|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Immigrants good for me and you? Bad? How to make a good answer that is accurate? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
So you claim but you haven't cited anything to back up that claim. I have pointed out, for example, that the principle both in Elijah's time and in Jesus' time, was to give everything. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. But you are making these things rigid when they are not. God's never changing doesn't mean He doesn't deal with different situations differently.... Edited by ringo, : Spylling.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Again, so you claim. Back it up. It's a pretty self-serving claim.
Jesus was teaching a specific young man when he told him to give away everything he owned, that was NOT a principle for everybody. Faith writes:
I only alluded to it but you ought to know the story. Elijah asked the woman for food. She protested that she only had enough for one meal for herself and her son and then they would die. Elijah told her to give it to him anyway. She did, and after that her oil and meal never gave out.
And sorry I guess I missed whatever you said about Elijah. Faith writes:
If it's the same message, why not? And besides it makes no sense to equate this teaching with the Communist dictum.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You're just denying. You're not putting up any argument or evidence for your claim.
It's not the same message. It's ludicrous to say it is.There is no principle implied in Elijah's request to the widow, it was a specific test of faith which is what the miracle of the neverending supply was built on. Faith writes:
"No theologian" is a pretty heavy-handed claim. What you really mean is no theologian that you will accept. But I have no interest in what theologians say anyway. I only go by the text. No theologian says Jesus' advice to the young man was intended as a principle for all, it's always treated as specific to his spiritual condition.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
More empty denial. Can you show how I'm misreading the text? Or is it just that the text doesn't say what you want it to say? All you guys who claim to "go by the text" misread the text.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
But Ananias and Sapphira were punished for holding back. How does that support your position?
I gave the example of Ananias and Sapphira to show that there is no principle of giving everything required. Faith writes:
I took an example from the Old Testament and two examples from the New Testament to show that it wasn't an isolated idea. Your own example from the New Testament also seems to support what I'm saying.
You take a specific text and extend it to a principle without any warrant... Faith writes:
I want you to prove that my conclusion from the examples is wrong. ...and you want me to prove that's wrong?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That isn't what it says:
...they were punished for lying about it. That is very clear in the text.quote:What they did wrong was lying AND keeping back part of the land. Faith writes:
1. Jesus telling the rich man to sell what he had and give to the poor. What was the other NT example?2. The lady giving all she had while the rich men held back. And in the Old Testament:1. Elijah telling the widow to give him all of her food (TELLING her, mind you, despite her protests). 2. Achan, who was punished for holding back some of the spoils from a captured Canaanite city. (I didn't mention that one before.) These examples are just off the top of my head. There may be more.
Faith writes:
A plethora of examples suggests a principle. Have you given a counter-example at all? Neither of those I answered show anything but a specific situation, not a principle.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The verse says nothing of the kind. It says that their violation was lying and holding back, period. You can take your crayon and write in that they would not have been punished if they ha only held back the land, but that isn't what the verse says. ... they had no obligation to give iit all otherwise as the verse above says very clearly. What the whole incident illustrates is that the early Church considered giving everything to be an important principle. Maybe because of what Jesus said to the rich man, or maybe because it was an important principle going back to Old Testament times.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
All you did was claim that they were isolated examples. How many examples do you need before they're not isolated any more?
I answered all your examples... Faith writes:
He was told to give it all and he didn't. How much plainer could it get? ... except Achan, and he stole the stuff against the clear command not to touch any of it. What does that have to do with a principle of giving all? Achan stole from the community and the community is equated with God. Remember, the tithe belongs to God but is used by the community. Similarly, the spoils of war belong to God but are used by the community. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills but they are used by the community.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
So the conservative solution is to do less to meet those needs? The main problem with all of this is that there is far more need than there is money to support it, which is the economic argument from the conservative side.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
The debt is not caused by welfare programs. No, the solution must be that we keep racking up the debt until we're owned and governed by Communist China. Obviously. The situation you have is a handful of people sitting on mountains of wealth while many others are homeless, hungry and sick. Charity does some good but it doesn't solve the problem. Homelessness, hunger and sickness all detract from productivity. Taking care of the less fortunate is a good investment (not to mention being the right thing to do). It's not just shameful that some Christians oppose welfare programs, it's downright foolish.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024