[W:843] How religious thinking works

[devildavid]

No, but they have to admit to the possibility of somethings that's possible.

And what makes anything possible? What criteria are used to determine the possibility of something?

 

[cpwill]

Not to mention, all the apostles worked for a living, including Paul...Acts 18:3...surely a preacher today is not better than they were..

The fun thing about you citing Paul is that (as I have cited for you) he was the one who stated that elders in a Church deserved to be paid.

He also pointed out that - in fact, contrary to the claim that all Apostles did as he did - other Apostles were supported by the Church, and claimed that he had a right to be paid, he just chose not to exercise it.

Paul Surrenders His Rights

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.​

Again, there's nothing wrong with an elder not drawing support from the Church. It's simply that there is nothing right about imposing that requirement, and, in fact, doing so is contrary to Scripture.

 

[RAMOSS]

What would have to be restored? Acts 3:21, The times of restitution of all things. Eph 1:10, The dispensation of the fulness of times...gather together in one all things... Matt 17:11, Elias...come, and restore all things. Dan 2:44, set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed (end of days). Isa 29:14 in the last days, I will proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder...delivering a book which was sealed. Much more on the subject in the Bible. Is their today a Church that claims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ? Yes, there are. One of them has the authority or priesthood of God. And, only one so His Church is no longer divided.

Those books are meanlingless to me. Not one of those books is from God or inspired by God

 

[devildavid]

"In theory" is not a reference to the status of atheism or religion as theories.

When political people use either concept for political purposes, then those usages become political.

I haven't claimed that either concept is inherently political or non-political. That's been some of the other posters here.

No, nothing becomes political because it is used for political purposes.

 

[devildavid]

Define the way you choose to use "nature" here.

Sorry, I can' help you here. I'm using it in the only way it is used in the context.

 

[devildavid]

That's not an answer to the question as to which specific theory is redundant by virtue of being "true." Unless you're trying to claim that "details" don't matter. In that case, it wouldn't matter whether one thought that light was composed of waves, particles, or a combination thereof. Those would just be "details."

The details are not the general theory.

 

[Daisy]

Cool. But, since you are assuming that Jesus' commands to the Apostles for a particular mission in Matthew 10 apply to all pastors/elders/whatever-you-call-them for all time, except where the Apostles later overrode them, why do you

A) not apply the commands regarding clothing and housing that were not overriden to your elders and
B) ignore the fact that the Apostles later clearly overrode (given your assumption) the section you are attempting to apply?​

I've asked you this a couple of times in a couple of different ways, and you keep ignoring the question. Which, suggests, you don't really know why your Church insists, not on merely having elders continue to have non-Church careers (which is fine), but rather on claiming universality for one particular section of a set of commands, while ignoring the others.


Why not apply Scripture that you claim is applicable?

Why ignore Scripture which teaches the exact opposite of the idea that the Church cannot support those who serve it?

We apply scripture to heart...ALL scripture...especially Jesus's teachings...Matthew 10 certainly does apply to all ministers when it comes to giving freely, Jesus made that clear and no, it was never overridden...nit picking about clothing is silly, as I said before...it's obvious you cherry pick what you want to apply and leave the rest...

 

[devildavid]

"Then what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"

Jesus Christ, Superstar!

 

[devildavid]

Yes, like men aren't descended from apes.

No one has claimed they are. Men and apes share a common ancestor.

 

[devildavid]

It doesn't have anything to do with work. I'm claiming that if you accuse me of failing to define a position I've already defined, you're dishonest.

Re: the "assertion": well, duh.

Whether they admit the fact or not, atheists are entirely dependent on modern scientific interpretations of the world. That's the cornerstone of their reason for stating that there's no need to resort to gods for explaining the nature of the world.

I don't know what "same number of heads" references.

I was asked for an example of a person who used atheism for his political advancement, and I gave one. The matter of his finding God is merely an amusing side-issue.

And at the end you act as if I haven't named an example at all. Typical deflection.

Atheism existed long before modern science. It is absolutely not dependent on it.

 

[Daisy]

Cool. The fun thing about you citing Paul is that (as I have cited for you now, multiple times) he was the one who stated that elders in a Church deserved to be paid.

He also pointed out that other Apostles were supported by the Church, and claimed that he had a right to be paid, he just chose not to exercise it.

Paul Surrenders His Rights

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.​

That is not what Paul was saying, which is obvious by Jesus' statement to give freely...there is no mention of any tithe to be used in assisting materially....there was no salary in Jesus' day nor should there be one today...what the apostles received were voluntary gifts from those who appreciated the time they spent on behalf of the congregation that could have been used by them in working for money...the apostle Paul and other faithful men did not seek after such material assistance...they worked with their hands to care for their physical needs....1 Thessalonians 2:9...

 

[cpwill]

We apply scripture to heart...ALL scripture...especially Jesus's teachings...Matthew 10 certainly does apply to all ministers when it comes to giving freely, Jesus made that clear and no, it was never overridden...nit picking about clothing is silly, as I said before...it's obvious you cherry pick what you want to apply and leave the rest...

I'm not nit-picking: I'm asking why you claim to apply Jesus commands in Matthew 10 to all ministers, but, in fact, don't apply Jesus commands in Matthew 10 to all ministers.

If you think the commands of Matthew 10 were A) intended to apply to all pastors and B) were never overriden, then you are right back to forbidding the preaching of the Gospel to Gentiles.

If you think that sections of Matthew 10 were A) intended to apply to all pastors except B) when they were overriden by the Apostles (who expanded the ministry to include Gentiles), then you are right back to the Apostles setting up a system wherein the Church supported the Elders.

If you claim to be applying ALL scripture, then you need to explain why Scripture repeatedly, directly, contradicts the claim that the Church shouldn't support elders financially.

 

[Daisy]

I'm not nit-picking: I'm asking why you claim to apply Jesus commands in Matthew 10 to all ministers, but, in fact, don't apply Jesus commands in Matthew 10 to all ministers.

If you think the commands of Matthew 10 were A) intended to apply to all pastors and B) were never overriden, then you are right back to forbidding the preaching of the Gospel to Gentiles.

If you think that sections of Matthew 10 were A) intended to apply to all pastors except B) when they were overriden by the Apostles (who expanded the ministry to include Gentiles), then you are right back to the Apostles setting up a system wherein the Church supported the Elders.

If you claim to be applying ALL scripture, then you need to explain why Scripture repeatedly, directly, contradicts the claim that the Church shouldn't support elders financially.

I don't think, I know what the Bible states and I also know how preachers have taken it and twisted it to their own advantage to fleece their flocks...

 

[RAMOSS]

No one has claimed they are. Men and apes share a common ancestor.

Man IS an species of great ape.

 

[devildavid]

Man IS an species of great ape.

My post is not incorrect. Saying man descended from apes is. That was the only point I was making.

 

[cpwill]

That is not what Paul was saying,

:lol: it is exactly what Paul was saying. Here, I'll quote it again for you:

Paul Surrenders His Rights

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.​

When Paul states that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel and that it is right for him and other Apostles to reap material things from those into whom they have sown spiritual things, and that he and Barnabas work for a living, while other Apostles are supported by the Church, and that the Church should pay their elders because the worker deserves his pay....

.... you think he's referring to.... what, precisely.

there was no salary in Jesus' day

In fact we get the term "Salary" from Jesus' day - originally a reference to the payment of Roman Soldiers. So.... yes, there was.

nor should there be one today...what the apostles received were voluntary gifts from those who appreciated the time they spent on behalf of the congregation that could have been used by them in working for money...the apostle Paul and other faithful men did not seek after such material assistance...they worked with their hands to care for their physical needs....1 Thessalonians 2:9...

According to Scripture, you are incorrect in your take, here :shrug: Paul in particular makes it explicit that the Churches owe support to those who serve them, and that his use of a trade to support some of his journeys (and wealthy benefactors) was fairly unique among the Apostles.

 

[cpwill]

I don't think, I know what the Bible states and I also know how preachers have taken it and twisted it to their own advantage to fleece their flocks...

If so, then

A) why do you ignore it when it says the exact opposite of what you claim.
B) why do you refuse to answer direct questions about it.​

If you want to argue that unethical preachers have proven wolves among sheep, I agree. If you want to argue that Scripture is wrong when it states that Churches should support the elders who serve them :shrug: I disagree.

 

[Daisy]

:lol: it is exactly what Paul was saying. Here, I'll quote it again for you:

Paul Surrenders His Rights

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.​

When Paul states that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel and that it is right for him and other Apostles to reap material things from those into whom they have sown spiritual things, and that he and Barnabas work for a living, while other Apostles are supported by the Church, and that the Church should pay their elders because the worker deserves his pay....

.... you think he's referring to.... what, precisely.



In fact we get the term "Salary" from Jesus' day - originally a reference to the payment of Roman Soldiers. So.... yes, there was.



According to Scripture, you are incorrect in your take, here :shrug: Paul in particular makes it explicit that the Churches owe support to those who serve them, and that his use of a trade to support some of his journeys (and wealthy benefactors) was fairly unique among the Apostles.

Nope, Paul worked for a living as did all the apostles...he never said they should live off the congregation, ever...in fact, he said the exact opposite, for the brothers to work to support themselves, so as not to be a burden to the congregations...you can quote scriptures til the cows come home, it doesn't change a thing...

 

[cpwill]

Nope, Paul worked for a living as did all the apostles.

So why do you think Scripture says something different?

he never said they should live off the congregation, ever...

So why do you think Scripture cites him doing so on multiple occasions?

you can quote scriptures til the cows come home, it doesn't change a thing...

So why do you think Scripture is wrong here?


And you never answered the question about whether or not your elders own more than one pair of clothing or wore shoes. I'm guess the answer to both is "yes", and you simply don't want to address their Biblical disobedience?

 

[Daisy]

If so, then

A) why do you ignore it when it says the exact opposite of what you claim.
B) why do you refuse to answer direct questions about it.​

If you want to argue that unethical preachers have proven wolves among sheep, I agree. If you want to argue that Scripture is wrong when it states that Churches should support the elders who serve them :shrug: I disagree.

Wrong on both counts...

 

[cpwill]

Wrong on both counts...

A) I cited it for you (repeatedly), and you couldn't address it with anything other than a "nuh-uh" (although I enjoyed the part about "you can quote scripture until the cows come home!" as a handy implicit admission that you weren't basing your position on it, but rather on something else).

B) You continue to refuse to answer the question of whether or not your pastors are fully obedient to the commands in Matthew 10, or whether you think they should be.

So..... :shrug:

 

[Daisy]

A) I cited it for you (repeatedly), and you couldn't address it with anything other than a "nuh-uh" (although I enjoyed the part about "you can quote scripture until the cows come home!" as a handy implicit admission that you weren't basing your position on it, but rather on something else).

B) You continue to refuse to answer the question of whether or not your pastors are fully obedient to the commands in Matthew 10, or whether you think they should be.

So..... :shrug:

And you continue to dodge Paul's words...throughout chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians he emphasized that he had not taken advantage of his right to refrain from secular work and to “live by means of the good news.” 1 Corinthians 9-14...drawing on facts of daily life, the Mosaic law, and what Jesus Christ himself ordained, Paul made clear that it was fitting to receive material support for the work of furthering the "good news"...BUT of his own free will, Paul waived this right and chose to support himself materially, his reward was the joy and the satisfaction that came from following this course. With a clean conscience, he could point to his example of unselfishness in furthering the spiritual interests of others. No one could accuse him of making material gain for himself through the “good news.” He had not abused his authority as one entrusted with a sacred commission, a stewardship. That is why he could say: “What, then, is my reward? That while declaring the good news I may furnish the good news without cost, to the end that I may not abuse my authority in the good news.”​...1 Corinthians 9:18...

 

[devildavid]

Nope, Paul worked for a living as did all the apostles...he never said they should live off the congregation, ever...in fact, he said the exact opposite, for the brothers to work to support themselves, so as not to be a burden to the congregations...you can quote scriptures til the cows come home, it doesn't change a thing...

What was Paul's profession?

 

[Daisy]

What was Paul's profession?

Tent-maker...

 

[cpwill]

And you continue to dodge Paul's words...throughout chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians he emphasized that he had not taken advantage of his right to refrain from secular work and to “live by means of the good news.” 1 Corinthians 9-14

"shrug" I don't ignore that at all, I pointed out to you that he described his decision to do so as different than the other Apostles, and claimed that he still had a right to expect material support from those whom he preached to, and that Churches should provide support to their elders.

You then ignored those citations, repeatedly.

drawing on facts of daily life, the Mosaic law, and what Jesus Christ himself ordained

:shrug: unless you are willing to actually apply the commands in Matthew 10 to your current pastors, I wouldn't suggest you claim that Christ ordained - contra to the rest of the New Testament - that churches not support their elders financially (not least because, in Mathew 10, Jesus also expects the preached-to to materially support the preach-ers).

Since (seemingly) you are not willing to actually apply the commands of Matthew 10 to current pastors, I have to ask where else in Scripture you are drawing this from. Certainly you won't get far from Paul, for Paul expressly and directly contradicts you.

Paul made clear that it was fitting to receive material support for the work of furthering the "good news"...BUT of his own free will, Paul waived this right and chose to support himself materially, his reward was the joy and the satisfaction that came from following this course.

I think his reward was more that he was more successful in his missionary work, but sure. As I have stated multiple times, there is nothing wrong with an elder having a career outside the Church. It is simply to take that ability and impose it on all elders that is directly contrary to Scripture, and to what Paul taught, as I have cited for you, multiple times. It is the same logic as the people who claim that unless you speak in tongues, you can't be saved :roll: