Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 4:08:24 GMT -5
how ever though i respect Graham and the choice he made i feel that he has let those who looked to him down by quitting I can’t imagine too many people thinking that Graham has let them down by leaving the work. More precisely, I can’t imagine many people who have thought a little about it, thinking he had any real choice in the matter once the matter came down to conscience.. Has a person of integrity got any real choice when a torn conscience comes into play?. He must then act. It’s important to him that he is true to God and not let Him down. He won’t let people down either, but that is secondary to a person with spiritual integrity If people do feel that way (ie that Graham has let them down), then as a minimum they should at least give him an opportunity to explain his ‘action based on conscience’ to them. Graham is not seeking out anybody in order to explain himself. But when anyone has approached him, he has been very open and orderly in explaining why he was left with no option in leaving the work. He certainly should be given that opportunity before making the suggestion he has let people down. While I know a number have spoken directly to Graham, I am also surprised that so few have been interested enough to seek him out in order to seek truth on this. It’s not as though Graham is not approachable and warm as a person. It’s such an obvious action to take. maybe you might just like to read my post again, it says i feel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 4:18:32 GMT -5
In some of the links Fixit referred to in post 3 of this thread, there was excellent discussion on unity v truth.
It was a very important part of the Graham Thompson story.
Most people would agree that peace and unity within the church is desirable and valuable. Most people would agree that truth and ‘right’ within the church is desirable and valuable.
The question then for us as individuals is which is more valuable – unity and peace, or truth and right. A tough choice at times maybe, but an important choice. At some point that test comes for all of us.
This was at the centre of the problems that arose.
Graham felt that truth and ‘right’ was more important than peace and unity. The Australasian overseers felt the other way. (This may have been felt consciously or unconsciously). It was also on a number of issues over a number of years.
Each person has to decide which it is for them, and then be true to God as to where this leads them. That cost Graham his place in the ministry.
Each person can discern for ourselves whether what happened reflects well or badly on the integrity of the people involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 4:23:38 GMT -5
I can’t imagine too many people thinking that Graham has let them down by leaving the work. More precisely, I can’t imagine many people who have thought a little about it, thinking he had any real choice in the matter once the matter came down to conscience.. Has a person of integrity got any real choice when a torn conscience comes into play?. He must then act. It’s important to him that he is true to God and not let Him down. He won’t let people down either, but that is secondary to a person with spiritual integrity If people do feel that way (ie that Graham has let them down), then as a minimum they should at least give him an opportunity to explain his ‘action based on conscience’ to them. Graham is not seeking out anybody in order to explain himself. But when anyone has approached him, he has been very open and orderly in explaining why he was left with no option in leaving the work. He certainly should be given that opportunity before making the suggestion he has let people down. While I know a number have spoken directly to Graham, I am also surprised that so few have been interested enough to seek him out in order to seek truth on this. It’s not as though Graham is not approachable and warm as a person. It’s such an obvious action to take. maybe you might just like to read my post again, it says i feel I hope I acknowledged that clearly enough at the start of my second paragraph. I also added a suggestion that I feel would be helpful and beneficial to anyone who feels the way you do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 4:25:58 GMT -5
In some of the links Fixit referred to in post 3 of this thread, there was excellent discussion on unity v truth. It was a very important part of the Graham Thompson story. Most people would agree that peace and unity within the church is desirable and valuable. Most people would agree that truth and ‘right’ within the church is desirable and valuable. The question then for us as individuals is which is more valuable – unity and peace, or truth and right. A tough choice at times maybe, but an important choice. At some point that test comes for all of us. This was at the centre of the problems that arose. Graham felt that truth and ‘right’ was more important than peace and unity. The Australasian overseers felt the other way. (This may have been felt consciously or unconsciously). It was also on a number of issues over a number of years. Each person has to decide which it is for them, and then be true to God as to where this leads them. That cost Graham his place in the ministry. Each person can discern for ourselves whether what happened reflects well or badly on the integrity of the people involved. i would consider that unity, peace, truth and right go hand in hand if one has truth and right they will have unity and peace
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 22, 2014 4:38:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 5:07:38 GMT -5
if one has truth and right they will have unity and peace i think you have the order right. Truth and 'right' come first . Good things flow on from that.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 22, 2014 5:17:33 GMT -5
In the aftermath of this shocking mess.
Have people walked with their feet? This usually happens in mainline churches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 5:47:20 GMT -5
In the aftermath of this shocking mess. Have people walked with their feet? This usually happens in mainline churches. Good question, bubbles. I haven’t heard anybody who has walked away. Each can only speak for themselves of what is going on deep inside themselves I suspect though that a good many are apathetic and have shrugged their shoulders at this. I suspect that others have gone through some soul searching and have checked where their faith is centred and have reaffirmed that their faith needs to be completely set on Christ alone. This is in line with what Fixit said. I think this latter group will likely have ended up reconfirming their need to be individually led of the Spirit and not to put faith in anything that involves a human hand.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 22, 2014 16:31:32 GMT -5
In the aftermath of this shocking mess. Have people walked with their feet? This usually happens in mainline churches. Good question, bubbles. I haven’t heard anybody who has walked away. Each can only speak for themselves of what is going on deep inside themselves I suspect though that a good many are apathetic and have shrugged their shoulders at this. I suspect that others have gone through some soul searching and have checked where their faith is centred and have reaffirmed that their faith needs to be completely set on Christ alone. This is in line with what Fixit said. I think this latter group will likely have ended up reconfirming their need to be individually led of the Spirit and not to put faith in anything that involves a human hand. Leaving is huge. Not for the fainthearted. Just glad my parents havent had to deal with this knowledge of what really has gone on.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 22, 2014 17:20:00 GMT -5
Ok, I guess we see the societies in a different light. I see them as secular, not Judeo-Christian. Either way, I agree, I am glad I raised my daughter in this society and not some of the ones mentioned. Wait a moment, now you have me confused! You started out by saying that: ...which I took to mean that our religious background (at the family or society level) affects how we think and relate to each other. So, from that perspective, we can talk about Judeo-Christian or Hindu or Muslim or whatever cultures/societies based on the religious traditions that permeate and influence them. I wasn't talking about types of government or politics. Hope that explains what I meant Our past cultures/societies have been imbued with the Judeo-Christian religion.
That Judeo-Christian religion has been a terrible determent to equality of people, women as well as men.
Changes that have come about for more equality for all people, including women, are due to the types of secular governments of late. Those types of governments only come about in the 1700's.
If the culture of Judeo-Christian religion still were the government rulers, -women would still be under the thumb of men.
We have nothing in the Judeo-Christian culture to thank for any equality for women or for men for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 23, 2014 5:58:55 GMT -5
Wait a moment, now you have me confused! You started out by saying that: ...which I took to mean that our religious background (at the family or society level) affects how we think and relate to each other. So, from that perspective, we can talk about Judeo-Christian or Hindu or Muslim or whatever cultures/societies based on the religious traditions that permeate and influence them. I wasn't talking about types of government or politics. Hope that explains what I meant Our past cultures/societies have been imbued with the Judeo-Christian religion.
That Judeo-Christian religion has been a terrible determent to equality of people, women as well as men.
Changes that have come about for more equality for all people, including women, are due to the types of secular governments of late. Those types of governments only come about in the 1700's.
If the culture of Judeo-Christian religion still were the government rulers, -women would still be under the thumb of men.
We have nothing in the Judeo-Christian culture to thank for any equality for women or for men for that matter.Through human history, what culture has had more respect for human rights than Judeo-Christian culture? Which culture led the way on the following agreement? www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
|
|
|
Post by magpies on Aug 27, 2014 20:06:20 GMT -5
Hi Fixit, Yes us men have over history avoided the word,equality. But women in N/T times played a great part of Jesus and Apostles teachings. Then Paul was addament of the importance as others of the part women played in the early church..If one of the disciples put a woman down at all Jesus soon made the reverse acceptance known. Sadly MAN have reverted quickly back,as mostly seen in many of the old cultures still today? Hajib on muslim women a control just as hair demand to show visual external submission for doctorine such as 2x2s,exclusive brethren,aimish,etc. Many interesting parts of scripture available to support the bad way women have been placed in societies history. Try, 1 Corinthians Ch 9,V 5/6. Also on WEB,, addresses such as JESUS AND WOMEM|GRACE COMMUNITY INTERNATIONAL.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 27, 2014 20:29:48 GMT -5
Our past cultures/societies have been imbued with the Judeo-Christian religion.
That Judeo-Christian religion has been a terrible determent to equality of people, women as well as men.
Changes that have come about for more equality for all people, including women, are due to the types of secular governments of late. Those types of governments only come about in the 1700's.
If the culture of Judeo-Christian religion still were the government rulers, -women would still be under the thumb of men.
We have nothing in the Judeo-Christian culture to thank for any equality for women or for men for that matter. Through human history, what culture has had more respect for human rights than Judeo-Christian culture? Which culture led the way on the following agreement? www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ The link you gave to the United Nations. Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
is a secular document & has nothing to do with any Judeo-Christian culture.
In fact it validates that I said, that "Changes that have come about for more equality for all people, including women, are due to the types of secular governments." It has nothing to do with "Judeo-Christian" culture!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 27, 2014 20:49:48 GMT -5
Through human history, what culture has had more respect for human rights than Judeo-Christian culture? Which culture led the way on the following agreement? www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/The link you gave to the United Nations. Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS is a secular document & has nothing to do with any Judeo-Christian culture. In fact it validates that I said, that "Changes that have come about for more equality for all people, including women, are due to the types of secular governments." It has nothing to do with "Judeo-Christian" culture! Can you explain why Judeo-Christian cultures were the driving force behind putting this declaration in place? And why Judeo-Christian cultures remain the main proponents of this declaration? (I removed your bold blue font. I hate it. It screams at me.)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 28, 2014 1:23:40 GMT -5
The link you gave to the United Nations. Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS is a secular document & has nothing to do with any Judeo-Christian culture. In fact it validates that I said, that "Changes that have come about for more equality for all people, including women, are due to the types of secular governments." It has nothing to do with "Judeo-Christian" culture! Can you explain why Judeo-Christian cultures were the driving force behind putting this declaration in place? And why Judeo-Christian cultures remain the main proponents of this declaration? (I removed your bold blue font. I hate it.
It screams at me.) Sorry, that my bold blue font bothers you.
I have said this before, I do that because my eyesight never was good (I wouldn't be able to read with my Left eye at all) and as I get older my sight gets even worse.
I think that Dennis said he uses a red & larger font for a similar reason.
Also that font helps me find my place.
Since it bothers you so much that you "hate it." I maybe should just stop answering your posts since they seem to not be going any place anyway .
You could just put me on ignore. That might help you as well.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 5:59:02 GMT -5
DMG: Can you explain why Judeo-Christian cultures were the driving force behind putting the Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in place? And why Judeo-Christian cultures remain the main proponents of this declaration?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 28, 2014 7:48:33 GMT -5
DMG: Can you explain why Judeo-Christian cultures were the driving force behind putting the Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in place? And why Judeo-Christian cultures remain the main proponents of this declaration? Have you checked in with Right Wing (US) "Judeo-Christian" types about the contents of this declaration?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 28, 2014 7:56:18 GMT -5
if one has truth and right they will have unity and peace i think you have the order right. Truth and 'right' come first . Good things flow on from that. I havent heard this expression 'truth and right' Im not sure I understand. Are you saying unity comes from truth or right? Ive always thought unity comes with agreement. "Where there is unity he commands a blessing." Il plug this in here it works with non christians. Which shows me its a spiritual law.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 15:50:22 GMT -5
DMG: Can you explain why Judeo-Christian cultures were the driving force behind putting the Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in place? And why Judeo-Christian cultures remain the main proponents of this declaration? Have you checked in with Right Wing (US) "Judeo-Christian" types about the contents of this declaration? I'm not referring to Right Wing (US) "Judeo-Christian" types (whatever they are). I'm just saying that Judeo-Christian cultures have been the driving force behind putting the Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in place. Judeo-Christian cultures have led the way in separating church and state and the secularizing of government.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 28, 2014 20:01:00 GMT -5
Have you checked in with Right Wing (US) "Judeo-Christian" types about the contents of this declaration? I'm not referring to Right Wing (US) "Judeo-Christian" types (whatever they are). I'm just saying that Judeo-Christian cultures have been the driving force behind putting the Universal DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in place. Judeo-Christian cultures have led the way in separating church and state and the secularizing of government. I understand that you were referring to culture. What is "Judeo-Christian" culture?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 21:24:21 GMT -5
What is "Judeo-Christian" culture? I was responding to the conversation below... Wait a moment, now you have me confused! You started out by saying that: ...which I took to mean that our religious background (at the family or society level) affects how we think and relate to each other. So, from that perspective, we can talk about Judeo-Christian or Hindu or Muslim or whatever cultures/societies based on the religious traditions that permeate and influence them. I wasn't talking about types of government or politics. Hope that explains what I meant Our past cultures/societies have been imbued with the Judeo-Christian religion.
That Judeo-Christian religion has been a terrible determent to equality of people, women as well as men.
Changes that have come about for more equality for all people, including women, are due to the types of secular governments of late. Those types of governments only come about in the 1700's.
If the culture of Judeo-Christian religion still were the government rulers, -women would still be under the thumb of men.
We have nothing in the Judeo-Christian culture to thank for any equality for women or for men for that matter.If respect for human rights and secular government didn't grow out of Judeo-Christian culture, then where did it come from?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 28, 2014 22:37:26 GMT -5
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
excerpts from wiki The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 is a fundamental document of the French Revolution and in the history of human rights
It defines the individual and collective rights of all the estates of the realm as universal.
The Declaration was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson working with General LaFayette, who introduced it.[2]
Influenced also by the doctrine of "natural right", the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place, pertaining to human nature itself. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by law. It is included in the preamble of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958) and is still current. Inspired in part by the American Revolution, the Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French revolution and had a major impact on the development of liberty and democracy in Europe and worldwide.[3] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philosophical and theoretical context
The concepts in the Declaration come from the philosophical and political duties of the Enlightenment, such as individualism, the general will, the social contract as theorized by the French philosopher Rousseau, and the separation of powers espoused by the Baron de Montesquieu.
As can be seen in the texts, the French declaration is heavily influenced by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment, by Enlightenment principles of human rights, and with the U.S. Declaration of Independence which preceded it (4 July 1776).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The declaration is in the spirit of "secular natural law", which does not base itself on religious doctrine or authority, in contrast with traditional natural law theory, which does.[15]
The declaration defines a single set of individual and collective rights for all men.
from wiki
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 22:54:53 GMT -5
DMG: If respect for human rights and secular government didn't grow out of Judeo-Christian culture, then where did it come from?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 28, 2014 22:58:20 GMT -5
DMG: If respect for human rights and secular government didn't grow out of Judeo-Christian culture, then where did it come from? fixit, you just keep repeating yourself.
Where is documentation for your premise?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 23:11:34 GMT -5
DMG: If respect for human rights and secular government didn't grow out of Judeo-Christian culture, then where did it come from? fixit, you just keep repeating yourself.
Where is documentation for your premise?
I'm not defending a thesis. I'm simply asking you a question... If respect for human rights and secular government didn't grow out of Judeo-Christian culture, then where did it come from?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 28, 2014 23:27:29 GMT -5
fixit, you just keep repeating yourself.
Where is documentation for your premise?
I'm not defending a thesis. I'm simply asking you a question... If respect for human rights and secular government didn't grow out of Judeo-Christian culture, then where did it come from? Do you have nothing but (repeated)questions? Do you read any of the answers?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 29, 2014 0:01:36 GMT -5
Yes and yes.
I suspect we have different definitions for "Judeo-Christian".
Shall we try replacing it with "Western"?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 29, 2014 5:50:23 GMT -5
Separation of state and religion was supported by many Christian leaders. Thomas Jefferson was at the forefront of this movement. He was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence and he articulated a statement about human rights that most Americans revere. I think we need to be careful about aligning secularism with non-theism or atheism. I'm a Christian who supports secularism. Thomas Jefferson was a "Christian Deist" (not a theist) who admired and subscribed to the moral teachings credited to Jesus. Jefferson did not, however, believe the New Testament accounts of miracles, nor did he believe that Jesus was divine. He took flack during his life for his non-orthodox beliefs. I appreciate that there are Christian theists who support secularism.
|
|