will follow me, Jesus said, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. Jesus said if a man endure persecution for his name sake, then great is his reward in heaven. Paul speaks about us "groaning earnestly, being burdened"; Peter speaks of bearing our burdens cheerfully; James speaks of not loving the things of this world but walking in a way of faith.
If a life dictated by the Workers is a life that matches the teachings of Jesus Christ, then that is a life I wish to walk. How ironic that in denying the teachings of the Workers, you also deny the heart of the Gospel itself - the concept of turning away from the world; for he that has ceased from himself and the world, will suffer - "all who live righteous lives in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". The concept of now being aliens to the world; outcasts, strangers and pilgrims "of whom the world was not worthy".
Even so, may it be the blessing of all the Church to suffer loss, to deny ourselves, and to be persecuted, counting it all joy because that is how they treated our Lord, and the prophets who walked before him. Even so, Amen!
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 31, 2008 18:09:58 GMT -5
omg!! I am doubling over with laughter, here. Is this thread for real? If somebody wants to know what wtbwg meant, ask her! With all due respect, diet coke, that's been done before and it hasn't worked. Well actually, yes. It's happened before. She'll deny it of course. I find it telling that certain people here have such a casual attitude toward the meaning of words. Good question. One thing is certain. We all have one thing in common: 2x2ism, past or present.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 31, 2008 18:11:58 GMT -5
Since when has posting on the board become an English class? i aint got no clue,
|
|
|
Post by honesty on Jan 31, 2008 18:20:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jan 31, 2008 18:33:07 GMT -5
I don't get you, Frank. Why are you here? Do you have any friends? Who could be easier to get along with here than wtbwg? I mean, besides some totally gutless, unopinionated bore.
I have "lied" here often, too, by your standards, I'm sure. Clarified an unclear message. Corrected a meaning that didn't quite say what I meant. Perhaps even changed my opinion. But people are people, we understanding each other just fine, we don't really need you policing us.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jan 31, 2008 18:44:31 GMT -5
I understand the opening GIT's statement left for you to take a jab at somebody you don't like, "Honesty", but of course, GIT was right, wasn't he? "Good visit" is no euphemism for "empty talk" in anybody's book, that's silly, it is merely another opportunistic jab, something I would have hoped Cherie was above.
|
|
|
Post by degem on Jan 31, 2008 18:56:48 GMT -5
So Frank you haven't got a clue? Do you need an English lesson? Gem
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 31, 2008 20:03:32 GMT -5
I don't get you, Frank. Why are you here? Information, entertainment, stimulating conversation, discussion. Yes, quite a few. Many in Truth. Even more outside it. That depends on who you are and the kind of personality to which you are attracted. Now see I can't stand people like that. I'm dubious of what you think "my standards" to be. There's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing wrong with this. I'm not policing but it's cute that you think I am. I'm flattered, but thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by degem on Jan 31, 2008 20:10:12 GMT -5
So I guess Frank I don't have to provide you with any clues yet? LOL Gem
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 31, 2008 20:27:37 GMT -5
So I guess Frank I don't have to provide you with any clues yet? LOL Gem Uncle. ;D
|
|
|
Post by degem on Jan 31, 2008 20:46:03 GMT -5
Okay Frank I will let it go this time! But next time.......... Gem
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jan 31, 2008 21:29:31 GMT -5
Lol. You're pretty funny, Frank. you're welcome. But....still wrong. I didn't lie, AND furthermore...my meaning was plenty clear. I don't know why I mentioned analyzing..it had nothing to do with having to analyze anything. Again, this: Clearday: (COLON) Doesn't indicate to you that I'm responding to Clearday's post and not Ali or whoever it was? LOL. Oh well, that would be your problem, not mine. I WILL end this now, as it's apparent YOU cannot admit a mistake--something you often accuse those who disagree with you on this board of not being able to do. You were wrong. Some day, perhaps through therapy or some such thing, you'll be able to admit it. I had fun shopping. M. PS...thanks, diet coke. M. By the way, I have NEVER EVER LIED on this board. Take it or leave it. You'll leave it, that's ok..people disagree. I happen to think you're an ignorant jerk. You think I'm a liar. We disagree...whooooooopdi do, the world's not gonna end!
|
|
|
Post by degem on Jan 31, 2008 21:49:57 GMT -5
I'm glad you had fun shopping Michelle! I hope you bought something just for you! I think Frank is feeling a little bit "testy" today . LOL Gem
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jan 31, 2008 21:59:00 GMT -5
Frank's usually "testy." I think it's permanent mood! Anyway, yes, I did....thanks! and...there are a couple more things I want to get when we get our federal return in a couple days....we all got some treats, so it was fun.
|
|