|
Post by placid-void on Jul 1, 2015 20:23:21 GMT -5
I think this is a fairly common perspective among the workers and friends. And I can't say I really disagree with it, as much as I am concerned about "social issues." Jesus himself spoke to the effect that "you seek me because your stomachs were filled" (Jn. 6:26). Jesus "drilled down" to the individual's motives. Can you help me square the circle here? How does the afore mentioned position fit with "judge not that you be not judged" or "God is not a respecter of persons" "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find" "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink" "Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor" "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" Guess I can be accused of selective reading of scripture but I seek forgiveness on the grounds of utter confusion. So a "rice Christian" (there is a good example of micro-aggression) runs off with a kilo of rice in his belly, somehow I'm excused from turning the other cheek? I don't like to get ripped off any more than the next guy but don't our responsibilities extend even a little bit beyond having a full pot of rice for all our friends? Please, someone slowly and calmly explain how this whole thing is supposed to work? Consider me a tabula rasa prepared to learn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 20:41:34 GMT -5
I think this is a fairly common perspective among the workers and friends. And I can't say I really disagree with it, as much as I am concerned about "social issues." Jesus himself spoke to the effect that "you seek me because your stomachs were filled" (Jn. 6:26). Jesus "drilled down" to the individual's motives. Can you help me square the circle here? How does the afore mentioned position fit with "judge not that you be not judged" or "God is not a respecter of persons" "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find" "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink" "Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor" "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" Guess I can be accused of selective reading of scripture but I seek forgiveness on the grounds of utter confusion. So a "rice Christian" (there is a good example of micro-aggression) runs off with a kilo of rice in his belly, somehow I'm excused from turning the other cheek? I don't like to get ripped off any more than the next guy but don't our responsibilities extend even a little bit beyond having a full pot of rice for all our friends? Please, someone slowly and calmly explain how this whole thing is supposed to work? Consider me a tabula rasa prepared to learn. balance, open enough to allow the poor in but not to the level of abuse. its a fine line for sure...
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jul 1, 2015 21:53:37 GMT -5
I think this is a fairly common perspective among the workers and friends. And I can't say I really disagree with it, as much as I am concerned about "social issues." Jesus himself spoke to the effect that "you seek me because your stomachs were filled" (Jn. 6:26). Jesus "drilled down" to the individual's motives. Can you help me square the circle here? How does the afore mentioned position fit with "judge not that you be not judged" or "God is not a respecter of persons" "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find" "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink" "Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor" "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" Guess I can be accused of selective reading of scripture but I seek forgiveness on the grounds of utter confusion. So a "rice Christian" (there is a good example of micro-aggression) runs off with a kilo of rice in his belly, somehow I'm excused from turning the other cheek? I don't like to get ripped off any more than the next guy but don't our responsibilities extend even a little bit beyond having a full pot of rice for all our friends? Please, someone slowly and calmly explain how this whole thing is supposed to work? Consider me a tabula rasa prepared to learn. Thanks for asking the likely inevitable, yknot! I did say that I "tend to agree," as I do not feel there is any easy answer or "position" on this question, and it can of course pave the way for a tirade of accusations and counter-accusations. Since this is about Jesus, I am going to use Christian "categories" in my response, hopefully without slipping into an "apologetic" mode. Jesus is looked to as the Incarnate Word, and by "incarnate," I do not refer to a metaphysical category, but to the eternal - God - lived out in a very specific, particular human life, with all its fears and joys, subject to the same needs and necessities, both physical and societal. But this incarnation is never a simple, easy melding of the eternal and the temporal. They don't blend easily! They are not mutually intelligible, and Jesus was never immediately recognizable as the Son of God, as the Messiah. This was an understanding brought through faithful obedience, and one can see in the gospels a constant dialog around the paradoxes - "He spoke as one with authority." "Who has authority to forgive sin?" And Jesus strove to prevent an immediate worship, to the point of seeming to drive people away - "Will you also go away?" Part of this dialog - this dialectic - concerned "the poor." "He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." But what was "the gospel?" It is easy for us to veer toward one of two basic "tangents" - the "social gospel," or a "gospel" that speaks of individual salvation, ending up in a "disembodied" "heaven." But I see a constant tension in Jesus' speaking and doing. You mentioned some very appropriate verses, while I and others could cite corresponding verses that seem to "contradict" - "Man does not live by bread alone." Even some of the verses you mention contain a question, or a tension - "Ask, and ye shall receive." Was Jesus talking only about food, clothing, shelter, etc.? Did it go more deeply? We are easily drawn into a barrage of verse-throwing, using scriptural passages to counter one another in "proving" our point, our particular doctrine. But Jesus spoke these things! Was he contradicting himself? I believe he worked to keep the tension alive, to maintain his Kingdom as "among you," and yet eternal, "of heaven." Yes, Jesus gave freely - this is a Kingdom of Grace - and yet he also worked to drive individuals to a deep, inward relation with God, which would of course lead to that individual also "loving his neighbor (enemy?). Now, the fellowship's position on this: As I stated above, I tend to agree with their position. However, that is really only relative, as I feel workers - and by extension the friends - can go too far in one direction, yet I also feel that many others go too far in another direction. Maybe "too far" doesn't express it as well as saying that each is missing a part of the dialectic, something that is very common in modern dialog. This actually relates to other dialectics as well, in which I highly value views that I received in the meetings, which I feel are missing elsewhere, while at the same time feeling that in other places I do hear some parts that are lacking in the workers' talk in general. To be specific, I highly value the talk of "dying to yourself" (which is entirely scriptural), but at the same time I miss talk about grace. And this is reversed in other religious realms. But they are both scriptural, and both vital to the Christian life. And, while I feel like "the ministry" has become a monolithic "object," which cannot be interrogated, I highly value Matthew 10 and the "radical insecurity" Jesus demanded of those disciples. People are probably right in viewing it as a "special commission," but then, are there no "special commissions" today? There are paradoxes - a dialectic - here too. Does this make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2015 22:07:22 GMT -5
What I have seen and heard from workers and friends on and off this board is that the poor do not deserve the gospel preached to them. Is this an absolutely true statement? Has anyone else ever heard this sentiment expressed by anyone associated with the F&W Fellowship? I've not heard a worker say that the poor did not deserve to have the gospel. I have heard a worker say that he felt it was a waste of time to preach to the poor because they lacked an appreciation of anything more than food/material. --- South African worker at Gilroy #1, 1987.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 1, 2015 23:54:10 GMT -5
I think this is a fairly common perspective among the workers and friends. And I can't say I really disagree with it, as much as I am concerned about "social issues." Jesus himself spoke to the effect that "you seek me because your stomachs were filled" (Jn. 6:26). Jesus "drilled down" to the individual's motives. Can you help me square the circle here? How does the afore mentioned position fit with "judge not that you be not judged" or "God is not a respecter of persons" "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find" "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink" "Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor" "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" Guess I can be accused of selective reading of scripture but I seek forgiveness on the grounds of utter confusion. So a "rice Christian" (there is a good example of micro-aggression) runs off with a kilo of rice in his belly, somehow I'm excused from turning the other cheek? I don't like to get ripped off any more than the next guy but don't our responsibilities extend even a little bit beyond having a full pot of rice for all our friends? Please, someone slowly and calmly explain how this whole thing is supposed to work? Consider me a tabula rasa prepared to learn. Hmmm....weren't you the guy who posted another another thread that you rejected a literal interpretation of scripture, and here you are, sounding pretty literal to me However, in addition to Alan V's insightful post, I propose that there is both an individual responsibility for helping your neighbor, wherever he might be, as well as a responsibility to preach the gospel, individual or otherwise. Some organizations like Compassion combine both, meeting the basic needs of impoverished children and teaching them scripture on a long-term basis; others like Samaritan's Purse show Christ's love in action by helping with natural disasters, all of which requires a large budget and coordinated effort. Others are only evangelical--like the workers, Harvest Crusade, and others. Nonetheless, as disciples of Christ, we are all challenged to use our means to help others, no matter our specific calling in life.
|
|
|
Post by boogaloo on Jul 2, 2015 0:39:04 GMT -5
I have a struggle I have never seen addressed on the TMB. I miss fellowship. I have not been able to allow myself to go to another church. I have had study and fellowship with other believers in my home. How have others filled this void in their lives after leaving meeting. I have a fear of being treated the same way the workers and friends have treated my family. I am not exclusive. I believe God deals with hearts not buildings. The word religion gives me the chills. I've left the truth 3 different times but the Lord called me back maybe he is calling you back now... Hello to all, i have been a member of this forum since 2009 and never felt the need to post anything, being happy to read and learn from your various experiences. Today, both your words resonated with me as I am currently going through that same feeling of missing the fellowship (if I may say that as I left the meetings 6 years ago and was not professing.) My question now would be how do I know it is a true call and not just a phase of me missing something I have known my whole life? I am not really looking for a definate answer but more like some insight on how each of you who went through the same feelings dealt with them... (excuse my English, for it is not my mothertongue )
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 2, 2015 7:50:48 GMT -5
Hmmm....weren't you the guy who posted another another thread that you rejected a literal interpretation of scripture, and here you are, sounding pretty literal to me However, in addition to Alan V's insightful post, I propose that there is both an individual responsibility for helping your neighbor, wherever he might be, as well as a responsibility to preach the gospel, individual or otherwise. Some organizations like Compassion combine both, meeting the basic needs of impoverished children and teaching them scripture on a long-term basis; others like Samaritan's Purse show Christ's love in action by helping with natural disasters, all of which requires a large budget and coordinated effort. Others are only evangelical--like the workers, Harvest Crusade, and others. Nonetheless, as disciples of Christ, we are all challenged to use our means to help others, no matter our specific calling in life. Ah hberry, dear friend, you nailed me once again! Was hoping I could sneak that little bit of self-righteousness in without getting caught! It's hard to get anything past you though, huh? As my Dad taught me, it is only important that one should be "consistent in their inconsistencies". I do want to thank all who contributed to this little chat about our "Christian" responsibility to the poor. It has been a rude awakening, but an awakening none the less. The loss of innocence is difficult, no matter one's age, but I can testify that the loss of innocence is particularly difficult for an old man. I grew up at a different time, in a different place. We and most of those we knew were hard working rural poor. It was probably easier then to appreciate the "Christian message". Times change as they must and should. George Walker would be an anachronism now but I still pine for the clarity of his "fire and brimstone" preaching and the "old-time religion". Is that old hymn "Jesus the same yesterday, today, forever" still around? Probably time for that too to be retired. One take away I have from this brief interesting and productive exchange of posts is a whole new context and appreciation for LL's letter being discussed concurrently on another thread. It is much easier now to appreciate his expressed concern with "defending the faith". As substantive elements of the message are re-examined, re-evaluated and ultimately discarded, one is left with fewer and fewer articles of faith to hold on to and, yes, now I can see more clearly why one would worry about "defending the faith". I, too, would worry.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 2, 2015 8:18:41 GMT -5
Thanks for asking the likely inevitable, yknot! I did say that I "tend to agree," as I do not feel there is any easy answer or "position" on this question, and it can of course pave the way for a tirade of accusations and counter-accusations. Since this is about Jesus, I am going to use Christian "categories" in my response, hopefully without slipping into an "apologetic" mode. Jesus is looked to as the Incarnate Word, and by "incarnate," I do not refer to a metaphysical category, but to the eternal - God - lived out in a very specific, particular human life, with all its fears and joys, subject to the same needs and necessities, both physical and societal. But this incarnation is never a simple, easy melding of the eternal and the temporal. They don't blend easily! They are not mutually intelligible, and Jesus was never immediately recognizable as the Son of God, as the Messiah. This was an understanding brought through faithful obedience, and one can see in the gospels a constant dialog around the paradoxes - "He spoke as one with authority." "Who has authority to forgive sin?" And Jesus strove to prevent an immediate worship, to the point of seeming to drive people away - "Will you also go away?" Part of this dialog - this dialectic - concerned "the poor." "He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." But what was "the gospel?" It is easy for us to veer toward one of two basic "tangents" - the "social gospel," or a "gospel" that speaks of individual salvation, ending up in a "disembodied' heaven. But I see a constant tension in Jesus' speaking and doing. You mentioned some very appropriate verses, while I and others could cite corresponding verses that seem to "contradict" - "Man does not live by bread alone." Even some of the verses you mention contain a question, or a tension - "Ask, and ye shall receive." Was Jesus talking only about food, clothing, shelter, etc.? Did it go more deeply? We are easily drawn into a barrage of verse-throwing, using scriptural passages to counter one another in "proving" our point, our particular doctrine. But Jesus spoke these things! Was he contradicting himself? I believe he worked to keep the tension alive, to maintain his Kingdom as "among you," and yet eternal, "of heaven." Yes, Jesus gave freely - this is a Kingdom of Grace - and yet he also worked to drive individuals to a deep, inward relation with God, which would of course lead to that individual also "loving his neighbor (enemy?). Now, the fellowship's position on this: As I stated above, I tend to agree with their position. However, that is really only relative, as I feel workers - and by extension the friends - can go too far in one direction, yet I also feel that many others go too far in another direction. Maybe "too far" doesn't express it as well as saying that each is missing a part of the dialectic, something that is very common in modern dialog. This actually relates to other dialectics as well, in which I highly value views that I received in the meetings, which I feel are missing elsewhere, while at the same time feeling that in other places I do hear some parts that are lacking in the workers' talk in general. To be specific, I highly value the talk of "dying to yourself" (which is entirely scriptural), but at the same time I miss talk about grace. And this is reversed in other religious realms. But they are both scriptural, and both vital to the Christian life. And, while I feel like "the ministry" has become a monolithic "object," which cannot be interrogated, I highly value Matthew 10 and the "radical insecurity" Jesus demanded of those disciples. People are probably right in viewing it as a "special commission," but then, are there no "special commissions" today? There are paradoxes - a dialectic - here too. Does this make any sense? Alan, thank you for an elegant response. It is a response that resonates. The depth of your response is so provocative I would like to take some time to simply reflect on your comments. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2015 14:14:47 GMT -5
It is my experience in the northeast that the workers feel no need to preach the gospel to those outside of their comfort area of friends and who ever the friends happen to bring to meeting. How is that bring the gospel to the poor. Most friends in the northeast are not poor and tend to look down their noses at those that are. I am not talking about homeless even though I do believe Jesus would not have had a hard time bring the gospel to the homeless.
After a visit with Barry when we were going through a hard time after a customer had stiffed us on a custom kitchen we had build and installed, my husband looked at me and said, "we are too poor to be part of "TRUTH" anymore."
We were not asking anything of anyone. But workers who LIVE off others made us feel very small and unworthy. We had always give them our best. Provided a place for them to sleep and eat. Provided a place for them to have gospel meeting in our shop. And my husband had always given them time and tools to perform work at conventions ground. Also built them a kitchen for the house at a convention ground house.
I think the things that bothers me the most is just the attitude, even on this board, that all those that are poor ever want is something free. How about some respect. Most of the people I know that are poor never talk about how poor they are. The one that cry poor are usually those that have never been poor. They have never had to worry about keeping a roof over their head or food on the table for their children.
The old overseer in WI used to tell the story of the banker and the janitor that worked at the same bank. Sunday morning was at the janitors house.
What I see as friends become more wealthy in this country, is a divide between the haves and have nots. What do you think Jesus would think of those that have, lording it over those that don't have?
This issue is one of the big issues why we stopped going to meeting. We felt unwanted by the wealthier friends in our area.
If you want to make light of this go ahead but it is a serious issue to me and my husband. One that keeps us from going back to meeting.
Anytime you make someone feel less of a person, there is nothing Godly about that.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 5, 2015 16:13:00 GMT -5
It is my experience in the northeast that the workers feel no need to preach the gospel to those outside of their comfort area of friends and who ever the friends happen to bring to meeting. How is that bring the gospel to the poor. Most friends in the northeast are not poor and tend to look down their noses at those that are. I am not talking about homeless even though I do believe Jesus would not have had a hard time bring the gospel to the homeless. After a visit with Barry when we were going through a hard time after a customer had stiffed us on a custom kitchen we had build and installed, my husband looked at me and said, "we are too poor to be part of "TRUTH" anymore." We were not asking anything of anyone. But workers who LIVE off others made us feel very small and unworthy. We had always give them our best. Provided a place for them to sleep and eat. Provided a place for them to have gospel meeting in our shop. And my husband had always given them time and tools to perform work at conventions ground. Also built them a kitchen for the house at a convention ground house. I think the things that bothers me the most is just the attitude, even on this board, that all those that are poor ever want is something free. How about some respect. Most of the people I know that are poor never talk about how poor they are. The one that cry poor are usually those that have never been poor. They have never had to worry about keeping a roof over their head or food on the table for their children. The old overseer in WI used to tell the story of the banker and the janitor that worked at the same bank. Sunday morning was at the janitors house. What I see as friends become more wealthy in this country, is a divide between the haves and have nots. What do you think Jesus would think of those that have, lording it over those that don't have? This issue is one of the big issues why we stopped going to meeting. We felt unwanted by the wealthier friends in our area. If you want to make light of this go ahead but it is a serious issue to me and my husband. One that keeps us from going back to meeting. Anytime you make someone feel less of a person, there is nothing Godly about that. Marie, your testimony, above, is poignant. I cannot speak to what is real or true today, the news I bring to the conversation is more than 50 years old. What I can say is that there was a time when wealth was not a determinate of fellowship. I speak of the 50s and early 60s. At that time in the northeast and pretty much across the U.S. (we traveled cross-country several times during my youth) the gospel was preached in "back-water" towns, on sand lot fields, in tents with folding wooden chairs rocking on recently mown grass. It wasn't elegant but it was effective. There were some who stood, who for lack of means would ask for a ride to Sunday morning meetings, a request answered with good cheer. The folks I knew and the ones I played with at convention were farmers and farmers kids, they were craftsmen, some had small business and some came from the big city from the big corporations. We all slept on tick beds and washed up in cold water. Didn't seem to matter if you had the corner office for the big corporation or if you had manure on your boots, we all enjoyed the stew. Reading your post, Marie, and all the others that proclaim a similar reality, I have slipped into the habit of referring to my experiences as the old-time religion. I find little reason, at least on this board, to believe that much of my heritage remains intact today. I have an inexplicable curiosity about what F&W Fellowship workers think as they read through these posts. Do they bristle with indignation that the values of their fiefdom should be challenged? In a way, I almost hope so, that at least would be an understandable reaction. Do they deny the reality of how the Fellowship's manifest love of the story of Jesus has changed throughout the lifetime of a single generation? If so, the denial might best be addressed professionally. Are there any with the courage (whether they be right or wrong) to ask the difficult question, have we lost our way? My comments are actually not intended to be read as criticism. I am long past the age where critical comments were thought to be constructive. Rather, I raise my voice in the hope that someone of consequence within the F&W community will make the choice to either restore a way of life that meant much to many or else give the tattered remnants of the fellowship a respectful and honorable burial. I perceive little value in perpetuating the faith of our fathers with values long since dismissive of the love and compassion taught in the gospel story. Play-acting the form without the sincerity of conviction will likely end poorly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 9:45:08 GMT -5
I think you are right yknot, My father professed during the depression. He was 15. He told us that one of the things that attracted he to the workers was the fact that they were not concerned about money but about your soul. My parents and all the people I grew up with were poor. They were always there for one another. Did they have disagreements, of course. They all wanted the same thing. They all felt grateful for being saved from a dark and cruel world. Maybe that is the differences today. Most have never known what it is to feel lost and pray for salvation. They have grown up assuming they had salvation.
The people in the bible we look up to as men and women of strength are also men and women that faced great tribulation. They proved God grace and power daily in their lives. They made mistakes but did not let them hold they down. How many man and women in the USA have faced tribulation and trusted in the power of God to see them through? When you do, you do not look down your nose at the tribulation of an other. You thank God for his saving grace and want the same for your fellow man.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 4, 2017 14:09:14 GMT -5
I guess this theist only thread didn't make it. I'm surprised. It was somewhere theists could post without us atheists getting involved. I really thought it would be a good spot for those who didn't want our input.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 4, 2017 14:21:26 GMT -5
Many threads come and go. My first thought when I read your post was that we don't have to do what you tell us. We will post where we want.
You sound a lot like Joanna on here.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Apr 4, 2017 21:16:36 GMT -5
Why wouldn't theists not want atheist input/ Never been an issue for me. The issue I have is when people assume they 'know' what Christians think on every subject.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 4, 2017 21:43:56 GMT -5
Many threads come and go. My first thought when I read your post was that we don't have to do what you tell us. We will post where we want. You sound a lot like Joanna on here. The thread was started in response to a theist wanting to post without having to read what atheists thought of her post. And, out of respect for her wishes, I don't see any atheists commenting on what was posted. In another world there was also a thread started for atheists only. Fortunately a theist jumped in (Thanks maryhig !) because who would want to read what a bunch of atheists had to talk about! (I am hoping this "Beeps" maryhig 's phone in the middle of the night!)
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 5, 2017 2:30:29 GMT -5
Many threads come and go. My first thought when I read your post was that we don't have to do what you tell us. We will post where we want. You sound a lot like Joanna on here. The thread was started in response to a theist wanting to post without having to read what atheists thought of her post. And, out of respect for her wishes, I don't see any atheists commenting on what was posted. In another world there was also a thread started for atheists only. Fortunately a theist jumped in (Thanks maryhig !) because who would want to read what a bunch of atheists had to talk about! (I am hoping this "Beeps" maryhig 's phone in the middle of the night!)Luckily my phone was on silent!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 5, 2017 12:05:27 GMT -5
Many threads come and go. My first thought when I read your post was that we don't have to do what you tell us. We will post where we want. You sound a lot like Joanna on here. It wasn't like that though. You need to know the context of why I made this thread to start with. Many theists were complaining that atheists were always coming on and commenting on things and so I offered a thread that we would stay off of completely. Most theists were happy with it and knew it wasn't me telling them to do anything but giving them a place that we atheists honored by staying out of the conversation on it. So no one was telling anyone what to do. I did it with the best intentions and I was happy to see that the theists only was being honored by the atheists on here. Sorry if you felt I was ordering anyone around. Definitely not my motive.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 5, 2017 12:08:19 GMT -5
Why wouldn't theists not want atheist input/ Never been an issue for me. The issue I have is when people assume they 'know' what Christians think on every subject. I answered enuf on this question, but I'll answer you too. I don't think it was because theists didn't want to talk with atheists they were just complaining that atheists came onto every thread and commented. So at the time I made a thread where we would stay off of it and not comment. Hope that clears it up. Most liked the idea and atheists did stay away from commenting on here. My motive for the thread in the first place was good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 5, 2017 12:15:54 GMT -5
I havent participated here lately , but will take this opportunity to express appreciation for your kind ,gentle and thoughtful "spirit". I was glad to see your name again on here after some abscence. Hope you can forgive me for saying a prayer for you understanding you have serious health issues.. . Cheers. Thanks again. Alvin Kroeker
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2017 12:17:37 GMT -5
Why wouldn't theists not want atheist input/ Never been an issue for me. The issue I have is when people assume they 'know' what Christians think on every subject. I answered enuf on this question, but I'll answer you too. I don't think it was because theists didn't want to talk with atheists they were just complaining that atheists came onto every thread and commented. So at the time I made a thread where we would stay off of it and not comment. Hope that clears it up. Most liked the idea and atheists did stay away from commenting on here. My motive for the thread in the first place was good intentions. Now, were you paving the road to hell with those good intentions? Almost seems like we should all avoid good intentions to keep that road to hell unpaved and full of ruts!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 5, 2017 13:49:54 GMT -5
I answered enuf on this question, but I'll answer you too. I don't think it was because theists didn't want to talk with atheists they were just complaining that atheists came onto every thread and commented. So at the time I made a thread where we would stay off of it and not comment. Hope that clears it up. Most liked the idea and atheists did stay away from commenting on here. My motive for the thread in the first place was good intentions. Now, were you paving the road to hell with those good intentions? Almost seems like we should all avoid good intentions to keep that road to hell unpaved and full of ruts! Ha! Good point! I will cease with the good intentions immediately!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 5, 2017 13:52:01 GMT -5
I havent participated here lately , but will take this opportunity to express appreciation for your kind ,gentle and thoughtful "spirit". I was glad to see your name again on here after some abscence. Hope you can forgive me for saying a prayer for you understanding you have serious health issues.. . Cheers. Thanks again. Alvin Kroeker Thank you slowtosee. I take no offense because I know it means people care. I am very lucky to have so many people who care for me. Thank you for caring.
|
|
|
Post by breakfree on Apr 5, 2017 15:41:19 GMT -5
I have never heard that they didn't "deserve the gospel preached to them." But I have heard it preached, and had several personal conversations with workers, that we are not to be involved in providing for the material needs of the poor as you don't want to create "rice" Christians (or whatever phrase you want to use to speak of people who only come for the food.) One older brother worker two years ago told me how relieved he was when one of the newly-professing friends finally saw that serving in a soup kitchen was not "the gospel message" and quit doing that. Another worker told me that in the really poor countries where hungry people would come to convention just for the food, they had to be careful to not let anyone in who wasn't part of the group so they kept the invitations quiet. However, I do believe some friends contribute money when there is some major disaster. I know some of the Sri Lankan friends in the US collected money to help out the Sri Lankans. I don't know how the money was disbursed, but it might have gone to a disaster aid group....I can't remember what or who I made the check out to. None of this is meant to be judgmental, just relaying what I know first hand. I think this is a fairly common perspective among the workers and friends. And I can't say I really disagree with it, as much as I am concerned about "social issues." Jesus himself spoke to the effect that "you seek me because your stomachs were filled" (Jn. 6:26). Jesus "drilled down" to the individual's motives. I am disappointed to read that this was actually mentioned by an older brother worker... 'not creating 'rice Christians'and 'serving in a soup kitchen ' was not 'the Gospel message' aren't these the same workers who receive freely and who should 'freely give' ?. Jesus did say..as much as you have done it to one these little ones ,you have done it unto Me. Also when the disciples wanted to send away the multitude...Jesus said..let them sit down...to feed them... isn't this what it means to love our brother? like many charitable organizations,most of the donations (about 80% go to 'administrative expenses' and maybe about 20% to the needs of the people)
|
|