Money, the poor, the church, and deacons......

Sunday here too. My only, and humbly submitted point, is that Christians are not asked to follow the old law as it is written. The Sabbath being one example.



NT as well, Matthew 5. Heavy ramifications indeed. Your thoughts?

I have no difference of opinion on either count, I appreciate your candor.
 
The Bible refers to God as Him. That settles it for me. Neither God nor I care much for political correctness. If you don’t like that part of the Bible then there are plenty of other parts you also won’t like. But the question isn’t whether you (or I) like it, but whether it is actually true.
There are a lot of things I don’t believe about your faith. I am not trying to argue with you, I am simply disagreeing with you. It’s not a matter of “liking” or not but rather a matter of, as you put it, whether or not it’s true. I don’t believe that it is. I don’t believe your book is the word of any god and I don’t believe there is some sort of set of divine rules we are judged by upon death. The idea that the term sin has its entomology in meaning female is, to me at least, an interesting coincidence that supports my beliefs about the real purpose of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of things I don’t believe about your faith. I am not trying to argue with you, I am simply disagreeing with you. It’s not a matter of “liking” or not but rather a matter of, as you put it, whether or not it’s true. I don’t believe that it is. I don’t believe your book is the word of any god and I don’t believe there is some sort of set of divine rules we are judged by upon death. The idea that the term sin has its entomology in meaning female is, to me at least, an interesting coincidence that supports my beliefs about the real purpose of Christianity.
If you're interested, check this book out: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
It was written by a skeptic investigative reporter who set out to disprove the Bible.
 
"The problem here is twofold. Almost all the money in many churches goes to fund staff, programs, and physical plants, and there is simply no surplus even for the ostensible mission of funding world/local evangelism. This is a reflection of the entertainment focus of the culture and a number of other problems which I won't cover here."

The church I did belong to and that my wife still belongs has a $700K annual budget, a million in debt and is taking on more and they cant keep a pastor. This particular system is broken. One of the many reasons I do not attend this church anymore. That and the fear of being shot to death by some street maniac as this church has no security on Sunday but they are locked down, access by recognition only, during the week. I told my wife I would go back when they either formed a member armed security detail or hired a rent a cop and I could see him qualify with his side arm.
 
There is "the church" (as Christians, that is you and I, him and her), and "The Church", now considered "Church, Inc."

I am distrustful of full-time, paid pastoral staff; they peddle the gospel to make a profit. I cannot in good conscience support "a church" which requires tithes (as defined, tithes are required, as opposed to offerings). We do give money to "the church" in the way of monetary gifts to people and organizations in need.

@noway2 , your assertion "I don't believe..." is fine, for you, but just as you acknowledge a dearth of evidence to support that it is not 'real' (true?), you certainly cannot disprove it, either.
 
Deleted.... best not answered when I’vet been drinking .....
Had to remove the not...
Even the term sin has its roots in the term, sin, or synn, which has its origins in the meaning of to be and references to be female. No wonder even in your own post you keep referencing to Him with a capital H. ....
Actually, the word "SIN" in the original has to do with "missing the mark" or "failing to hit the target." If a Hebrew was shooting an arrow at a target and missed, he would say חָ טָ אתִ י or "I sinned." The idea is that there was the inability to correctly meet a standard.

It has zero references to gender. The English term has its roots not in synn, but in the Germanic "sunde" which has to do with the idea of transgression, offense, and derives from the norse phrase "sannr at," having to do with moral guilt.

Sorry, not meaning to be anal but I am a huge etymology guy. I myself welcome your entry into threads like these. I always know they are likely to disagree with me, but in an era when most "disagreements" consist of shrieking, hurling insults, and then banning, they are actually refreshing...., even while I sincerely hope to see your opinions change.
 
The catholic church and break a ways are just another form of controlling people. Religion is used and has been used through out history as away to control a population.
 
I told my wife I would go back when they either formed a member armed security detail or hired a rent a cop and I could see him qualify with his side arm.

I discretely carry every time I go to church. Not because I fear being killed for worshiping Jesus (WHAT BETTER WAY/REASON TO EXIT THIS LIFE!!!???), but because I feel an obligation to protect innocent sheep who are naive about evil and the way it expresses itself in our age.
 
The catholic church and break a ways are just another form of controlling people. Religion is used and has been used through out history as away to control a population.
That is a silly and unhistorical claim. While religious institutions HAVE CERTAINLY been used to control and manipulate people, it is simply illogical and false to claim that the entire church in its history has existed for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
The idea that the term sin has its entomology in meaning female is, to me at least, an interesting coincidence that supports my beliefs about the real purpose of Christianity.

And since your information about this is completely and verifiably incorrect, maybe the problem is your own confirmation bias?
 
My buddy used to go to a Methodist Church in an affluent neighborhood in Union County just outside of Charlotte that wanted to see his W-2 to make sure everyone was giving their 10%!
 
The catholic church and break a ways are just another form of controlling people. Religion is used and has been used through out history as away to control a population.

Christians still sin, and plenty of non-Christians are in churches also. Some churches (both denominations and local congregations) are more authentic (not perfect, but actually saved and therefore actually Christians) and some less so.

Everything in this world that is good is also perverted and used for evil. The organizations called churches are no different because people are still sinners til they get to heaven (those that do make it). But some are completely perverted (Middle ages Catholicism selling indulgences or TV preachers demanding money now are no different and certainly corrupt).

So yes, your second statement is true (some churches are used for exactly that), but the first is false because not all are, at least in the sense you mean it - control in the sense of oppression for personal gain.

The point of authentic Christianity is of course to influence people for their benefit. If you want to call that “controlling” so be it. Like a paramedic “controls” someone by saving their life. Of course whether you think this kind of “control” is a good thing or not depends primarily on whether you believe Jesus was who He claimed to be. That said, there are plenty of non-believers that do recognize the enormous benefits Christianity has had in the world. You don’t appear to be one of them from your blanket condemnation above.
 
My buddy used to go to a Methodist Church in an affluent neighborhood in Union County just outside of Charlotte that wanted to see his W-2 to make sure everyone was giving their 10%!

That is reprehensible.
 
I’ve been a member or regular attender of approximately ten different churches in three different denominations in three different regions of the two Carolinas in the past 33 years since I started going back to church. None ever asked, or knew, how much I made, none had a giving requirement, although they periodically encouraged folks from the pulpit to contribute to various ministries both inside the church, and within the denomination. And some would preach on tithing, but that has been the length and breadth of it.

Giving doesn’t get you “right” with God, as will none of your actions, as in “works”.
Getting right with God is a condition of the “heart”, and once you’ve gotten right with Him (which is a whole other discussion), the other things tend to follow.
Like giving.
 
Last edited:
My buddy used to go to a Methodist Church in an affluent neighborhood in Union County just outside of Charlotte that wanted to see his W-2 to make sure everyone was giving their 10%!

To which one could simply state the one doesn’t constitute the rule of all. In fact, it being a lone example that has been mentioned supports it being a rarity.

No one will doubt that there are churches that take advantage of people. Some are, in fact, using the word of God for their own uses. But the mere fact that some abuse the church for their own devises is no more a condemnation of the church as a whole than claiming that since some gun owners commit crimes then all gun owners are thereby default criminals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My buddy used to go to a Methodist Church in an affluent neighborhood in Union County just outside of Charlotte that wanted to see his W-2 to make sure everyone was giving their 10%!
If you asked for my tax forms you still would not have a clue as to how much I make or don't make :).
 
But heaven is full of people who never stepped into a church, and hell is full of people who went three times a week.
Thank you.....I heard a "reporter" ask Governor Huckabee if he thought if you weren't a Baptist you would go to Hell....His reply was...No...I think alot of them will be there too.
 
I used to go to a church that was actually very good... solid biblically and home to a number of really good things going on. I used to chafe under any encouragements to "give" to the church, as I knew the pastor made more than twice what I did.
I have moved over the years to question the idea of a paid clergy. I realize this is an emotional thing on my part, as it is clear "the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." Carole and I were always much more comfortable living well below the standard of living of most of our parishoners and I only once asked for a raise.... and that was after I had been three years at the church, had two kids, and made $24,000 a year. My presbytery instructed me to tell the elders I needed a raise! lol

I have always been squeamish about money, pastoral salaries, and stuff like that.

Maybe that is why I thought the original post was needful.....? I don't know.
 
I do think a man who has no experience in working in the non eccesiastical world has little ability to relate, and therefore no ability to bridge the word of God, to people under his care. Then on the other hand Spurgeon never worked outside the church, and who can question that? I fear I don't have many answers there on that subject. I just resolved long ago if I ever took up a teaching office in the church, it would be either non-paid or bivocational.
There are other reasons I just never moved in that direction.
I do think that free, joyful, happy giving to those in need is a mark of a man who has been set free from his service to money, which has more professing Christians by the throat than any other thing, including online porn (which is an absolute scourge in the church, and one of the very very very few areas I can say I just don't have a problem with).
It would be a great and happy thing to rediscover the joy of a corporate life among a group of people who just reject the false gods of stuff and instead saw investment in people as the greatest wealth. That is what "deacon" is all about.
 
To which one could simply state the one doesn’t constitute the rule of all. In fact, it being a lone example that has been mentioned supports it being a rarity.

No one will doubt that there are churches that take advantage of people. Some are, in fact, using the word of God for their own uses. But the mere fact that some abuse the church for their own devises is no more a condemnation of the church as a whole than claiming that since some gun owners commit crimes then all gun owners are thereby default criminals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't say that all churches do this, just simply stating what a church that a friend of mine went to did.
 
Two things and then a question..
When I was a boy in the 50s we went to the second largest Methodist church in Florence. The "Preacher" did all his Pastoral duties through the week..Hospital Visits, Wednesday night meetings, weddings and all the other things also. He also worked a full week at Belk's Department Store. Of course a full week then was 6 days a week. He was very well thought of.
Several years ago I found myself in the thriving Metropolis of Orrum, N.C. There was a beautiful church in the fork of the road. As we sped by I asked the driver to stop and back up. There on a sign in front of the church for all to see were two words. BELIEVE and OBEY. I always thought that was a perfect description of what they expected of all that went there. In a greater way all of Christiandom.
Now then the question....I see Y'all mentioning "keeping the Sabbath". What does that mean to Y'all. Do you try to do it, kinda try or go along with your regular activities after church services? Curious what that means to Y'all?????
 
I didn't say that all churches do this, just simply stating what a church that a friend of mine went to did.

And I was simply expounding on the fact that the instance does not set the rule.
 
Actually, the word "SIN" in the original has to do with "missing the mark" or "failing to hit the target." If a Hebrew was shooting an arrow at a target and missed, he would say חָ טָ אתִ י or "I sinned." The idea is that there was the inability to correctly meet a standard.
You're looking at the translation backwards from how I am looking at it. From what I have read, yes the word "sin" translates into a variation of missing the mark. There are also translations that say it refers to the moon, which is further supported by the fact that Sin was a moon god in Mesopotamian and Sumerian regions. The moon, being an obvious pagan symbol for the Goddess. If we go to Latin, my reading says that the word sin derives from "to be", as in to "sin" is "to be", which seems to me to fit very well with the concept that "humans sin a lot". Taking it further, in English, sin would have corresponded to the old English word, Synn which again means "to be", an interesting coincidence. In old English, the root of Synn would have been "es" which is also a feminine root word, e.g. estrus cycle, bringing us back to the moon correlations. There are other correlations that I find fascinating here, such as the original sin being associated with Eve, the original biblical female.

Sorry, @JimP42 as much as I am sure it would delight you, no I have not been "proven completely and verifiably incorrect" by Tans' post.

@Chuckman in reply to: "your assertion "I don't believe..." is fine, for you, but just as you acknowledge a dearth of evidence to support that it is not 'real' (true?), you certainly cannot disprove it, either." You are correct, it is a subject that can't be proven either way. It is the same with the resurrection, where as someone here put it, "for those that believe, no proof is necessary. For those that don't no proof is possible" or something to that effect. The thing is, I don't care, but my faith does not call upon me to attempt to spread "The Word" and convert people. In fact, doing so would be seen as a violation. Whereas you might think you're helping someone by doing so, in my faith it would be seen as a manipulation.

I am inclined to agree with @AR10ShooterinNC in that I see the Church (note the capital C) is a means of control. Why else would you need a (political) State, with a hierarchy, whose job is to interpret the word of God and spread that interpretation to the illiterate masses. Also, by banning and making mystical practices, e.g. divination by The People taboo and / or reserving them for Priests you are taking power from the People to know god themselves and putting it in the hands of the indoctrinated hierarchy. Likewise, to diminish the female - and yes - we've been down this before and the response has been that the female is contained within Him (some odd biology in earthly terms), and things like Jesus being the product of immaculate conception (yeah, OK - but none of us were there) and altering sexuality from being the great rite into something that is subject to Church orthodoxy all diminish the power of the female and put it in the hands of the patriarchal church. All of this suggests to me that the goal absolutely is control. For that matter, what better way to convert and control people than to take their God and turn it into their devil (Pan, i.e. horned (world - more etymology) god is often used in illustration as Satan.
 
Sorry, @JimP42 as much as I am sure it would delight you, no I have not been "proven completely and verifiably incorrect" by Tans' post.

How is any of what you said relevant to the word in the Bible other than the original Hebrew meaning when it originated?
 
How is any of what you said relevant to the word in the Bible other than the original Hebrew meaning when it originated?
Ah, so this is going the way of corona virus calculus ;)

Again, you and I are coming from different ends of the spectrum. You believe your bible IS the authoritative word of God. I believe it is the word of man, written and translated by men whose desire is control.
 
Last edited:
@noway2 , I don't see it as manipulation to present the gospel. I see it as manipulation to force the gospel a la inquisition. People are free to choose, they can choose to believe or not believe, they can choose to believe Islam's version, Judaism, or none of the above.
 
I see Y'all mentioning "keeping the Sabbath". What does that mean to Y'all. Do you try to do it, kinda try or go along with your regular activities after church services? Curious what that means to Y'all?????
It means resting. Do I do it? I try. Like many things, I fail to do it perfectly or regularly. But it's important to God and important to my mental and physical health (God probably knew what he was talking about when he commanded it).

Do I lift a finger, swing a hammer? Yeah, sometimes. I try to make it something I *want* to do or that isn't truly a chore. Something that brings me joy. Does it always happen like that? Nah. Take a couple weeks ago when I got the call that dad was dead up on a mountain in Hendersonville--I had to go into frantic pack mode and haul azz up the highway. Certainly not enjoyable and was a bit of work...but it had to be done.

I go as far as not going to church life groups that are on Sunday evenings as they're too hectic and stressful. I need my Sunday afternoon/evening "wind down" period to prepare for the inevitable stressful week ahead.
 
I have no idea what you are taking about...

I just asked a simple question.
And I gave a not so simple answer on the origin and meaning of the word sin. Yes, today it has a certain meaning. From 15 minutes of Duck Duck Go research I found connections at the root origins of words and translations that tie the word to meanings such as being (human) and the female gender. Just as the word "Jesus" would not have existed in the time of Jesus the meaning and origin of the word "sin" would not have been as simple as it is seen today.
 
My buddy used to go to a Methodist Church in an affluent neighborhood in Union County just outside of Charlotte that wanted to see his W-2 to make sure everyone was giving their 10%!
It happens frequently much like that here with Baptist churches. They send out visitors to discuss yearly giving and ask your salary. They tithe shame the member. It doesn’t work though as most I spoke with leave that church immediately. One Pentecostal church close to me sends a survey of salary. Listed is places to mark your promised giving percentage which starts at 6% and goes to 10% but adds an other write in amount above 10%. Basically they lead you through the giving process.

I was sitting around a wood stove one winter when the assistant preacher for the store owners father came to visit. 15 minutes of stories and church concerns. Then the pastor transformed into his real reason for visiting and asked him if he could increase his tithe to reflect his income. The old man said “Sure. You bring me a list of the head pastor’s salary and all the salaries in the church plus their tithes to date.” The old man knew they would never release the head pastor or assistant pastors salary and benefits. Only a few members were allowed that knowledge. When the assistant pastor squirmed around the issue the old guy asked him to leave and not come back. He never went back. He never did the mulching free again, he never plowed the snow in the parking lot again, he never supplied the fertilizer, nor seed, and joined a much smaller church where they appreciated the non monetary things he and the boys did.

I left a church that had maybe the wealthiest members of Hickory. My grandfather’s church, my mother’s church, then mine. Greeter would brush by me to get to the mayor, councilman, NASCAR driver (he came two times a year), wealth management guy, business owners, etc... When I was a kid I was forced to go there while shunned by their kids. My kids had to be forced into the Sunday School classroom before the age of 6. Next church I let them visit others for a year and they picked the church for the family.
 
And I gave a not so simple answer on the origin and meaning of the word sin. Yes, today it has a certain meaning. From 15 minutes of Duck Duck Go research I found connections at the root origins of words and translations that tie the word to meanings such as being (human) and the female gender. Just as the word "Jesus" would not have existed in the time of Jesus the meaning and origin of the word "sin" would not have been as simple as it is seen today.

And again, none of that additional etymology is relevant at all. We have old Hebrew texts that clearly use the “missing the mark” archery term. That is what the word means.

If you are saying there is some misogynist dog whistle in the use of particular word(s) in English translation, words that nobody has a clue where they came from, that’s just silly. There are very few words that translate perfectly between languages. You are grasping at straws here trying add meaning that was never there.
 
@JimP42 like I said, Covid19 calculus. You dismiss that with which you don’t with agree or understand. It’s called transaction management. I’m sure you use it at work, effectively.

The word history matters. I’m not grasping at straws, you’re grasping at the word of your book and assuming everyone believes it’s veracity.
 
Last edited:
@JimP42 like I said, Covid19 calculus. You dismiss that with which you don’t agree or understand.

The word history matters. I’m not grasping at straws, you’re grasping at the word your book and assuming everyone believes it’s veracity.

Has nothing to do with what you believe about the book. The book was originally in Hebrew. No debate about that. The word in the original is missing the target. That is what it means. How is that hard to understand? How is it incorrect?
 
You can never argue someone out of a position they have spent years arguing themselves into.

How a discussion on tithing, charity, and outreach has devolved into a discussion of the alleged misogynistic root of a word that literally everyone understands its actual meaning based on the context used is proof that this isn’t about honest discussion, but a vain attempt to one up someone because you find their beliefs false.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You can never argue someone out of a position they have spent years arguing themselves into.

How a discussion on tithing, charity, and outreach has devolved into a discussion of the alleged misogynistic root of a word that literally everyone understands its actual meaning based on the context used is proof that this isn’t about honest discussion, but a vain attempt to one up someone because you find their beliefs false.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, I was just thinking exactly the same thing myself.
 
You can never argue someone out of a position they have spent years arguing themselves into.

How a discussion on tithing, charity, and outreach has devolved into a discussion of the alleged misogynistic root of a word that literally everyone understands its actual meaning based on the context used is proof that this isn’t about honest discussion, but a vain attempt to one up someone because you find their beliefs false.
Unfortunately, you are correct. Such is human mature. Instead of recognizing a common history, a common heritage, we look for that which divides us. Instead of looking at shared heritage and coming together as brothers in ams d we are divided.

strange how many ways this is playing out in society today.

I saw a meme about a Viking and a crusader saying, we’re in this together, very true.
 
Last edited:
Jesus Christ...
I have a question for you. Do you know what the VERY LAST COMMAND was which Jesus Christ gave to his disciples before leaving the "upper room" to go and meet his betrayer and the cabal who screamed for his death till the Romans gave in and killed him?

Care to hazard a guess?
 
Last edited:
I am responding off forum to this tangent, so I won't say as much here (cheers from the bleachers, I am sure!), but @noway2 's objections are actually very very very old. The FIRST objection from outside the Judaeo tradition against Xty was that it was a rehash of the old Babylonian and Mystery religions. This was the gnostic charge, and was the first attempt to rebut the gospel that came from the established academics in ancient Rome. Charges of repackaging myths of dying gods and virgin births and god man and a general mishmash of random elements that have echoes in the gospel message were certainly contained in these pagan traditions and stories. I remember being shocked and distressed upon learning this myself (post conversion), and started digging. After all, if it is only fairy tales and fables, I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT (though to be honest.... or as honest as I can, anyway, I am not sure where I would go for an intellectual framework of the universe which makes sense... I had to admit that to myself in the process as well). So, I struck out and began reading the original charges and claims from the pseudopigripha (extrabiblical texts), as well as some of the early church fathers who countered those charges.

I was astounded. In my typical arrogant and ignorant foolishness, I assumed that ancients were kind of stupid. I guess I had kind of a Darwinian view of intelletual development, moving from grunts and gestures on up thru eating raw meat and burning heretics to our refined genteel urbane sophisticated rationalism... (I laugh at myself now). I was blown away by the intellectual precision, wisdom, wit, and razor sharp insight I found, both in the pagan skeptics and in those who answered. I was also ... disturbed... not the best word but the only one I can find now.... with how DIFFERENT they approached stuff, yet wound up at the same core issues. It was my first experience of "you are really really really a dumbass, you little twit" and it was good for me (lol). So when you see me being arrogant, contemptuous and dismissive of some of the amazingly ignorant and vapid nonsense posturing at times... not in this thread, mind you... just other times, please know that I really don't think I am smart and you all are dumb. I in fact think that although you are dumber than horseshit and posturing like an idiot about it, we are actually both phenomenally dense and ignorant and I probably have read marginally more than you about this stuff but both of us are in fact cretins.

Anyway, I read the first real intellectual apologists of the church, consisting of Origen (a towering genius who was a weird weird weird dude who was in fact a heretic in his view of the ontology of God... he was so bent out of shape about sexual lust that he cut is own balls off, but later said he had sinned in doing so) and Clement of Alexandria. I found that both of them were just rehashing the works of Justyn Martyr, from around 150 A.D. (about 30 years earlier than Clement). They went point by point thru the Eleusian Mystery religions and Egyptian mysticism and the older stuff and showed how these claims to be the origins of Xty were illogical, often based on false historical claims, self contradictory, and at odds with themselves. It was such a devastating critique that the movement functionally collapsed LONG BEFORE Rome became "Christian" and the system became legally banned.

So why is it around today? Because nothing is ever new. The JO Frasers (Golden Bough) and others wound up going back to the old gnostics, picking that discredited crapbag of refuted nonsense up, dusted it off, and said "LOOKEEE AT WHAT I FOUND!" ... without every bothering to mention the refutations and apologetics that had blown it out of the water as an intellectual system. You will see it everywhere on the interwebses. I would be far less contemptuous of it (maybe... maybe it is just an ugly stain on my nature and I would always be an arrogant jerk!) if JUST ONCE the Joseph Campbell types even acknowledged that the tripe they peddle has been refuted, or at least countered vigorously, back in the second century.

That would be the place to start if we could somehow automagically become "objective" about these things. However, as Calvin and others point out (and @noway2 very graciously affirms), no one starts out here "objective" about this issue. People generally stake out a position based on other things and then try to build a system that supports their preferred narrative. I have found that it is the rare man who will even admit to such a thing, but that is about as close to "objective" as we are going to get.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom