No, they have a presence in many places across the nztion. But, they do not have full range of services in all places - which is what is needed. [/QUOTE] "Plus, charitable giving today is a small fraction of the need." True, I did not disprove that statement. But that requires a definition of "need", a very subjective definition. I will claim that the need is far smaller than the govt claims since the govt has a strong interest in exaggerating poverty and the need for welfare spending.[/QUOTE] I think your basis for judging need is weak.
Because the vast majority of the Bible has been correctly translated into English. Certainly the basic message has been translated. And every seminary graduate has had courses in ancient history and culture, the languages of the Bible, Judaism, etc. as well as theology and apologetics. Pastors and priests, bible study programs in churches, individual study programs, all have the required knowledge. None of this is a secret or hidden, its available all over the place and has been for 1,000's of years. It just takes some time and effort - just like anything worth learning.
We do take that story not as pertaining to that man alone, but as an indication of a general rule. You do, too, but you include more of the story and have a different interpretation. I like that you look at more of the story. In fact it may have come to us, because the whole story has more than a single simplistic meaning. Your view on the meaning is one I have heard, but to me it is a little weak in that I do not believe Jesus would ask the man to do an arbitrary task that he would not expect of others. That is, the task of divesting himself was important - not just an object lesson. Of course, the man's response was a telling rejection of Jesus. But, those who focus on wealth and other earthly objectives today are also rejecting the new testament call to take care of the least among us, etc., aren't they?
Well, the llama thing presumes the stat has an interest in marrying animals, something nobody agrees with. We have two branches of marriages in the US. State marriage follows the rules of the state, requiring a state marriage license. Religious marriage follows the rules of a particular religion. A religion can marry babies, dead people, or whatever. But, those marriages are not recognized by the state, as they do not include a state marriagelicense. My point was that many same sex couples are married by Christian denominations and with a state marriage license. The poster had suggested that samesex marriages are not Christian marriages, and I emphasized the religious angle to challenge that assertion.
Again, it gets back to defining "need". The links I provided touched on this problem. Some will define "need" as a guaranteed retirement program such as social security, that is clearly outside the scope of private charities. With regard to core needs - food, shelter, clothing, disaster services - private organizations do far better than the govt. In other areas such as education, transportation, counseling, drug rehab, general health care, its more difficult - and many will argue the govt has failed in these areas so private organizations cannot do worse. Actually, you are wrong. I can stand face to face with a person and judge their need, and then do something specific to address that persons particular need - and that is the huge difference between the govt and private organizations. The govt bureaucracy is the classic unaccountable, faceless, nameless, entity, its people doing a job. Charitable organizations work because they care at a personal level, and they have the personal contact to address the real individuals needs. Religious organizations motivations are even stronger as they see their charity work as a calling from God. Here is a real world example. As part of our churches outreach program, we take moms who need help to the grocery. WIC (Women Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition program) is a federal program, the rules change constantly. Among other things, WIC currently allows a mom to buy two 30-oz bottles of orange juice every month. Where I live, there are no 30-oz bottles of orange juice. Maybe "30 oz" was a typo, but the rules are the rules, and until its changed none of the WIC moms around here gets orange juice. Except the owner of the grocery (a Christian) said that was crap, and let the mom's get one 64 oz orange juice under WIC. If WIC refuses to refund it, our church said it will refund him. People on site with personal contact solve problems. Govt bureaucracies do not.
Of course, I must interject that even with the thousands of years of massive investment in the analysis of this one book and its parts there remains fundamental disagreement on issues that all schools of religious thought see as central. I am frankly uninterested in the direction of finding tiny discrepencies as support against respect for the Bible. That hits me as childish. But, I will constantly oppose the use of the Bible as a basis for rejecting science or as a basis for demanding government enforcement of religious law when there is no other basis for such law.
I respect the effort of your church fully. It is a great addition to WIC in a number of ways as you point out. However, I absolutely do NOT agree that you can judge need by looking at someone. You may detect some needs, but an average citizen can not analyze mental and physical health and capacity, living situation, financial means, unaddressed legal issues, etc., with a single face to face. And, your church can not be everywhere. You did well for those few women concerning shopping. Let's not get too carried away with the self congratulation on that. And, the government does have people or subsidized private grouops across our nation. Maybe not enough, but there are serious budget constraints. (hint)
I read the Bible enough that I do use "the whole story". Jesus did not imply his instruction as a general rule. It was a test and Jesus already knew the answer.Jesus had relations with many other wealthy men. Cornelius, the Centurian. How 'bout Joseph, the Pharisee that gave his own tomb for Jesus to be etobed in, or the lady who broke open the alabaster box of spikenard to annoint the head and feet of Jesus. That box was equivalent to a years pay. Yes....I do read the whole story and it all makes quite good sense. These wealthy men and women put there "faith" above material possession. That contradicts your "general rule" theory.
They can call it anything they want to but by definition they are "homosexual marriages." In the beginning it was Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve. Sure....they might have had a "religious wedding" by a "Religion" that does not make it Christian. The only reason you can't marry a llama is because you can't show consent on the part of the llama. As I said Christians in my state have the option of doing a "Covenant Marriage" opposed to a" Contract marriage". Contracts are designed to be broken. There are remedies for both parties if broken. Covenants are a lifetime agreement between a man and a women. If one party decides to "flake out", they must submit to three years of counciling by the Church that married them if they are truly Christian. If not.....well that speaks for itself. We are in the business of working at our marriage.
Your examples and the rich man example all show someone giving up wealth for reasons of charity and religion over personal gain or consideration. I think that is a general theme, not just a one-off test. The god of the new testament is a god of love, care (even for enemies and transgressors) and forgiveness.
Marriages between same sex couples are exactly and totally identical to marriages where the two are of different sex. You are just trying to disrespect them. The covanant marriage movement is really just an attempt for a specitic family religions to co-opt state marriage. Key leaders ofthe movement have stated so. But, almost nobody is going that route in any of the 3 states that have allowed it. It isn't cracking the 1% barrier!
In the State.....all marriages are equal....correct. I'll call mine a Christian Marriage. If you are gay and married....call it a gay marriage. Why be ashamed of what it is? No disrespect.
If you are trying to be reasonable and inclusive, why mention it at all, let alone give it your consent?
I don't mean "look" as visually examine them and that's it. I mean "look" as in "investigate". My church cannot be everywhere, but there are many churches. I think you are grasping at straws now. WIC is an example of the dislocation of the government from the people in need.
Very few Christians want a theocracy, that's political posturing. The Bible and science must be compatible, if they are not then either one of them is wrong or our understanding of one is wrong. The default position that science is the truth in any disagreement is false. Its a safe assumption that nobody rejects all of science (or even a significant part of science) because of the Bible. The issue is almost always of Genesis and evolution. Genesis is a religious description of the creation of the universe, its general and vague and leaves a lot unanswered. The theory of evolution is supported by a lot of observational evidence but is hardly beyond question. So the real question is - why do you care if someone rejects evolution on religious grounds? I reject the theory of evolution for various reasons, but so what? It does not impact you to any degree, I don't demand that people reject the theory of evolution, I don't try to force people to believe Genesis. I know many people who have my opinion. You believe evolution or Genesis or neither or both, I accept your freedom to live as you see fit. Why don't you respect my freedom to live as I see fit?
I think the main problem with your church idea is that there are not NEARLY enough churches doing this kind of work, they don't have NEARLY enough resources to cover the need even where they do the work, and they are not spread evenly around the population even though the need IS spread around. You are right that the government doesn't have the number of employees needed to be everywhere and doing all the work. So, they rely on providers in some cases and they supply aid based on evidence that must be supplied. Etc. Also, your church may decide to investigate something, but you have highly limited rights to do that. And, I strongly suspect your outreach will be limited when you start asking for tax returns, bank accounts, work history, and information on their families.
8. Yeshua said that some people are righteous and that he didn't come for them but for the sinners. Mark 2:17 (CEB) = "When Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Healthy people don’t need a doctor, but sick people do. I didn’t come to call righteous people, but sinners.”" Luke 15:7 (CEB) = "In the same way, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who changes both heart and life than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to change their hearts and lives." Paul says "not so fast, buddy". Romans 3:10 (CEB) = "As it is written, There is no righteous person, not even one."
I did NOT say "theocracy". What I'm pointing to is cases such as same sex marriage, where the ONLY argument given the courts was the Bible. And, of course we know that's not the only case. Now, we have people demanding the right to refuse to serve customers, to refuse to dispense medicine, or, in the case of the Arizona law that the governor vetoed, to refuse to follow numerous laws that individuals find objectionable on the grounds of their religion. I'm not interested in fighting with those who are religious. However, I will object when the only justification is the bible and when the general population is affected regardless of their personal beliefs. Also, I'm quite disturbed about the rejection of science that has its roots in religion today. You suggest there are few points of contention, but I totally disagree with that as a valid measure, as when (for example) a creationist sees other results of science, their likelihood of doubt or even total disrespect is high. That's how we get to a position where religious communities pretty much see science as the anti-Christ. This impacts me, as it factors into our political decisions (lead level in water, impact of carbon, denial of service laws, disrespect for those not perfectly gender conformant, etc.). In fact, it leads to low levels of science education, which causes bad logic in decisions we make. We fall into traps like "it's only a theory" (without knowing the scientific definition of theory), "it hasn't been proven" (there is no such proof in science, so of course it hasn't been proven), the difference between correlation and causation, the focus on individual cases (such as you using yourself as an example), etc. Our national lack of science is a serious problem for everyone - including Christians.
The thread is about Bible contradictions. So far I have posted 8. They are real issues between what the Yeshua character said and what the Paul character preached. I'm sure that I can post a few more.
9. Who controls the world, Satan or Yahweh? Yeshua says that Satan is the ruler of the world. John 12:30-32 (NLT) = "30 Then Jesus told them, “The voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 The time for judging this world has come, when Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out. 32 And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.” Paul said in Romans 13:1 (CEV) = "Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power." So who is right, Yeshua or Paul? Is Trump and agent of Satan or is he an agent of Yahweh = the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies?
