Question for church-goin Christians...

[footwasher]

I became a believer at 27 . I shared the gospel with my sister who raised me. I told her she could avoid everlasting hell fire, by believing Jesus died in her place. She laughed. It amused her to see her kid brother preaching, thumping a bible.

It also made no sense to her. The loving God who gave His Son to die in my place is also the God who allows eternal torment in hell? A loving God would give opportunities to be rewarded, but for those who decided not to make an effort, because after counting the cost and deciding the task was too difficult or take too much out of one's life, God would allow them to drop out.

Today she lives a retired life. Her children are all professionals.

Retired people lose their faculties very fast. To avoid this, doctors recommend involvement in light activities. That's why you see retirement home taking their residents to bingo halls, malls, zoos and plays. The activity keeps their minds and bodies working, delaying the onset of atrophy to both. Recently, social media like Facebook, Twitter and even Gmail has been found to be good at keeping dementia and ALZ at bay.

Since they could afford it, her children kept sending their parents on world tours, cruises and weekend resort stays for quite a while, after they retired quite young. Where they stay, retired people are often on the net, trawling the virtual space for holiday offers. Airlines offer one dollar fares that make a holiday in the golden triangle a great alternative to staying at home. It's more expensive to stay home and pay heating bills than to holiday in low living cost Asian countries.

After a while, age made travel difficult. Activities have perforce been restricted to more sedate outlets, local trips and social media. Being medical professionals, it distressed their children that they can't delay the onset of senility any more. I keep getting calls about how they are trying different things to keep their parents with them, even as their minds slowly fade away.

However, before senility sets in, regret does. As I pass my fifties I find more and more of my contemporaries express their sadness at not finding and fulfilling their life purpose. It's been happening more lately and I'm working to reach out to them before they too become senile. It's pointless to reach out to them at later phases in their lives.

Read up THE MASLOW PYRAMID for insights into regret.
If only I had become more mature in my knowledge of God when my relatives and friends were younger.

Is it possible that God made possible the internet, at these end times, to prepare us for Christ's second coming? It's the modern equivalent to the interaction available to the first century church where violent men forced their way into the kingdom of God. I understand that attending the councils were dangerous affairs, often leading to people drawing swords to settle doctrinal issues!

Anyhow, the fault isn't only in the church, but in lack in setting aside time for prayer, study and discussion.

Here's a great article by Tercel on the Client Patron Relationship:

http://theogeek.blogspot.in/2006/03/...brews-111.html

Quote
Anyway, the take home lesson is:
Next time you're reading the bible and you see the words "faith" or "belief" read "faithfulness" instead and think "Patron-Client system = faithfulness repaid with favours". (Of course the result won't make much sense because it won't fit with how the translators have translated the rest of the sentence)

A great rule to keep in mind is this: Faithfulness is targeted at people, belief is targeted at ideas. You can be committed to a person, or committed to an idea. But talking about faithfulness to an idea, or belief in a person is nonsense.

Another example: Jesus says "believe in me". [which is a mis-translation of course, breaking the above rule] Jesus is asking for people to become his clients. ie he's saying "follow me". He's not saying "believe that I am God". There are other examples in classical literature of people saying "believe in me", and guess what, they were wanting clients, not claiming divinity.

I can only hope that over the next couple of decades that these developments can start filtering through to mainstream bible translations.

[One Bad Pig]

Could you please not use random threads to post whatever comes to mind? This does not appear to have anything to do with the topic(s) at hand.

[Cow Poke]

Could you please not use random threads to post whatever comes to mind? This does not appear to have anything to do with the topic(s) at hand.

Nor does his username have anything to do with his posting habits.

[footwasher]

Could you please not use random threads to post whatever comes to mind? This does not appear to have anything to do with the topic(s) at hand.

I'm making the observation that churches aren't the best places to learn how to bear fruit, as seen by the existence of large numbers of believers who are not growing, for whom time is running out.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm making the observation that churches aren't the best places to learn how to bear fruit, as seen by the existence of large numbers of believers who are not growing, for whom time is running out.

The post to which I'm objecting has no such observation (the closest thing is a comment in the midst of the post comparing the internet with the first century church, which is entirely inapt). And you flat out ignored the prior post I made.

[footwasher]

Paul is criticizing the church for this disorder, not commending it.

Are you serious? Can to post ANY commentary that says Paul is disallowing tongues, prophecy, interpretation, etc?

Just about every "modern church" I've been in has a place for interaction. Have you been to many?

Yup. US, UK, Sweden, Persian Gulf, South Asia, East Asia. All were uneasy with questioning during the gathering...

[One Bad Pig]

Are you serious? Can to post ANY commentary that says Paul is disallowing tongues, prophecy, interpretation, etc?

You misapprehend what I said. Paul is not disallowing tongues, prophecy, etc.; he is criticizing the disorder that comes from having people do those things whenever they feel like it, regardless of what else is going on.

Yup. US, UK, Sweden, Persian Gulf, South Asia, East Asia. All were uneasy with questioning during the gathering...

Which is not what you complained of earlier. Questioning during the main service is disorderly, and will naturally be frowned upon. There is a time and place for discussion in pretty much every church I've ever been in - just not during the main service.

[footwasher]

You misapprehend what I said. Paul is not disallowing tongues, prophecy, etc.; he is criticizing the disorder that comes from having people do those things whenever they feel like it, regardless of what else is going on.

Not true. Paul's objection is to uninterpreted proclamations:

1 Corinthians 14:27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Which is not what you complained of earlier. Questioning during the main service is disorderly, and will naturally be frowned upon. There is a time and place for discussion in pretty much every church I've ever been in - just not during the main service.

The only occasion when discussion in the main service is not allowed under any circumstances is with women:

1 Corinthians 14:34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

[One Bad Pig]

Not true. Paul's objection is to uninterpreted proclamations:

1 Corinthians 14:27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Incomplete; your assertion entirely ignores vv. 30-33. Paul also objects to uninterpreted proclamations. My statement is in no way untrue.

The only occasion when discussion in the main service is not allowed under any circumstances is with women:

1 Corinthians 14:34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Your interpretation ignores first-century realities and is thus anachronistic. Women, as uneducated, were far more likely to ask questions. They are only targeted in these verses because of that. Again, it is because the questioning was disruptive.

[footwasher]

Incomplete; your assertion entirely ignores vv. 30-33. Paul also objects to uninterpreted proclamations. My statement is in no way untrue.

All the evidence points to discussion type meetings, rather than pulpit centered services.

Your interpretation ignores first-century realities and is thus anachronistic. Women, as uneducated, were far more likely to ask questions. They are only targeted in these verses because of that. Again, it is because the questioning was disruptive.

You miss the point. The men are supposed to question:

1 Corinthians 14:29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

The events were heated, the winners gaining authority. Women were disallowed. I have formed views about how women were the glory of men. It was well received in many forums. It's a bit off topic.

[One Bad Pig]

All the evidence points to discussion type meetings, rather than pulpit centered services.

No, it doesn't. That's just you reading your preconceived notions into the text. The early church services looked a lot like a synagogue service with the Eucharist tacked on. You know how I know that? The Orthodox liturgy STILL bears a distinct resemblance to that. Given the long-standing animosity between church and synagogue, it's not exactly likely there was much borrowing there after the beginning.

You miss the point. The men are supposed to question:

1 Corinthians 14:29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

The events were heated, the winners gaining authority. Women were disallowed. I have formed views about how women were the glory of men. It was well received in many forums. It's a bit off topic.

I'm pretty sure Philip the Evangelist would disagree with you (Acts 21:9). And if the events were heated, it was in spite of Paul's teaching, not because of it.

[Truthseeker]

Given the long-standing animosity between church and synagogue, it's not exactly likely there was much borrowing there after the beginning.

I don't understand. It seems like a non sequitur.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't understand. It seems like a non sequitur.

It's not. How would you explain similarities between liturgy and synagogue that do not exist between protestant churches and synagogue?

[footwasher]

No, it doesn't. That's just you reading your preconceived notions into the text. The early church services looked a lot like a synagogue service with the Eucharist tacked on. You know how I know that? The Orthodox liturgy STILL bears a distinct resemblance to that. Given the long-standing animosity between church and synagogue, it's not exactly likely there was much borrowing there after the beginning.

The ushering in of the Kingdom of God brought about many changes in the way the believers did things:

http://oneinjesus.info/2010/12/holy-...y-frank-viola/

Quote
They didn't just "know" everything, they had to figure some things out along the way which at times included consulting God for answers. Even though the Apostles had the Holy Spirit to "guide" them, the apostles were still human, they were not perfect. Acts shows this especially.

>Paul opposed Peter to his face. Gal 2.11

>Barnabas and Paul separated over a sharp disagreement between them about taking John called Mark with them. Acts 15.37-39 (Barnabas & Paul were both apostles – Acts 14.14)

>Those in the Jerusalem church (Apostles included) had to consult about what requirements to put on the gentiles who were turning to God (this was decided upon by the Holy Spirit, Apostles, Elders, and the whole church). Acts 15

>Paul concluded -from a vision in the night (dream?)- that God had called them to preach the gospel to those of Macedonia. Acts 16.9-10
Also, check out Matt 28.19-20. Jesus commanded the Apostles to make disciples and to teach those disciples to obey *everything* that He had commanded them (the Apostles). (CJB version) So, everyone who has been discipled after that point is still supposed to obey *everything* that Jesus commanded his Apostles (thus our need for the Holy Spirit).

Peter even told the people in Acts 2 that what they were experiencing was what had been spoken of by the prophet Joel and Joel noted that God said that in "the last days" He would pour out his Spirit on "all flesh", that included sons, daughters, young men, old men, servants, and handmaidens. I don't think any of us would argue that we aren't still in the "last days".

===========

This contrasts with what existed before:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankvi...syourcovering/

Quote
In the religious climate of the Jews, a class system exists made up of religious, guru-like specialists and nonspecialists. In the Kingdom, all are brethren in the same family.

In the Jewish world, religious leaders are accorded with honorific titles. (Examples: Teacher, Father, Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, Minister, etc.) In the Kingdom, there are no distinctions of protocol. Such titles obscure the unique honor of Jesus Christ and blur the New Testament rev*elation that envisions all Christians as ministers and priests.

In the Jewish world, leaders are exalted into positions of prominence and outward display. In the Kingdom, leaders find their identity in the lowly towel of servitude and in the unassuming basin of humility.

In the Jewish world, leadership is rooted in status, title, and position. In the Kingdom, leadership is rooted in inward life and character. (In this vein, the current fad of bestowing honorary “doctorates” before the names of countless clergy is one example of how the contemporary church mirrors those values that run contrary to God’s Kingdom.)

I'm pretty sure Philip the Evangelist would disagree with you (Acts 21:9). And if the events were heated, it was in spite of Paul's teaching, not because of it.

Acts 21:8And on the morrow we departed, and came unto Caesarea: and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. 9Now this man had four virgin daughters, who prophesied.

The prophesying of men was different from that of women. They had to do it with thir heads uncovered. This meant they were identifiable, could be persecuted, martyred. They were doing battle.

Women were the glory of men, the ones whom the men would lay down their lives for , just as Christ lay down his life for the Church, so that she did not have to. Men did what the women did not, the heavy lifting. Men wore their hair short, indicating their combat readiness. Women left their hair long, indicating they had a protector, that they did not have to fight for themselves. Cutting their hair short was a disgrace, indicating they had no protector.

I have posted extensively here on the old tWeb site on this topic. My views still exist on other sites. I can provide links to you by private message if you wish.

A good example of the lesser role of women in prophesying is illustrated by the actions of Deborah. She needed to approach Barak to go into battle, a lack no other prophet or judge faced.

A good idea to keep in mind is the view that the church was modeling, through separation of the ministries of men and women, what Christ did: protected the Church.

[One Bad Pig]

The ushering in of the Kingdom of God brought about many changes in the way the believers did things:

http://oneinjesus.info/2010/12/holy-...y-frank-viola/

Quote
They didn't just "know" everything, they had to figure some things out along the way which at times included consulting God for answers. Even though the Apostles had the Holy Spirit to "guide" them, the apostles were still human, they were not perfect. Acts shows this especially.

>Paul opposed Peter to his face. Gal 2.11

>Barnabas and Paul separated over a sharp disagreement between them about taking John called Mark with them. Acts 15.37-39 (Barnabas & Paul were both apostles – Acts 14.14)

>Those in the Jerusalem church (Apostles included) had to consult about what requirements to put on the gentiles who were turning to God (this was decided upon by the Holy Spirit, Apostles, Elders, and the whole church). Acts 15

>Paul concluded -from a vision in the night (dream?)- that God had called them to preach the gospel to those of Macedonia. Acts 16.9-10
Also, check out Matt 28.19-20. Jesus commanded the Apostles to make disciples and to teach those disciples to obey *everything* that He had commanded them (the Apostles). (CJB version) So, everyone who has been discipled after that point is still supposed to obey *everything* that Jesus commanded his Apostles (thus our need for the Holy Spirit).

Peter even told the people in Acts 2 that what they were experiencing was what had been spoken of by the prophet Joel and Joel noted that God said that in "the last days" He would pour out his Spirit on "all flesh", that included sons, daughters, young men, old men, servants, and handmaidens. I don't think any of us would argue that we aren't still in the "last days".

===========

This completely ignores what I posted. You might try dealing with facts, not rank speculation.

This contrasts with what existed before:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankvi...syourcovering/

Quote
In the religious climate of the Jews, a class system exists made up of religious, guru-like specialists and nonspecialists. In the Kingdom, all are brethren in the same family.

In the Jewish world, religious leaders are accorded with honorific titles. (Examples: Teacher, Father, Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, Minister, etc.) In the Kingdom, there are no distinctions of protocol. Such titles obscure the unique honor of Jesus Christ and blur the New Testament rev*elation that envisions all Christians as ministers and priests.

In the Jewish world, leaders are exalted into positions of prominence and outward display. In the Kingdom, leaders find their identity in the lowly towel of servitude and in the unassuming basin of humility.

In the Jewish world, leadership is rooted in status, title, and position. In the Kingdom, leadership is rooted in inward life and character. (In this vein, the current fad of bestowing honorary “doctorates” before the names of countless clergy is one example of how the contemporary church mirrors those values that run contrary to God’s Kingdom.)

Since when are Jewish leaders called "Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, [or] Minister"? I think your quotee is just making stuff up to support his preconceived notions.

Acts 21:8And on the morrow we departed, and came unto Caesarea: and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. 9Now this man had four virgin daughters, who prophesied.

The prophesying of men was different from that of women. They had to do it with thir heads uncovered. This meant they were identifiable, could be persecuted, martyred. They were doing battle.

That's nuts. The women weren't wearing burkhas.

Women were the glory of men, the ones whom the men would lay down their lives for , just as Christ lay down his life for the Church, so that she did not have to. Men did what the women did not, the heavy lifting. Men wore their hair short, indicating their combat readiness. Women left their hair long, indicating they had a protector, that they did not have to fight for themselves. Cutting their hair short was a disgrace, indicating they had no protector.

Where are you getting this from?

I have posted extensively here on the old tWeb site on this topic. My views still exist on other sites. I can provide links to you by private message if you wish.

A good example of the lesser role of women in prophesying is illustrated by the actions of Deborah. She needed to approach Barak to go into battle, a lack no other prophet or judge faced.

A good idea to keep in mind is the view that the church was modeling, through separation of the ministries of men and women, what Christ did: protected the Church.

I think I've read enough of your views on women, thanks.