- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Therefore the local churches are not like the Exclusive Brethren whom you could NOT join if sisters speak in meetings or the Church of Christ Disciples whom you could not join if you are not baptized with an understanding that it is for the remission of sins and in their water or the some gathering which requires something in addition to being a Christian brother or sister as criteria for joining.
That is why we receive all believers and not require other criteria. If that was practiced in the first century and was legitimate there is no reason why it could not be so today.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It also so happens that we in the local churches loath to have to be forced at times to define a Local Church entity as a collective legal face. But the laws of the world sometimes imposes that requirement upon us.
So your criticism is not valid because you are pointing to matter that are often the REQUIREMENTS of government upon local churches because spiritual entities cannot be defined by them in matters touching law.
"Incorporate so we can DEAL with you on some legal bases."
If a congregation manages property and monies many world government require that there be some way they can keep track of your business affairs. They don't care if your are all spiritual brothers. The money has to add up in terms that they understand in business accounting terms.
What you are really saying is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a recovery of the first century practice of churching today. Why should it be impossible?
One city matched with one church.
One locality wide church properly receiving all the brothers and sisters whom Christ Himself has received.
" Therefore receive one another, as Christ also received you to the glory of God." (Romans 15:9)
Now that is likely all the time I have this morning for this.
But your post which I answered made a point without the need to be nasty and insulting. If your point is good there is no need to talk about waffle and diarrhea and the other ad hom like things you write
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
As for the dirty word corporate. I do agree that the church should be organic and not a dead organization. But there is no reason to write off up front that JUST because it is a local church in the modern time subject perhaps to laws of the state to conduct a yearly business meeting, does that make it a corporation.
Groups to which oversight is made concering gathering, finances, tithes are REQUIRED by State Law in many places to form something like a corporate entity for TAX purposes. They are required to have perhaps a proper yearly meeting with a secretary taking minutes and to open and close with a quorum. They are required often by state law to elect officers.
This sounds corporate and is. But this is usually a REQUIREMENT of the world government UPON a substantial gathering of people who manage property and money.
Of the spiritual nature is maintained and held higher than the required business nature REQUIRED by the world government, there is no reason why there cannot be proper local churches today.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeester
Telling people to "shut up" because you don't their replies to you is poor form sonship
Physician heal thyself.
I'm willing to stop telling you to SHUT UP rudely when you stop referring to my labors as diarrhea and waffle.
Respect has to be mutual.
You cannot hit and run with your mud slinger and then wax indignant about manners when like reactions come your way.
You do ask some good questions at times.
And there is NO NEED for you to spice them with your insults.
So stop being hypocritical about manners already.
Originally posted by @philokaliaAs perhaps one of the only actual "liberal Christians" in this forum, I must take offense at this mischaracterization.
There is a trend among liberal Christians to put all of the blame for things that they dislike squarely at the feet of 'the Church.'
There is this idea that to acutally be a good Christian you have to be against some form of 'organized religion.'
One of the ironies is that the people who oppose organized religion are the same sort of people that ...[text shortened]... owd.[/i]
Yet, they are against Christian community when they rail against the church.
I do not "rail against the church", and those who do are not "liberal Christians".
Yes, I agree that "There is this idea that to actually be a good Christian you have to be against some form of 'organized religion.' " But this is NOT a "liberal Christian" viewpoint.
Then you say this:
"One of the ironies is that the people who oppose organized religion are the same sort of people that often emphasize the primacy fo the community over the individual in their political views, the takes a village crowd.
Yet, they are against Christian community when they rail against the church."
You're conflating your idea that "Liberals = Bad" with the idea that there are "liberal Christians". Let me say it again. "Liberal Christians" do not "rail against organized religion", and those who do are not "liberal Christians". There may be some truth to the idea of "community over individuals" in the same way that there is truth in Jesus' commandments to "love thy neighbor as thyself", but to call out "liberal Christians" as the ones who "are against Christian community when they rail against the church" is patently incorrect because "liberal Christians" are not "against the Christian community" nor are they the ones "railing against the church". Those who do these things are not "liberal Christians" and in fact, are barely Christians at all.
So unless you mean something totally different when you speak of "liberal Christians", then I must suggest that you are totally mislabeling those who do these things as "liberal Christians" because of your dislike of anything "liberal".
Originally posted by @suzianneNot to muddy things up between y'all, but Liberal Christian Theology has nothing to do with political leanings.
As perhaps one of the only actual "liberal Christians" in this forum, I must take offense at this mischaracterization.
I do not "rail against the church", and those who do are not "liberal Christians".
Are you a proponent of Liberal Christian Theology?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeShould this axiom be likewise honored by atheists? Or, are we saying that Christians are expected to behave better than atheists. Point being, it seems kind of silly for an atheist to behave poorly, then use the excuse, "Well, I'm just an atheist, I should be expected to be unfair." Though that may be true, it's kind of sad that an atheist would freely admit it. Moreover, does it sit well with atheists that they hold others to a higher standard than themselves?
"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5)
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28784
Originally posted by @suzianneNo, not really.
You do realize that this passage is not talking about atheists, right?
Gentiles are usually understood as 'non-Jews,'(which is probably your comeback) but Jesus also puts 'pagans' under the same umbrella. Now, when we take into account that Ignatius, in turn, called pagans atheoi (being “without God” ) we can link the 3.
Gentile = Pagan = Atheist.
😏
Edit: Ooh, we can also throw in Ephesians 2:12:
"Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world."
Originally posted by @sonshipI don't mind the "shut up" itself; I use the term "poor form" referring to you closing down debate that way, not the rude element of it.Telling people to "shut up" because you don't their replies to you is poor form sonship
So stop being hypocritical about manners already.
You can be as abrasive as you like, it's water off a ducks back to me. Honestly I don't mind; in fact sometimes it makes me laugh when any of us gets a bit like that.
Originally posted by @sonshipI believe you are overthinking this.The "church" is the global spiritual body and network of believers.
So the seven churches in Revelation 1 were all in God's eyes golden lampstands. Doesn't that imply a global unity? They had the same expression, the same function, the same form. Doesn't that indicate a unity across the globe ?
Sure it does.
its legitimate there, ...[text shortened]... practice not requiring you to believe certain non-critical doctrines before you can fellowship.
I'm not saying that people in church denominations are NOT in the body, I'm saying that the body of spirit filled believers is the church; not the buildings, the corporate identity, the statement of beliefs, or whatever else temporal they surround themselves with.
Originally posted by @sonshipThe fact is that the word "FOR...." is to introduce an explanation as to why "the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before [them]".
You can suspect that I will take the [b]"FOR ..." in Jesus' explanation to mean - HERE IS THE POINT of the lesson.
32 “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.[/b]
If your reading comprehension skills were better, you'd understand this. But they aren't, so you twist the meaning to your own ends instead. In doing so, you also avoid the point of what Jesus is actually saying in the parable of the two sons: Those who DO the work are the ones who DO the will of the Father. Not those who say they will and don't.
Any chance that you'll stop evading and actually address the issue at hand?:
Matthew 21
28“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ 29“And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. 30“The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go. 31“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. 32“For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.
Which of the two sons truly has what you call "faith in God"? The one who professes "faith in God" or the one who does it?
Originally posted by @divegeesterScraping the barrel now ? Lol
I'm liberal.
Does that mean we can be friends now?