again and again i hear this

[Jethro Bodine]

Did he write timothy?, im sure in there he went on about all these rules.

Yes, he wrote the letters to Timothy, and they are his instructions on what Timothy is to teach to his people and how they are to conduct themselves in the church.

And I acturally believed them and posted them on this forum telling people what they should and shouldn't do at church,like women wear no jewelery and things, and i think it was you who said i was legalistic or something. Lol.

I have no reason to insist I didn't say that. I may have. But did I bash your brains in over it? That's the important thing.
Just as long as I can share my view on things, and you yours, and we don't try to destroy the other, we both may learn something. That's my dream for church, but which I know will not happen in this age. It will only happen in sporadic moments, and in sundry places outside of church (or in extra-curricular church meetings attended by a mere smattering of the whole congregation).

 

[Corn Pop]

Yes, he wrote the letters to Timothy, and they are his instructions on what Timothy is to teach to his people and how they are to conduct themselves in the church.


I have no reason to insist I didn't say that. I may have. But did I bash your brains in over it? That's the important thing.
Just as long as I can share my view on things, and you yours, and we don't try to destroy the other, we both may learn something. That's my dream for church, but which I know will not happen in this age. It will only happen in sporadic moments, and in sundry places outside of church.

No you never bashed my brains over it or have been inreasonable.

So what Paul told timothy instructions how people should does and what they should wear at Church were Pauls own man made rules. And if they were not Pauls own and were Christs, then why do Christians not abide by Jesus rules for Church. I dont think a single Church is described as what Paul told Timothy how they should conduct themselves.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No you never bashed my brains over it or have been inreasonable.

Whew!
I was sweating there for a minute.

So what Paul told timothy instructions how people should does and what they should wear at Church were Pauls own man made rules.

Prolly not his own rules. Peter also speaks of how to dress....women anyway (1 Peter 3:3).
Off the top of my head I don't think there are any of Paul's own rules in his letters to Timothy and Titus (what are called the Pastoral letters if I'm not mistaken). But it would be interesting to explore the topic.....and that's what we'd do in my dream church. The one I'm convinced can't be in this age. We'll just have to settle for forums, hallway discussions, and places like that to do that.

 

[Corn Pop]

Whew!
I was sweating there for a minute.


Prolly not his own rules. Peter also speaks of how to dress....women anyway (1 Peter 3:3).
Off the top of my head I don't think there are any of Paul's own rules in those letters. But it would be interesting to explore the topic.....and that's what we'd do in my dream church. The one I'm convinced can't be in this age. We'll just have to settle for forums, hallway discussions, and places like that to do that.

Everyone should just wear white robes clean linen. Lol.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

if they were not Pauls own and were Christs, then why do Christians not abide by Jesus rules for Church.

I ask this very same question: 1 Corinthians 14:29-31 NASB

 

[Papa Zoom]

Everyone should just wear white robes clean linen. Lol.

Bell Bottoms and tie dyed t shirts. The good old days.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Everyone should just wear white robes clean linen. Lol.

Just not with pointy hats. If you know what I mean.

 

[Papa Zoom]

No you never bashed my brains over it or have been inreasonable.

So what Paul told timothy instructions how people should does and what they should wear at Church were Pauls own man made rules. And if they were not Pauls own and were Christs, then why do Christians not abide by Jesus rules for Church. I dont think a single Church is described as what Paul told Timothy how they should conduct themselves.

We're under grace, not rules. And a lot of what Paul spoke on had to do with that specific culture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm up waaaaay past my bed time.
Gotta stop here.

 

[Corn Pop]

We're under grace, not rules. And a lot of what Paul spoke on had to do with that specific culture.

Like fancy hairstyles, nice clothes, and jewlery?. Today's culture is a thousands times than Pauls.

Obviously Paul just wanted people to be righteous and have respect when in fellowship or however there church system was back then, but he still compaires a woman's dress code to worshipping God.


" I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."

So what if the woman did both, was respectful, and moral, and appropriate and had a nice hairstyle, a gold necklece and wore expensive clothes. Obviously that contradicts the above scripture.

It dont make sense because as long as people have faith and believe the Gospel and love as Paul said, why should it matter how they dress or how expensive there clothes are. Paul went in man made law mode.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Like fancy hairstyles, nice clothes, and jewlery?. Today's culture is a thousands times than Pauls.

Obviously Paul just wanted people to be righteous and have respect when in fellowship or however there church system was back then, but he still compaires a woman's dress code to worshipping God.


" I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."

So what if the woman did both, was respectful, and moral, and appropriate and had a nice hairstyle, a gold necklece and wore expensive clothes. Obviously that contradicts the above scripture.

It dont make sense because as long as people have faith and believe the Gospel and love as Paul said, why should it matter how they dress or how expensive there clothes are. Paul went in man made law mode.

That would make an excellent new thread for discussion. As it is, we're off topic. If you start a new thread, let me know, we can discuss it there.

 

[JAG ..]

I always reread what I wrote and am confident I'm being clear.
Then when I read the responses I realize it's not as clear to the
readers as it is this writer.

My thoughts on it:
Its very difficult for humans to accurately communicate with words.

Words mean different things to different people. Two plus two equals
four is clear enough. So is "See Spot run. See Spot run after the ball."

Sure we have dictionaries, but they change with time. Then too, all dictionaries
define words by using "other words" --- and so we're right back to the same
problem, that is, words have different connotations to different people.

This problem is multiplied a hundred times when we enter the arena
of philosophy and theology where the words (and the concepts) become
far more complex than "See Spot run. See Spot run after the ball."

Once we enter the arena of ideological, philosophical, and theological
argumentation, we then really have a difficult time genuinely communicating
our intended meanings and nuances. Then add strong human biases and
strong human prejudices to this mix, and we get an endless stream
of Straw Men, Deliberate Misdirection, Thread Jacking, Deliberate
Obfuscation, Anger, Resentment, Willful Ignorance, and all the other
human crazy-stuff elements associated with we fallen sin-corrupted human
beings. Once the "discussion" degenerates into this "crazy stuff" area, my view is
its better to disengage from that subject and begin working on another subject
for another later thread. There is no end to new subjects of interest, and what's
important to me, is to keep my mind and my keyboard active . . .

. . . I would much rather write a piece about the Vienna Philharmonic than to
haggle and bicker in threads over ideological, philosophical, theological, and
political points. I love music and I love the Vienna Philharmonic. But I'm not
all that fond of thread-bickering once the "crazy-stuff" gets started . . . lol . . .

 

[Papa Zoom]

My thoughts on it:
Its very difficult for humans to accurately communicate with words.

Words mean different things to different people. Two plus two equals
four is clear enough. So is "See Spot run. See Spot run after the ball."

Sure we have dictionaries, but they change with time. Then too, all dictionaries
define words by using "other words" --- and so we're right back to the same
problem, that is, words have different connotations to different people.

This problem is multiplied a hundred times when we enter the arena
of philosophy and theology where the words (and the concepts) become
far more complex than "See Spot run. See Spot run after the ball."

Once we enter the arena of ideological, philosophical, and theological
argumentation, we then really have a difficult time genuinely communicating
our intended meanings and nuances. Then add strong human biases and
strong human prejudices to this mix, and we get an endless stream
of Straw Men, Deliberate Misdirection, Thread Jacking, Deliberate
Obfuscation, Anger, Resentment, Willful Ignorance, and all the other
human crazy-stuff elements associated with we fallen sin-corrupted human
beings. Once the "discussion" degenerates into this "crazy stuff" area, my view is
its better to disengage from that subject and begin working on another subject
for another later thread. There is no end to new subjects of interest, and what's
important to me, is to keep my mind and my keyboard active . . .

. . . I would much rather write a piece about the Vienna Philharmonic than to
haggle and bicker in threads over ideological, philosophical, theological, and
political points. I love music and I love the Vienna Philharmonic. But I'm not
all that fond of thread-bickering once the "crazy-stuff" gets started . . . lol . . .

Amen to the Vienna Philharmonic. Also Jethro Tull.

 

[JAG ..]

Amen to the Vienna Philharmonic. Also Jethro Tull.

. . . /grin . . . Now that both together is quite a spread-out, but musical versatility can be interesting-entertaining.

 

[dirtfarmer]

. . . /grin . . . Now that both together is quite a spread-out, but musical versatility can be interesting-entertaining.

hello JAG, dirtfarmer here

To be politically correct, we must add Willie Nelson to menu.

 

[Runner]

Just a question: Are you the artist wielding that extra wide paint brush or are you also on that canvas you label ' "Christianity" '?

It is indeed a broad brush, because it encompasses (in my humble estimation) about 95% of what passes for Christianity today, at least in America. If you're going to paint a barn, you need a pretty broad brush. I am definitely not part of what I label "Christianity," and I am confident "Christianity" would agree with this self-assessment. Whether I am part of Christianity is for God alone to decide.

I've shelved some spiritual ambitions I have had and which I had been seeking God's confirmation about for many years. And the reason I shelved them is because what you say here is TRUE.

So what do we do? Live a quiet life pursuing your own personal growth and maturity in Christ and bid the world and it's 'church' good bye and good riddance. God's things always end up in the minority. Stay in the minority and wait for the cleansing fire that's coming.

Exactly, precisely my thought. It is impossible to change "Christianity" from within. It is impossible to exist as a Christian within "Christianity." Christianity is to be found in individual persons and in one's personal walk with God. That walk has to be as far removed from "Christianity" and the rest of the secular world as one can get. This is, of course, precisely the opposite of the bill of goods "Christianity" wants to sell you. "Christianity" wants you going to church, supporting the ministries, buying the books, buying the DVDs and CDs, supporting the "correct" political causes and all the rest. "Christianity" wants this for the same reason McDonald's wants you to buy Big Macs instead of Whoppers (when, in fact, if you care anything about your health you'll run as far as you can from both). "Christianity" is the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing. "Christianity," in my estimation, has almost nothing whatsoever to do with anything Jesus was talking about.

This is not hyperbole. If I'm wrong, God will be the judge. But I firmly believe it is true. There is just simply nothing objectively observable about "Christianity," internally or externally, to distinguish it from Buddhism, Atheism or Megacorp, Inc. There is simply nothing, apart from "Christianity's" hollow claims, to suggest "Christianity" is uniquely indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If "Christianity" were on the narrow path, this could not possibly be true. If "Christianity" is the best the Holy Spirit can do, one can only conclude Christianity is simply not true, Most folks don't want to hear this, of course, because - yep - they are up to their necks in "Christianity."

 

[Papa Zoom]

It is indeed a broad brush, because it encompasses (in my humble estimation) about 95% of what passes for Christianity today, at least in America. If you're going to paint a barn, you need a pretty broad brush. I am definitely not part of what I label "Christianity," and I am confident "Christianity" would agree with this self-assessment. Whether I am part of Christianity is for God alone to decide.



Exactly, precisely my thought. It is impossible to change "Christianity" from within. It is impossible to exist as a Christian within "Christianity." Christianity is to be found in individual persons and in one's personal walk with God. That walk has to be as far removed from "Christianity" and the rest of the secular world as one can get. This is, of course, precisely the opposite of the bill of goods "Christianity" wants to sell you. "Christianity" wants you going to church, supporting the ministries, buying the books, buying the DVDs and CDs, supporting the "correct" political causes and all the rest. "Christianity" wants this for the same reason McDonald's wants you to buy Big Macs instead of Whoppers (when, in fact, if you care anything about your health you'll run as far as you can from both). "Christianity" is the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing. "Christianity," in my estimation, has almost nothing whatsoever to do with anything Jesus was talking about.

This is not hyperbole. If I'm wrong, God will be the judge. But I firmly believe it is true. There is just simply nothing objectively observable about "Christianity," internally or externally, to distinguish it from Buddhism, Atheism or Megacorp, Inc. There is simply nothing, apart from "Christianity's" hollow claims, to suggest "Christianity" is uniquely indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If "Christianity" were on the narrow path, this could not possibly be true. If "Christianity" is the best the Holy Spirit can do, one can only conclude Christianity is simply not true, Most folks don't want to hear this, of course, because - yep - they are up to their necks in "Christianity."

define "Christianity" exactly how you mean it. Simply but completely so there's no questions as to what you really mean.

 

[civilwarbuff]

define "Christianity" exactly how you mean it. Simply but completely so there's no questions as to what you really mean.

And I would add one to this if you don't mind: Could you briefly describe what what you consider walking with God. Much of what you say seems to make me think monks in monastaries withdrawing from the world. I certainly don't believe we are called to withdraw from the world but to engage it through the Gospel.

 

[jasonc]

Bell Bottoms and tie dyed t shirts. The good old days.

Whilst protesting the system. Lol

 

[Runner]

define "Christianity" exactly how you mean it. Simply but completely so there's no questions as to what you really mean.

And I would add one to this if you don't mind: Could you briefly describe what what you consider walking with God. Much of what you say seems to make me think monks in monastaries withdrawing from the world. I certainly don't believe we are called to withdraw from the world but to engage it through the Gospel.

I took a couple of stabs at giving intelligible answers to those questions, and they ended up being much too long (yes, longer than this!) and still unsatisfactory to me. Perhaps Jethro would like to weigh in.

My definition of "Christianity," which would scarcely be helpful to anyone else, would encompass virtually the entire spectrum of what calls itself Christianity in America as I have observed and experienced it over the past 50 or so years. Like Jethro, I too have encountered occasional individuals who genuinely seemed to me to exhibit the fruits of the spirit and to have an aura of holiness about them (but, alas, half of these saints made no claim to being Christians at all). But "Christianity" as a whole - individuals, churches, denominations, TV and radio ministries, Christian publishing, Internet forums, you name it - seems indistinguishable to me from any other segment of society except in the most superficial of ways.

Worse than that, it seems no better than any other segment of society to my non-Christian friends, literally without exception. My devout and saintly wife, who joined me here nine years ago after 53 years in the former Soviet republic of Belarus, was warned by her Baptist pastor that "Christianity" in America would bear no resemblance to anything she had previously known, and she is indeed extremely disappointed at what she has found. (I am not suggesting "Christianity" is unique to America by any means, but it is certainly rampant here.)

I think you either see all this or you don't. Millions of people apparently believe Trinity Broadcasting Network is exactly what Jesus had in mind.

If "Christianity" were truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit, this situation simply could not be the case. We may still be in the flesh, but the Holy Spirit cannot be that weak. I am frankly puzzled that God has allowed "Christianity" to prosper and make a mockery of everything Jesus taught - but, then, I'm puzzled by lots of other things as well.

I don't believe that walking a Christian walk requires "withdrawing" from the world at all. It requires being "not conformed" to the world. "Christianity" is as conformed to the world as it could possibly get, in every sphere of life.

How do we overcome this? Probably we sacrifice a great deal more, financially and time-wise. Probably we conform our aspirations, our careers, our lifestyles, our political agendas to what Jesus actually taught - instead of conforming our "Christianity" to our aspirations, our careers, our lifestyles and our political agendas, as though what Jesus wants just magically happens to be what we want too. Probably we take Jesus' most radical teachings and warnings seriously, instead of reinterpreting them so they mesh more comfortably with our preferred lifestyles. Mark 10:17-27, Matthew 7:21-23, James 1:27? Nah, none of that really applies to us - at least in any way that would seriously interfere with our pursuit of the American Dream.

In my own case, I do find withdrawing from the world to some extent (think "urban hermit") to be helpful. I have no TV service, my cell phone is a Jitterbug from the Dark Ages, I do not participate on social media at all, I am largely disengaged from the daily news, I have cut back on "Christian" talk radio and even on my book purchases - and, yes, I do believe this has all been beneficial to my Christian walk. I can see at least some of the fruits of the spirit in myself, at least compared to the me of 50 or 25 years ago, and others have said they see them - and yet, the very acts of the flesh Paul describes in Galatians 5 (with the possible exception of witchcraft) are still present to a truly disturbing degree. I do find this extremely puzzling, to the degree that I do sometimes wonder if we have all completely misunderstood Jesus or even join my friends in wondering if Christianity is uniquely true at all. So I make no claim to being a particularly good specimen of true Christianity, merely to having the virtue of not being a card-carrying "Christian."

But I'm not here to prescribe to anyone else. I am merely sharing what I have observed, because I have viewed my mission for the past ten years or so as being God's thorn in the side to "Christianity." Because Certain Moderators and Participants clearly do not welcome my participation, I am now going to move on and leave this fertile mission field to Jethro. If you see any more posts by me, you will know I have broken a sacred vow to myself.