Church spending disillusion many- where's the governance?
-
Not mee....Originally posted by vince69:hey, who turn against you,.. tell you don't play with fire, you go and smoke the mushrooms...
now my forest cabin also kenna burnt down liao.. 
It was Icemoon and Ironside bombing one another. That's why i saw Mushrooms....
*MC finding his bearing* -
Originally posted by vince69:hey, who turn against you,.. tell you don't play with fire, you go and smoke the mushrooms... now my forest cabin also kenna burnt down liao..
hey I can design a new one for you...
-
you sure the mushrooms were not poisonous...???Originally posted by M©+square:Not mee....
It was Icemoon and Ironside bombing one another. That's why i saw Mushrooms.... *MC finding his bearing* -
But SIS, what you have also not understood is that Yeshua expanded the ten commandments, ie... the example of adultery, Yeshua, expanded it to include the idea of adultery eg Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Then an obvious question is to ask when is the commandment expanded. Furthermore, then god does not maintain consistency
Still the young rulers attitude when asked about whether he had kept the commandments perfectly may have been arrogant, know that Yeshua knew the man's heart already. What are the commandments? you yourself stated them... what is the first commandment? He had earlier claim tat the laws etc will not change but now it seems tat god draft updates and reviews from time to time.
Let me summarise all our exchange all tis while. The normal literal translation of the bible states tat tis guy is only rich, and is not a slave to money. If u follow the passage, there is no logical flaw or contradiction tat points to the rich men being "greedy". And furthermore all the exchange provided by people only suggest another possibility of interpreting the bible (however it is full of problems and errors and contradiction which i will show later) but they can't show why the literal translation is wrong In fact the literal translation is the one tat christians founders believed in as well as catholic. Can anyone shows why we can't take the literal translation ? Is there anything wrong with the literal translation ?
For the alternative version, people suggest tat jesus purposely lie and misled the rich guy because they thought he is a slave of money.
Firstly, there is nothing in the passage tat suggest he is not simply rich but a slave of money All the while the bible uses the word rich as well as jesus later confirming the fact tat rich people is harder to go to heaven than putting a camel through the eye of a needle. R u suggesting jesus can't phrase his words properly ? He can't tell the difference between "rich" and "slave to money" ?
second, there is nothing in the passage tat suggest the rich man is sort of "fallen". There is nothing in the passage tat says the person did not fulfil the 10 commandments etc. All these r just assumptions made without validation. Even in the passage, jesus had claim he love the rich man when he claims he follow the 10 commandments.
Mark10
20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
21Jesus looked at him and loved him
Otherwise why does jesus suddenly love tis guy ? for believing in money ? Tis is a logical flaw in the alternative version
Thirdly, jesus always answer the question truthfully (if i am not wrong). Otherwise he had made the obvious sin of lying. People suggest tat he lie and not answer the question made by the rich man which he could just go to heaven by just simply follow jesus. Jesus later then lie again by saying tat the rich man is harder to go through the eye of a needle when it is not true. People r nto believing wat he say. They choose to put words into his mouth by suggesting something completely different.
Fourthly, people r sugesting tat jesus do not encourage people to like wealth. However he later states tat those who donate the money will receive treasures in heaven. Isn't tat encourage people to like wealth as well ? Isn't tat the same as stepping his own foot and still making the people treating wealth more important than god because their moltivation for donating is still a greed for wealth and not a love of god
Fifthly, if the story treats rich as simply sich, then it serve more sense in such a way tat the rich donate money to the poor and therefore the world become a better place. Those who donate the money freely will receive eternal life because they have done a good thing in helping those in need. In a way suggested by a christian before, tis is a sort of performing good deeds which all religion should do. If u treat the story as the other way, then people do not need to donate money to the needy and they can be as fat and rich as possible without caring for the poor. -
SIS you are side stepping the issue, I have already posted my thoughts on this, yet it is clear from your rebuttal that you purposely omitted the latter half of my post which answers all your supposed questions.
The rich young ruler broke the commandments. He put money before Yahweh.
You yourself cannot take the literal translation, and you yourself brought in the ideas about the persons family that Yahweh wanted the person's family to suffer because he had to donate all the money to the poor. I think you seem to conveniently forget this.... and this is not the case, see mark 10:29-30.
first, read the passage again carefully, when Yeshua asked the rich young man to give away his riches, he went away sad, what does this say? He could not let go of his wealth. Yeshua pharased His words exactly. The meaning is very clear. More than anyone of us Yeshua can tell the difference between being rich and being a slave to money.
Second, already said, the first commandment is thou shall have NO OTHER gods before me... but the rich young man did, his wealth was his god, his trust was in his wealth to gain eternal life. Yeshua went on to elaborate on this. In Mark 10:21 Yeshua said, "... ONE THING YOU LACK... " why would Yeshua say this unless He knew that there was a point of fault in this rich young man?
Third, read the whole of Mark 10 in context... what exactly did Yeshua say? in Mark 10:23 Yeshua said " How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" and He elaborated on this in verse 24 Yeshua said "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God. When Yeshua spoke about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Yahweh, He is using a hyperbole to show just how hard it will be for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of Yahweh. But this does not mean that there is no hope for the rich young ruler for Yeshua says this in verse 27"WIth men it is impossible, but not with Yahweh; for with Yahweh all things are possible."
Fourth, again you have misread this whole exchange, it is clear what Yeshua is emphasising... and the point is this that it is difficult for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of Yahweh. See Mark 10:24.
Fifth, you have missed the mark altogether, the way to inherit eternal life is not by giving money to the poor, but by trusting in Yeshua for your salvation. We are not talking about religion here, but the young man's personal relationship with Yahweh. Like many have said before, performing good deeds does not earn you your salvation. It is trust and faith in Yeshua Hamashiach that will save! Performing good deeds is a by product of this. The point of this whole story is not about giving to the poor, but about WHAT OR WHO YOU PUT YOUR TRUST IN. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Yeshua's expansion of the commandment is fully consistent with what Yahweh has stated, He is not only implying the physical act of adultery, but also the spiritual act. You forget that Yeshua is the WORD. The laws did not change, but all Yeshua did was give fuller meaning to Yahweh's expectation.
Then an obvious question is to ask [b]when is the commandment expanded. Furthermore, then god does not maintain consistency He had earlier claim tat the laws etc will not change but now it seems tat god draft updates and reviews from time to time.
[/b] -
Yeshua's expansion of the commandment is fully consistent with what Yahweh has stated, He is not only implying the physical act of adultery, but also the spiritual act. You forget that Yeshua is the WORD. The laws did not change, but all Yeshua did was give fuller meaning to Yahweh's expectation.
If the law did not change, then according to christian belief it is impossible to be able to follow the 10 commandment as stated by others So the jews r condemn to doom ?
According to jewish belief, the 10 commandments r followable. Why is there a descrepancy ? -
no discrepancy... the ten commandments are followable and FYI, the christians are still required to follow the ten commandments. Yeshua Himself has said keep my commandments.... the jews are not condemned to doom did you not read my post. See Romans Chapter 11:25-27....Originally posted by stupidissmart:If the law did not change, then according to christian belief it is impossible to be able to follow the 10 commandment as stated by others So the jews r condemn to doom ?
According to jewish belief, the 10 commandments r followable. Why is there a descrepancy ?
-
then in tat case why r there so many people who insist tat the 10 commandments can't be followed ?
-
because of sinful human nature and also because many do not understand that the grace of Yahweh pertains to the exculpation of our consequences of failing to keep the commandments and not that we do not have to keep them or that we cannot keep them. Keeping the commandments was the ORIGINAL way for redemption and salvation!!Originally posted by stupidissmart:then in tat case why r there so many people who insist tat the 10 commandments can't be followed ?
But becuase we have Yeshua as an example, we are then able to keep the commandments. In saying that the commandments cannot be kept, you are saying that God is unreasonable and then what sort of a God are we worshipping? Yeshua kept the commandments perfectly that is why He was able to conquer sin and death. And by doing so set us an example. -
hold your fire.. i am the one advocating tat the commandments can be kept
-
who is firing at you on this point? I am just answering your question... I also say that the ten commandments can be kept, it has been something I have been saying in EH for a while now...Originally posted by stupidissmart:hold your fire.. i am the one advocating tat the commandments can be kept -
I beg to disagree.
The commandments can hypothetically be kept, but never actually. Man is depraved to the extent that he can never keep the commandments fully, although he is expected to. The sinful nature of man make him unable to do anything good in God's eyes. Didn't Jesus tell the man who insists he has kept the commandments, that no one is good except God alone?
Therefore, the purpose of the law is to make men conscious of sin.
Do men have to follow the laws? Yes. Can we fully follow it? No. His ability cannot match his responsibility. -
It can be followed, definitely. The defining question is, can we follow it to completion? The answer is no.Originally posted by stupidissmart:then in tat case why r there so many people who insist tat the 10 commandments can't be followed ? -
Yes, Yeshua set us an example. However, not the example of being able to follow the law to completion. He set us the example as the author and perfector of faith, one who is able to do all that by obedience to the Father. The main principle is faith, not the law. Faith makes the law meaningful. Without faith, following the law is meaningless.Originally posted by breytonhartge:But becuase we have Yeshua as an example, we are then able to keep the commandments. In saying that the commandments cannot be kept, you are saying that God is unreasonable and then what sort of a God are we worshipping? Yeshua kept the commandments perfectly that is why He was able to conquer sin and death. And by doing so set us an example.
Can you have the perfect faith Jesus had? The perfect obedience? -
I have the idea that what brey is trying to say does not in any sense contradict what I said. So if I misinterpreted, I apologize.
-
So wat is the outcome ? Able to follow fully or not follow fully ?
-
you still don't get it.
-
kekeke....Originally posted by M©+square: you still don't get it. -
If you can use the singular example of Fr. Kang to discredit our practice, then I'd say the singular example of Mr. Teh Cheang Wan would similarly discredit the 'large salary can prevent corruption' argument.Originally posted by Icemoon:don't you know .. a large salary can prevent corruption.
best example: Father Kang. Priests are given $800 a month .. look at what happened?
obiterdicta -
his salary not large enuff mah. That time economy not so good get less than our ministers today.Originally posted by ObiterDicta:If you can use the singular example of Fr. Kang to discredit our practice, then I'd say the singular example of Mr. Teh Cheang Wan would similarly discredit the 'large salary can prevent corruption' argument.
obiterdicta -
I dont know about you guys, but it disturb me when government ministers and spiritual leaders seek salaries and benefits that rival CEOs of FPOs.
We reached a stage where morality from black and white, which turned into great intellectual debates during the period of Enlightenment, becomes the present day everything-can-be-justified sort of morality. -
A question about tithing:
If my church is very rich (pastors driving good cars and living in landed properties)- is it ok to tithe to other needy small churches or those organisations like Daily Bread ( think they've doing a fine jobs all these years)?
Holy friends said I should only tithe to the local church I attend. But wouldn't God be more happier if my tithes go to some unselfish missionaries in china instead of being used for meaningless competition among insecured pastors or to fund their "blessed" cars (ha)?? -
HiOriginally posted by sporty123:A question about tithing:
If my church is very rich (pastors driving good cars and living in landed properties)- is it ok to tithe to other needy small churches or those organisations like Daily Bread ( think they've doing a fine jobs all these years)?
Holy friends said I should only tithe to the local church I attend. But wouldn't God be more happier if my tithes go to some unselfish missionaries in china instead of being used for meaningless competition among insecured pastors or to fund their "blessed" cars (ha)??
this is just my personal view,
my personal view is that a person's tithe should goes to the church he/she is attenting, now, if this person wants to give to other organisation/church/ministry, this is also ok, but my personal view is that these then should be consider as a gift and not a tithe.
peace...
-
I concur...Originally posted by vince69:Hi
this is just my personal view,
my personal view is that a person's tithe should goes to the church he/she is attenting, now, if this person wants to give to other organisation/church/ministry, this is also ok, but my personal view is that these then should be consider as a gift and not a tithe.
peace...