2 cor 12:13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.(kjv)
13 For in what respect were you put to a disadvantage in comparison with the rest of the churches, unless <it was for the fact> that I myself did not burden you <with my financial support>? Pardon me <for doing you> this injustice!(amp)
13 In what respect, therefore, have you been worse dealt with than other Churches, except that I myself never hung as a dead weight upon you? Forgive the injustice I thus did you!(Wey)
ok......this verse was quoted on a Christian tv station(which shall remain nameless to protect the innocent/guilty). The gist of the teaching on this tv station was that even the apostle Paul asked people to forgive him for denying them the opportunity to give money into his ministry. And since even Paul did this then we now have the right to ask people to give into our ministries.......
On onother tv station it is being taught that in actual fact Melchisadek was in fact Shem. (one of Noahs sons. )
So what does the team think? are these people off the wall or actually traching sound doctrine in accordance with the full counsel of God??
<hermeneutika@.msn.com (nospam)> wrote: >13 In what respect, therefore, have you been worse dealt with than other >Churches, except that I myself never hung as a dead weight upon you? Forgive >the injustice I thus did you!(Wey)
>ok......this verse was quoted on a Christian tv station(which shall remain >nameless to protect the innocent/guilty). The gist of the teaching on this >tv station was that even the apostle Paul asked people to forgive him for >denying them the opportunity to give money into his ministry. And since even >Paul did this then we now have the right to ask people to give into our >ministries.......
My reading of the verses in the NIV strikes me as Paul being slightly sarcastic.
"How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong! "
You should only give to a particular ministry (imo) if God has led you to do so. Some appeals (especially of the tele-evangelist style) are intended to put guilt on you, usually promising you 30/60/100 fold material blessing in return.
>On onother tv station it is being taught that in actual fact Melchisadek was >in fact Shem. (one of Noahs sons. )
>So what does the team think? are these people off the wall or actually >traching sound doctrine in accordance with the full counsel of God??
I don't know enough on the OT side to make a valid comment but as far as I know Melchisadek came much later than that.
Have you come accross Dominion/Kingdom Now theology yet. I am extremely uncomfortable with it but am seeking God's understanding on it at the moment.
In message <bgq6f5d5bpun2auhhdn9qk5lop6r8re...@4ax.com> "John R (Ripon43)" <ripo...@spam.net> wrote:
> I don't know enough on the OT side to make a valid comment but as far > as I know Melchisadek came much later than that.
Add up the ages in Genesis 11 and you'll find that Shem overlapped with Abraham by a fair bit. However the likelihood that he would be ruling in Jerusalem at his advanced age is exceeding small.
When we transcribed the alien script we found that celia had written:
> If you think it was in the Thatcher days then the past is already > glowing pink and the red warning sign of old age is just below the > horizon.
There seem to be two attitudes to Mrs. T., held by those who hate her, and those who remember Callaghan.
-- I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman is with child." Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com
> There seem to be two attitudes to Mrs. T., held by those who hate her, and > those who remember Callaghan.
Callaghan and Thatcher were similar in one thing: both of them had come to accept the validity of supply-side economics. Naturally what was Callaghan's undoing was Thatcher's triumph.
> If you think it was in the Thatcher days then the past is already > glowing pink and the red warning sign of old age is just below the > horizon.
Bob wrote
"There seem to be two attitudes to Mrs. T., held by those who hate her, and those who remember Callaghan."
lmao
She sold the rail network, the water, the gas, the electric, the phones and anything else that wasn't nailed down. She put mental patients out on the street and in prisons. She destroyed the mining industry and the communities it supported and she destroyed the power of the unions to defend the workers from the abuses of Big Business. Another example of which, fat cat bank bosses wreck economy, tens of thousands of workers get laid off!!! She destroyed local democracy wherever it was to be found in opposition to her and introduced "reforms" which led (in at least cases) to widespread rioting. She talked tough on Europe and signed up to Maastricht, and wrecked the economy trying to make EMU work. She subjugated Britian to the US, from which we have still not recovered. Refused to talk to the IRA and thus lengthened that bloody saga. She used the police and the army to enforce her opinions on the majority who opposed her etc etc etc
I remember Callaghan and I remember Thatcher. You need to pop those blue tinted specs in the bin, you should have gone to Specsavers!!
Alec <alec.br...@gmail.com> writes: > > There seem to be two attitudes to Mrs. T., held by those who hate her, and > > those who remember Callaghan.
> I remember Callaghan and I still hate Thatcher.
TBPH, whilst I disagreed with almost all of her policies, at least she believed in some principles, and tried to follow them. You know what she was trying to do (and it wasn't just "win next election"). Many politicians at the top of the pile at the moment seem to lack much in the way of obvious compass beyond "power good".
Matthew
-- "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out of my hand". John 10 27-28 http://www.pick.ucam.org/
>> > There seem to be two attitudes to Mrs. T., held by those who hate her, >> > and >> > those who remember Callaghan.
>> I remember Callaghan and I still hate Thatcher.
> TBPH, whilst I disagreed with almost all of her policies, at least she > believed in some principles, and tried to follow them. You know what > she was trying to do (and it wasn't just "win next election"). Many > politicians at the top of the pile at the moment seem to lack much in > the way of obvious compass beyond "power good".
> Matthew
Yes she unashamedly made the rich richer and poor poorer, the weak weaker and the outcast even more isolated.
Like the devil her proposed way forward was clear.
Matthew Vernon wrote: > Alec <alec.br...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> There seem to be two attitudes to Mrs. T., held by those who hate her, and >>> those who remember Callaghan.
>> I remember Callaghan and I still hate Thatcher.
> TBPH, whilst I disagreed with almost all of her policies, at least she > believed in some principles, and tried to follow them. You know what > she was trying to do (and it wasn't just "win next election"). Many > politicians at the top of the pile at the moment seem to lack much in > the way of obvious compass beyond "power good".
I don't think following principles that are fundamentally immoral and that have large-scale harmful consequences is any improvement on being purely self-interested. Whether that's a fair description of Thatcher's principles is debatable, but I think a decent case could be made.
In message <87iqdevv30....@g.mccaughan.org.uk> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I don't think following principles that are fundamentally immoral > and that have large-scale harmful consequences is any improvement > on being purely self-interested. Whether that's a fair description > of Thatcher's principles is debatable, but I think a decent case > could be made.
I was not aware that expecting the nation to pay its way is an immoral principle, nor is private ownership as opposed to state ownership of the means of production. Indeed, I think that a majority of people have a gut instinct that Thatcher was right - that's why they voted for Tony Blair rather than Thatcher's weak-kneed successors.
Kendall K Down wrote: > In message <87iqdevv30....@g.mccaughan.org.uk> > Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I don't think following principles that are fundamentally immoral >> and that have large-scale harmful consequences is any improvement >> on being purely self-interested. Whether that's a fair description >> of Thatcher's principles is debatable, but I think a decent case >> could be made.
> I was not aware that expecting the nation to pay its way is an immoral > principle, nor is private ownership as opposed to state ownership of > the means of production. Indeed, I think that a majority of people > have a gut instinct that Thatcher was right - that's why they voted > for Tony Blair rather than Thatcher's weak-kneed successors.
I am quite sure that Thatcher had some principles to which no one could reasonably object; and others that are capable of being spun so as to sound unobjectionable. This is, of course, perfectly compatible with the possibility that some of her principles were in fact fundamentally immoral and grievously harmful.
|
