If a doctrine or belief that is taught by the Church today was unknown to the 1st century Apostolic Church, is it a valid doctrine? Is it inspired by God, or is it a false manmade doctrine?
Going to try and answer this for you.
Salvation is not dependent upon doctrine. it is dependent upon accepting Jesus as your savior. Doctrine is for teaching and doctrine should be taught.
By-laws are doctrines adopted by a local church or congregation. To become a member of a certain local congregation, those by-laws must be obeyed. This does not diminish nor affirm salvation in Christ.
By-laws are not necessarily false, though some could be) but are manmade. The by-laws should not be taught as a doctrine of God.
If I went in the wrong direction with this answer, just let me know and clarify the direction you want and I will try again.
There are many beliefs taught by the Church that were not followed by the disciples. For example the Christian tithe where many Churches teach that the Christian must give 10% of their income before taxes abd expenditure to their "local storehouse". Yet this was not universally accepted until the 6th century.
So is there a principle where the Church is authorised to establish new doctrine?
The doctrine of tithes comes from the Old Testament. it was actually instituted before the law was given. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizidek.
The giving of tithes is "GIVEN" not something that is owed or paid.
I know of no Church doctrine personally that requires the paying of tithes, though I know of many who will accept tithes.
All doctrine must come from God and Him alone. Anything new should align with the Bible. If anything is against the Bible, it is not worthy to be taught as a doctrine of God.
In the days of the disciples, everything a person owned was sold and put in the treasury. It was dispensed according to need among the members. It was, in fact, a socialistic doctrine of sorts.
This is the only portion I will argue:
That is purely manmade doctrine.
Immanu El himself said the 'requirement' was to accept the work done or at least 'believe' because of the works themselves. And after the work was complete a return to Walk With Me was required. That Walk With means to receive the fullness of power in spirit, that Adam once had.
Also incorrect. Doctrine, as it is titled, is to be but one thing and one thing only: Lessons in Edification -so the work of the Spirit, to empower each one, is not hindered. Because the Spirit gives as it desires, not as man would dictate through doctrine or ritual steps. The New Covenant removes ALL Lawful Judaic obligation, because those who Walk With the Spirit already abide by the commands (intrinsically) as those commands were prewritten on their hearts looooooooooooong before those hearts were hardened by doctrine, rules and condemnation -which came by knowledge of good/evil through the law and resulted in death.
When someone comes to faith, they will follow, for a while, the doctrines of the organisation they joined, but diligent folk search the scriptures to become Bereans, and find first areas where they differ from their organisations doctrines.
Some will leave that church and 'church hop' until they find a set of doctrines that meet their requirements.
Some will stay in the same pew never reading scripture, or if they do, ignoring things which challenge their official doctrines.
Some explore areas that lead them to what the official church considers heresy.
Eventually all find where they belong, inside or outside the 'gates' of organised religion.
Doctrine does not have any bearing on salvation, following or not following any doctrine that is not 1st Century or is error will not preclude anyone from eternal peace with God.
Our personal relationship with God, and our actions during this life will determine our salvation.
I agree, tithing is not in new testament scripture, but 100% ownership by God of ALL our assets is, so if someone wants to tithe 'faithfully' they will in effect be paying insurance, not respect, but equally not all people are called to give everything they have, and normally the people who can live by NT community rulings are those who elect to have very little, they give themselves 100%.
Don't think God is too concerned about money, it's us He wants.
Yes, they all are false man made doctrines. Next.
Thinks you are precluded from offering a reply, no hubs, no comment?
I see you have a number of hubs, yet your replies/comments here are mostly faith based goobledegook. It's really funny what you hold to be valid.
I can send you a 'gobbledegook' phrase book if you are challenged?
Wish I could see what you have published, still, 3 months and 9 followers, I guess three months is too little time to write anything other than 1,518 comments in the forums.... tell me, why join a writers website when you don;t intend to write?
That's 17 comments per day, my you are busy, and prolific, you should try writing articles, you must have practised enough by now...
First, you say I have all those comments in the forums and then ask me if I intend to write?
It really is funny what you take for credibility.
Snide remarks hardly count as writing.... and you really ARE prolific, having written another 9 probably inane comments in just three minutes, you really should try you hand at real writing sometime, you may even have something to say, who knows?
Or, I could write 146 hubs that say nothing at all, who know?
John you waste your breath on that man. He only seeks to antagonize others and berate them.
It is my personal opinion that: (no doctorine is etched in stone, except for the "Ten Commandments") The ten commandments are God's Laws for mankind and since all societies throughout time have adopted them, then God's Laws must survive for all mankind to adhere to.
All of the various Church Denominations that have become, since the creation of Christianity, has for the most part adopted the "Scripturally based doctorines of Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ during His ministry,and the Apostolic Church founded by Jesus and His Apostles.
Each denomination has introduced its own doctrines and beliefs, but if these doctorines do not adhere to the scriptures of God's Holy Word the Bible, if the Bible cannot and does not validate their doctorine then it is not valid and need not be adhered to.
I am Christian first and formost. I am a Catholic out of respect for my mother, following God's 4th. Commandment. There are several doctorines several catholic teachings and beliefs that I as a Christian do not acknowledge as being scriptural, therefore I refuse to follow them and even speak out against them publicly.
All church doctorine "MUST" be in agreeance with God's holy Scripture meaning scripturally based. If it is not, don't follow it or adhere to it for you may damn yourself if you do.
Isn't that another way of saying "Watch out for the Boogeyman"?
The ten commandments are Jewish not Catholic...right? (the old testament is the Jewish bible the new testament is the new Christian faith.)
Mike G. Roberts: There is no such thing as the "Boogyman" The Holy Bible, God's Word, incorporates the Jewish Torah which is the first 5 books, and the other books of the "Old testament, as well as the New Testament" Christianity adopts both together.
The ten commandments were indeed originally etched in stone: by the Egyptians who knew them as part of the Book of the Dead. The commandments were plagiarized from this original source.
The church has also never been averse to revising or even re-writing the 'word of god' whenever it was expedient to do so.
Cripes, God guilty of plagiarizing... who was He copying?
Older Gods. The Book of the Dead comprised a series of spells that dead people had to recite before the throne of Osiris at the ceremony of Maat where their heart was weighed against a feather. One of the spells went: 'I have not killed'. This - centuries later - became: 'Thou shalt not kill' in the ten commandments.
The laws of Moses: Deuteronomy, were likewise lifted directly from the Codex Hamurrabi. Recent archaeological finds in Israel prove that Hamurrabi's laws were in use in Israel before the destruction of Jericho: ie BEFORE THE ISRAELITES SLAUGHTERED THE PALESTINIANS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR LANDS.
There is nothing in the Bible which is 100% original. Learn to live with it.
So you believe in gods older than God.... obviously you are not a monotheistic person, however I serve the ONLY God, for if you believe in higher powers, you must accept that there is a highest power, or we have god by committee, or maybe rotation as the EU presidency is done, and what joke that is and would be.
Of course the enemy, in a futile attempt to provide ammunition for his servants down the ages, has seeded many false religions of a similar nature to what God gave humanity, but none of them managed to persuade so many people that they were correct by God Himself coming to earth to defeat the enemy, and not only making a personal appearance (however brief) but staying around in peoples hearts and minds, guiding them for the last 2000 years.
No thank you, I think I will ignore your gods, they are pale imitations of the ONE LIVING GOD.
I do not believe in any imaginary gods. And how can the older imaginary gods by imitations of your imaginary god when they came FIRST?
By the way, it wasn't your imaginary god - or Jesus for that matter - that persuaded so many people to follow Christianity. It was the adoption of your religion by the Emperor Constantine: back up by the military might of Rome's legions, that forced it down the throats of the pagan tribes.
Furthermore, Rome is clearly indentified - in the Book of Revelation - as the Beast and so Rome/the Beast/Whore of Babylon won the argument. It isn't your god or jesus that you are really worshipping. That is a disguise. You are bowing before the earthly power that has controlled the minds of the deceived for six millennia: since the time of ancient Sumeria when gods were first invented by literate men to control the illiterate masses.
Well I guess if you don't believe in any gods, you can be forgiven for your misunderstanding.
God is God, because He is God, like He said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" and He meant it.
God, in order to be God was around from the beginning, it's a given fact when you CREATE something, it did not exist before you created it, so all those minor gods you don't believe in (and neither do I)were pale imitations seeded by the enemy to confuse folk who are all anyway looking for God (the real one). Hope that gives you some clarity.
If you relapse, just repeat "I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" and maybe ask God to introduce Himself to you, you may enjoy it.
Well I guess all those Christians that stood and died without renouncing their faith were just 'imaginary' also.
You really do not understand do you!
Yes God used Constantine, God used an ass once to save Israel and God does not work like we humans do, He kind of sees the bigger picture (in fact he sees the WHOLE picture)and works his ways to achieve what He will (Remember: "I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE".
So using the powerful Roman Empire to spread Christianity (and who could oppose them at that time) was like kicking a seed pod off a cliff to propagate the valley below (for God, that is).
The wrong turns they took were corrected when Luther pinned his treatise to the doors, but as you have not poured scorn on that yet, we will leave it alone.
Nice try, but real theologians, many of them in fact, folk who both know their bible and have the advantage of knowing God also, have refuted the Rome/the Beast/Whore of Babylon diversion long ago, and in fact it is more likely to be an illustration of our modern financial 'democratic' system, but no worry, for the rest of Revelation will span out soon enough, and we will ALL find out what taking the mark actually means, I think a BIG clue is there when God states:
Amplified Bible (AMP)
For all nations have drunk the wine of her passionate unchastity, and the rulers and leaders of the earth have joined with her in committing fornication (idolatry), and the businessmen of the earth have become rich with the wealth of her excessive luxury and wantonness.
I then heard another voice from heaven saying, Come out from her, my people, so that you may not share in her sins, neither participate in her plagues.
For her iniquities (her crimes and transgressions) are piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her wickedness and [her] crimes [and calls them up for settlement].
Yep, that seems to fit the current picture of our world, and thank God (literally) the 99% seem to have recognised this, even if they also don't understand Revelation.
So who is this Jesus I bow down and worship?
Well its not the 'earthly power that has controlled the minds of the deceived' that looks more likely to be the enemy, the Illuminati, Freemasons, some sections of the RCC, the New World Order, call it what you will, but basically it is the enemies creations, and yes the enemy did start creating his ungodly empire 6000 years ago, just as soon as he realised that God had already formed the plan to save humanity from the enemy.
Pity you missed the plan, guess you bought the enemies plan lock stock and barrel.
You see the enemy cares not what you believe, provided you don't believe in Christ, for if the enemy can keep you from Christ, you stay belonging to him.
Matthew 16 13:17
Now when Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is?
And they answered, Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
He said to them, But who do you [yourselves] say that I am?
Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Then Jesus answered him, Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.
That is the Jesus I bow down and worship, and please notice the I AM in the whole context of what He was asking.
First the Sanhedrin conspired because He said I AM.
The the Roman Church incorrectly place their emphasis on Peter, rather than the point of knowing (by the Holy Spirit) who I AM really was, and still is...remember: "I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"
Words, words, words. And none of them mean a damn thing.
Don't you people understand anything? Atheists do not believe in god or what the bible has to say. Yet all you ever do is quote your bible at us.
Try this: put down your bible and engage your brain. It'll only hurt for a little while - honest.
Oh I tried that for the first 42 years, then I wised up.
If you are an atheist, why may I ask are you on a forum post called:
Is the Church Authorised to Create new Doctrines?
No quite sure why you would have an opinion on that?
Or are you a masochist?
Anyhow, like I said, been there done that got the T shirt and rejected it in favour of God, which is why I am here, why are you here?
This is a public space open to anyone and everyone. I am also here to get in your face and not let you spout your nonesense uncontested. All doctrine is pure deception designed to protect the interests of the 1%.
When we get rid of the politicians and the banksters, the priests are going with them.
Free your mind.
If it is not according to what Jesus did and believed; it is false and not inspired by the Creator God.
That is your belief only, based on whatever it is you want God to say. In addition it indirectly makes the claim that God will never again give inspiration to any man but you. A little egocentric, I would say.
My take is that it would be a false doctrine, or at the very least a wrong interpretation of Biblical doctrine.
Authorization from who or what?
Any Church can claim authorization to change doctrine. The Catholic Church comes to mind. They have huge info and history, but some of it is theirs not God's (as it is in many Churches, including Apostolic and other Christian ones sometimes). But that claim doesn't have to be received and upheld by laity, does it? Yet many will still follow blindly without seeking out the answers for themselves.
I think the simplistic answer to this is to say no, but one also cannot discount divine revelation. An Orthodox concensus of the fundamental beliefs, doctrines and theology of Christianity was reached and 'enshrined' (for lack of a better word) in the 7 ecumenical councils from 325 to 787. There have been no further councils since and hence no changes to the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Orthodox Church. That said Christianity is a living breathing experience of God through the body of Christ as witnessed by the Saints over the centuries right up to the present day. It is impossible to say that we cannot learn a lot from the writings and experiences of these saints and what is revealed to them in their Theosis, quite the opposite. I personally take a lot away from the writings of contemporary saints such St Silouan the Athonite, or Saint Porphorios the Kapsokalyvite. As an aside, theology in an Eastern Orthodox understanding is not simply an academic learning of Christianity, theology is actually a process of glorification or Theosis through ascetic struggle, denial of the passions, participation in the mysteries of the church (confession, communion and many more), constant prayer of the heart, fasting, metanoia or repentence and living and experiencing scripture. The sinners that constantly manage to pick themselves up and not give up and reach this glorification have an experience of the Kingdom in the here and now. Therefore reading about and listening to these saints is infinitely valuable.
Excellent question. To your first question, I would say no, its an added on doctrine. What Jesus taught was very simple actually, and if Jesus was right, then he and other apostles predicted and went after this very thing when they say it creeping in. There are warnings of it also.
In fact, I observe in unbelievers, that many people turn away for what turns out to be something that was a false doctrine. This makes me think of the verse about not causing one to stumble. False doctrine, in the eyes of God and Jesus, is something very very serious. It messes things up, and of course it would because its manmade, and man isn't perfect like God.
As for problems in history till now, many of the disagreements aren't over the core issues, but over man made doctrines. This is another excuse people give for wanting nothing to do with the simpler message that is meant to save souls eternally, and for people to fight in general. I think its rather dark therefore, and why the encouragement to really look at things is there. To NOT just believe anything we hear. What happens in the mean time, is people see the false teachings for what they are, but THINK they represent what the bible is supposedly saying, which don't line up. So no, not a valid doctrine, its self serving or something else at least, and hurts people in the long run. People love to play god.
I see no reason why God can't inspire now a message unknown to the anscient men or even a contradictory message. It is all faith. We have no way of knowing if Paul or even Jesus was infact inspired!!
I guess I'm missing something here. The church created their original doctrines from biblical writings and always with an eye on what those doctrines would do to the church and the VIPs in the church and government. Control and income had to be maintained and the doctrines were written to accomplish that.
New doctrines are also written with those things as a #1 priority and for the same reason. As examples, we continue to see more and more women accepted into the hierarchy of the church where such a thing was impossible under original doctrine. We see the beginnings of a movement to accept Gays into the church as well, again in direct defiance of original doctrine. Divorce is becoming more accepted the same way.
All of these things are in response to what the plebes demand if they are to remain in the church, filling the collection plate and giving the church its power. New doctrines are and will continue to be made in order to keep the money and people coming in. Excuses will be found (typically that the church had "misinterpreted" their holy writings, but they are only excuses to make changes that keep the church in power.
As such, of course new doctrines are valid. They keep the collection plate filled and maintain the continuity of the church. Without them the church will die and the leaders will have to find real work.
Nothing wrong with real work!
God always provides where He guides.
I believe if we look honestly enough, even the 'Original' doctrines are set up to accomplish this same control and obdience. The authorizations in holy books to kill those that believe in a different church, isn't anything beyond an attempt to preserve thier church. Thier way of believing.
Of course they were. The shamans of the world have no desire whatsoever to give up their wealth or power and design the rules of their religion to maintain those things.
"Bringing people to God" isn't even on the list of requirements, let alone a high priority, when designing or changing doctrine. Only maintaining or growing power and income.
I think I'd have to qualify that last part.
For some religious leaders it is all about power and money, for others money is a neccessary 'evil' (a needed tool).
There are a lot of good people involved with the various religious organizations, the problem is there are a lot of bad(misguided) ones too.
Of course it is a needed tool and a necessary evil. Nice clothes and a fancy, expensive robe are needed to impress the rubes, as is a beautiful home and car. Steak and lobster are needed to maintain health, as is the cleaning service. The nice sounding spin of a necessary evil is actually required, not optional, because otherwise the unwashed masses may decide not to contribute.
Yes, there are good people in religious circles. I suppose you might even find a very small handful in the upper echelons. On the whole, however, as people gain use of that necessary evil and the power that often comes with it they too often join the group of "misguided" ones instead of maintaining their integrity. Power corrupts.
The result is that is not typically the good people in the organization that are responsible for designing the changing of doctrine or rules. It is those at the top that act primarily for their own preservation.
Back to removing the 1% again, I guess they have infiltrated every echelon of our society, so in this, we agree, remove them and let real people take the reins.... but frankly, you are correct, power corrupts and even the finest will be corrupted once they have position to maintain.
Christ never set out the plans that man has created to run His body, it functions on it's own, and merely exists within and without Churchianity.
Most people who are following the dictates of Christ are either unchurched and/or unrecognised, even shunned, in the churches they attend.
Maybe the answer is to remove the churches, not the 1%. Without the church the 1% will fade into obscurity and not be replaced.
As you say, it is not the church that typically does good, is is those few in it that follow the dictates of Christ. Or Buddha, or whatever.
People need the churches. People need the community, the social gathering. The sense of belonging. Eliminating the 1%'ers (the people that are only involved for the money and power) seems the better course of action to me.
I just published a hub on this comment, mainly because the comment was too long!
Why Churches fail....
You're searching for an absolute answer. A single solution that will solve all future problems and allow an unperfect entity to be perfect.
Absolute answers don't exist. The best we can hope for is people that will make correct changes to 'the system' as changes are needed.
My take is that we were given the blueprint in Ephesians 4 and if we follow that, we will constantly adapt to the world environment and not change into it!
In the world but not of it, so to speak...
Thanks for the reply.
If I understood your hub, your goal is to change the environment (draw all others to Christ) instead of adapting to that environment.
A despicable and highly unethical goal for anyone to have; to change everyone around them to their own set of beliefs. Especially while violation the "prime directive" of your own set of ethics (the golden rule that is accepted by most people).
Amplified Bible (AMP)
And this good news of the kingdom (the Gospel) will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then will come the end.
These are commandments of Christ, so any believer should follow them, my 'outreach' on HubPages is to reach those in the world who I can.
Nobody should seek to "change everyone around them to their own set of beliefs" that would be coercion, what believers in Christ should do is explain why Christ came, and where possible bring people to realising that they have a need and desire to know more about Christ, after that they will either decide of their own free will to follow Him as a disciple or follower, or reject what He says and go on with their life as they wish to do.
Secularists here try to change everyone around them to their own set of beliefs" and when they fail, which they do, they get aggressive and disruptive, what is the difference?
And is not the incessant inane commentary provided by many secularists in these forums solely in order to disrupt a 'despicable and highly unethical goal'?
If I wanted to 'adapt' to this environment, I would not have chosen to leave this world behind and join the Kingdom of God, which is existent now and will become my home when I am called back.
If you think what the world has to offer is better than what God offers, so well and good, that is your decision, and you can live with it, but nobody has the right to tell me that what believers aspire to, bringing the good news to the world, is wrong.
The 'golden rule' you quote is; "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself"
Well I find many secularists seem to ignore this, but that's OK, because I expect to be allowed to preach what I want to preach to whomever I want to preach, so they have the same right obviously, just as any person has the right not to listen to my preaching.
I am secure in my faith and belief and trust God to guide my life to where He wants it to be, and He has NEVER let me down.
We often argue (more precisely I argue, He waits until I run out of steam and then shows me where I am wrong) but even when what He does seems hard to bear at the time, I come to see that ALL things DO work for GOOD... to those who are called and chosen for His purpose.
Everyone is called, many refuse the calling, some are not chosen because their hearts are not correct or their faith and trust is insufficient to carry out what God asks.
It's no exclusive club, anyone can join and serve God, but most chose to serve themselves, or humanism, or secular lifestyle.... they want THEIR will to be done, not Gods.
Overall, I agree with what you say. Some secularists do become irate and go overboard, but I think most of that is a reaction to what the Christian community does in their coercion efforts.
You claim you do not follow that road (although the insistence that you be able to preach to anyone anytime is quite obnoxious and suspect) and perhaps you don't, but a great many of the Christian faith do.
If no one should attempt coercion, why do so many Christians insist that laws be made to force their beliefs on everyone (gay marriage, creationism in school, public prayer and religious icons, etc.)? All of this is coercion and all of it is being fought somewhere. It is a never ending battle to keep the Christian faith to itself and not allow it to force itself onto the rest of the population.
This is what drives the angry secularist, and what I refer to with the golden rule. No Christian would like to see, or would allow, a display of Wiccan ceremonies at a public meeting - just their own version of the same thing. Complete unwillingness to treat others as they would be treated.
Matthew 22:14 may be used by you as a reason to publish your hubs, but it is also used by the nut on the street corner screaming through a bullhorn that we will burn in Hell if we don't conform. One is not only acceptable but welcomed, the other is obnoxious and coercive.
Sorry - I get a little riled about the coercion from Christians claiming they never do that. To the point I wrote a hub about it - the only religious hub I've ever written.
Sorry wilderness, started answering this and ended up with another hub, gods toolbox, these bally comments are just too long for a forum, so there we go, but I did put a link to your only religious hub, to be fair, and you are of course welcome to comment or write your own opinion hub.
Thanks for the inspiration!
I did that just a couple of days ago; got involved in a forum discussion and ended up writing a hub on it because the discussion and posts just got too long.
At least some good can come from these things!
And thanks for the link, by the way.
Just to pick up on one point there: "we continue to see more and more women accepted into the hierarchy of the church". It was actually not unusual at all in the early Orthodox church to see Deaconesses. Many are numbered in the synaxarion as saints and martyrs. If anything this has declined a lot in recent times, although there are examples. There are lots and lots of female readers and cantors however and always have been. One also mustn't forget the concept of an 'eldress' too - wise and very well respected female monastics that people go to see for spiritual advice. The hierarchy of the church often gets turned completely on its head when a Bishop goes to a completely unordained female monastic for guidance! And by guidance they actually subjugate themselves to the guidance received. This is readily accepted as normal. The world is not black and white in the church at all.
Huw Watkins, boy-oh, what an amazing find from 3 years + ago! There are so many Hubbers contributing in this thread, so many of them no longer seen here for one reason or another.....they bring me a sense of nostalgia.
A sort of doctrinal nostalgia!
I'm always a bit behind the pace it has to be said, it's why I played front row in rugby instead of on the wing!
I happened across these hubs as I was doing some reading on the origins of scripture. So this was once a thriving forum community then?
It still is, Huw, but I tend to waste my time too much in the religious controversies.... should not do it really, but I am very skeptical of the fundamentalist, fanatical, simple-minded religious clique, and find it somewhat entertaining.....while at the same time getting a bit hot-under-the-collar.
My personal leaning is to be in awe of the beauty we see in this amazing world, to seek ways of protecting it from my own, and other's carelessness. If there is/was any entity that we can call a "creator," then we should be honouring that creator, not trashing his/her creation.
See? I told you I was controversial,
Anyway, there are still some really nice people around in the forums of HP, not just those I happen to agree with. We are a bit of a community and it's helpful to click on that word "discussions" at the top of the page if you wish to keep up with the current interests.
Wishing you well and have fun.
Aguasilver, although I agree with many things you say, I would like to amend what you have written here. Yes, it is our hearts and lives that God wants. But did you know that there is more written in the Bible about material possessions than about salvation? - probably because of what Jesus said: Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
In other words, if we allow ourselves to focus too much on the material goods of this world, then we lose our focus on our spiritual values. Just look at all the conflicts in the world, even today and definitely throughout history, that have related to ownership, possessions, and territorialism - control of oil; drugs; diamonds; Lebensraum....
And so, if my husband and I did find "real work," then I guess we wouldn't have to worry about drunk/druggie people knocking on our door at midnight for counseling; or collect calls from prisoners we have never met; or hours spent with people who have lost everything in a fire, who have no money for food, clothing, prescriptions, etc. My husband wouldn't have to spend hours counseling families torn apart by tragedies; hours at the bedside of people in hospitals, or in the waiting room with their families; hours working with people of the church to organize fundraisers for an orphanage overseas; hours working with street people and other indigent people to find ways the church can help lift them out of their struggles.
It might be an easier way to live - that is, finding what you consider to be "real work" - but we feel called to do the work we do, even if you don't think it's real. Believe me, the people that we work with do consider it to be real, and it's God's opinion and those people's opinions that matter to me, far more than the opinion of anyone on Hubpages or in these forums.
I have proven what you say to myself, I was so involved in a $300m dollar development that I took my eyes of God, and He took my development away from me, because it was His to do as He wished with and when it stood between me and He, well it was obvious, the obstruction needed to be removed, and I thank Him for that.
The next two tears were horror for me, then, when I had again placed God back to the center of my life, He opened the door again, and this time I step through with trepidation and an awareness that I must not forsake my first love.
My reference was that where God guides, He provides, and if your work involves all those aspects, then God WILL provide IF you allow Him to.
I have seen many ministries where those involved do not fully trust God, and resort to relying upon tithes and offerings or appeals to fund Gods work.
In all cases God seems to take His hand off the endeavour, because after all if WE take the responsibility to fund Gods work, why should He step in, until we get to the point where we turn to Him, with a broken spirit and contrite heart, and ask Him to be involved.
On the other hand the ministries I know of that never need to beg money from anyone, are totally reliant upon God, and He seems to always provide when required.
God can fund anything He asks us to do, and often funds things we think He wants us to do, but rarely funds things we set up to do without reliance upon Him.
I know nothing of your ministry, so please do not think this is any judgement on what you do, I do know that whenever God has called me to do something, He has provided.
Matthew 25 is an excellent verse to live by, and if we trust God, He will provide for those we minister to, and not muzzle the ox either.
I wish you well in your ministry.
The Bible says, "The workman is worthy of his hire." It also says, "Should we muzzle the ox that treads out the corn?" Just think about it.
Interesting question, @Disappearinghead.
It seems churches do it all the time, but that doesn't make it valid. With thousands or even millions of differing interpretations of the Bible, likely all of them but one are wrong. Quite possibly even the one is wrong. That does not remove their value. Each person's interpretation is a step along the path to everlasting life. Too bad so many people merely sit down on the path and don't budge.
Frankly, I would trust the doctrine of someone like Mother Theresa over that of the Pope.
And if the Pope could walk on water, I'd have to know that he was as good, kind and generous as Mother Theresa, too, before I'd put much stock in any doctrine coming from him.
Being able to tell the difference between "man-made" and "divine" can be difficult, especially to someone just starting out on their spiritual path. I've taken many wrong turns, myself. I am thankful that I remain unafraid to reassess self and motives.
Divine or "valid" doctrine would be anything which aids in returning to God -- aids in reawakening the spiritual, true self.
The first century church did not have a monopoly on Truth, but I would use a certain amount of caution and wisdom in following anything new.
Church has to follow Jesus' teachings;it cannot create new doctrines; it would be an unauthorized deed on its part.
As the Church gives itself authority, then it is able to create new doctrines. Just as politicians, have the right to make new laws, because of their authority.
But the Church has not been vested any authority fom Jesus.
The Church has been vested with His authority , but not to create new doctrine and beliefs, but to carry on His work.
Neither the Creator God nor His messenger prophet Jesus gave any authority to Church to do anything; whatever Church is doing is unauthorized.
Jesus founded no Church; he never used the word Church from his mouth; he always prayed in a Jewish temple not in a Church.
Earlier someone wrote that most churches have 'by laws". This is THEir rules.
I smoke. Maybe I shouldn't. BUT I attended a certain church, liked it, and fell led to join. JUST to join the church, I had to be counseled by the pastor before hand of joining. He told me it was against the by laws of the church to be a member and smoke. OOPS> I asked, would my smoking send me to hell or keep me out of Heaven. His reply was no.
I joined the church. I still smoke.
An old hub like old heresy, these supposed new "inventions" turns up every once in a while with a new bent, new support and new supporters. Hhmm, another several scriptures given "meaning and life" by the non-believer, summed up in Ecclesiastes 7:29.
So glad you are following my footsteps, Mishpat.
The church is trying to connect a modern congregation to an ancient document about an eternal idea. It is only natural that they will have to move the bridge from time to time.
So if the modern congregation chooses an "easier" or another route which does not line up with the Bible, we should expect God to change?
How does that relate at all to what I said?
If you need to make a bridge between a moving boat (people across time) and a stable island (God) via a shifting sandbar (written documents in a dead language)--do you think the bridge will need to be rebuilt a few times? I think that is pretty obvious.
If it wasn't we would all be reading the Bible in the language it was written in.
Is that not how it works? Certainly the morality of the Christian God, and the morality He expected and instructed His people to attain in millenia past have both changed. Had the Islamic god kept pace we would not be having the problems we face today from it's followers keeping with ancient instructions.
I have to disagree, the teachings of Jesus have not changed. Those that changed it along the way for whatever purposes, were wrong or doing so. The peace you see now compared, is in line with Christs teachings.
But I didn't mention Jesus. Just God, and that has changed enormously and continues to do so.
Jesus laid out precious few moral concepts. The golden rule, turn the other cheek, a few others. God, on the other hand, put forth a great many rules and punishments as well as giving us His own example of how to live. Stoning everyone in sight for the smallest of offenses, genocide, slavery, punishment of people for offenses committed by others, etc. - most of which we have repudiated as a people while claiming that Jesus said we didn't have to follow them any more (he actually said the opposite).
You mentioned Christian God. So I assumed you meant Christianity and its teachings. You don't have those, without Christ, so my referring to Jesus is well placed I think.
Recall, how Jesus responded to the woman who could have been supposedly rightly stoned, when he had the chance? He showed a better way. So when people actually follow Christ, and Christianity, and are peaceful, they are in keeping with Christianity. Their prophet did good, and taught a better way, and as you allude to, a simpler way.
So the distinctions matter, and hopefully you can see why I disagreed. I don't know what you are referring to when you say Jesus said the opposite there. At any rate, a peaceful Christian, whether back in history or now, is keeping in line with what a Christian is supposed to be about, both in word and deed. Jesus didn't kill, he let himself be killed, and his followers did the same. Very opposite.
Perhaps the problem I find is that Christians pick and choose which to follow: the orders of the OT god or the example Jesus set. The golden rule from Jesus is set aside for most Christians as they do this, requiring that all peoples behave as they have decided their god wishes. Christianity, as promoted by mainstream organized religion, isn't very Christ like and is far more interested in control than in living the example Christ set.
I think a lot of us find problems in the same, when it occurs. For me, as a Christian, I at least find solace in the fact its not just in our day when we see it, but it was in Jesus' day also, and he had responses for people like that. Strong responses even. Its a pretty powerful tool too, because it definitely gets the point off of what Jesus' message was all about. If there is good and evil in this world, then evil wins in those cases, where people lose out on the greater points, and only see the negative. I am against the control thing too, and will never get that. As a Christian, I hope you know that a lot of us are not for that kind of thing, or the things you describe. Christ is a hard standard anyway, but we can try.
Actually I do know that, and have a high respect for those they make an honest effort to follow Jesus' teachings rather than those of a church. IMO, though, they are but a small minority of the group we call "Christians". I know a handful personally, I've talked with some here on HP (some of which are now banned ) but know far more that ignore any of Christ's example that doesn't fit with how they wish to believe.
Personally, I think we'd be better off (all of us) if we tore down every church in the country, or converted them to apartments for the homeless. God, if there is one, is to be found inside us, not through the social clubs we call churches.
Well, I couldn't go so far as to say "all" churches, but I think you have hit on a subject in which we could find a great deal of agreement.
I'm sure you are correct, that there are some churches that provide a useful function beyond a social gathering point, and "all" is almost certainly an exaggeration. But you do get the point.
Why stop there? There's plenty of synagogues, mosques, temples of various kinds around the world that could be trashed and tower blocks, public bathes and cinemas erected in their stead.
Stalin had this idea too - charming man he was and things really turned out well for his people in Russia and the Soviet countries...
Of course the synagogues and mosques are included (although I've never been in either and have no first hand knowledge of how they are built or operate - just assume they are similar to Christian churches).
You make a great leap to assume that Stalin's thoughts on religion are solely responsible for the state of Russia. They aren't.
"Perhaps the problem I find is that Christians pick and choose which to follow: the orders of the OT god or the example Jesus set."
This is a very valid point. It is for this very reason that the Church exists, an unbroken line back to the times of Christ with the accounts of both Scripture AND the Saints AND tradition to help us and guide us in this matter.
If it is simply a free for all with regards to Scripture in isolation, out of context and ignoring the Apostolic tradition and the writings of the Saints, then you have the scenario that has happened in the post-reformation protestant world. The disintegration of belief into literally thousands of 'churches' through misinterpretation of Scripture. They become part of the problem, not the solution.
As there is no way of knowing which "church" uses the correct "interpretation" of scripture, how can you determine which is a problem and which is true?
How about the original church? Certainly not something that has been formed 1500 years after the event or later.
There is a church that Christ founded with his Apostles and still exists today. That is what Apostolic tradition or succession actually means. It was a Church that remained completely undivided for hundreds of years, despite the relative autonomy each geographical church had and still has today. Sections or branches broke off and fell away throughout history (primarily the monophysite churches in the 4th/5th century and the Roman Catholic church in the 11th), but the core remains.
Some errors need to be corrected: 1) God does not have a morality, He is morality personified 2) omniscience knows, it has no expectations 3) one should not suppose what the present or future might be or will be based on alterations in myths and gods. There is no answer for it.
Per your definition. For myself, any entity (human or otherwise) that wishes my worship, adoration or love will have morals close to my own. I will define necessary morals, not a god.
2) is correct, but if your god is omniscient then it knew that He would destroy the earth and made man in such a manner that it would be necessary in spite of that. Not an attitude I would find endearing.
3) Of course we dream of a better world, all the time, and that requires a change in the morals and attributes of the major gods as long as they will remain players in human society. Such things as an end to slavery, equal treatment of women, gay rights, children treated as people rather than chattel; all are things we wish to see in our future and all require that the gods change their minds as to what is right and wrong. Or at least the priesthood change their minds and inform us all that the gods agree - not much difference with organized religion.
No.....reassess what you read in and from the bible..... learn good sense and stop depending on superstition and man made objectives.
I think Jesus made a lot of good sense. I think he got it right. Of course you know I would probably say this though.
From your comment it appears there is no humility to consider regarding your trite IMHO. However you are allowed your opinion.
H can be Humble or Honest. I meant the latter, but all in the former.
You, mishpat, always put yourself forward as knowing the truth and regard myself as not knowing any of it. You sound superior, so obviously you must be.
What you seem to miss is the "truth" that I present is nothing more than that which is available to all men (and women) if they chose to search for it honestly. It is a shame that those without the answers or those that don't want to know the answers, choose to pose questions and comments only with the intent of irritation and not conversation.
mishpat, if you find my questions and comments irritating, don't you think it just might be something you are missing? Either from a misunderstanding or a deliberate choice to ignore what might be the truth?
Your latest answer above once more demonstrates that you believe that what you believe is correct, and the I with so many others are missing that correct message. The presumption is that yours is superior knowledge over mine.
Sure, li'l ol' regressive me is automatically wrong because I don't accept that god of yours.
I thought that was being suggested. It would be illogical to expect the base, the original teachings to have changed. Or the standard.
I don't think descending, in theory, from the first church is a guarantee of being doctrinally correct. The current queen of England descended from the first true ruler of that nation who was deemed to be appointed by God but I wouldn't consider her for the role today.
It is if doctrine remains unchanged. People and traditions with a small "t" may change and evolve (such as more indepth liturgical practice for example), however fundamental doctrine has not. One only has to read the Church fathers of the first 3 or 4 centuries to see that.
by ngureco 6 years ago
Should Tithe and Offerings Be Based On 10% of Net Earnings or Gross Earnings?
by Julie Grimes 7 years ago
Has these titles, which are often used to describe Christ's relationship with God, been taken out of context? Or do you honestly believe that Jesus Christ is God's son? I wonder, can a person still be a Christian, and yet believe that Christ is not the son of God? What are your...
by Captain Redbeard 3 years ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book would never have been written because no Christian would have existed before...
by JimLow 6 years ago
This list of beliefs I wrote about 5 years ago, came from an approximate 20-year study of the Statements of Beliefs by many different Christian denominations. These were the beliefs I found that were of most common agreement between them. That doesn't mean they represent ALL denominations but...
by Kitty Fields 24 months ago
Why does everyone think that the Bible was written and put together by God? Don't people realize that there are many holy books and manuscripts that have been excluded from the Bible? St. Thomas Aquinas wrote one and it was omitted from the Bible by a group of people a few hundred years after Jesus...
by ngureco 7 years ago
How Do I Identify The True Christ Church From Satan (False) Church?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|