Elections Christian group believes Mike Johnson is the most dangerous Christian in America

Sinister said:
That's what I took away from that passage? No that's what that passage means. Paul was soliciting funds and was saying that the Corinthians MUST give, and they must give with a good attitude about giving. They must do so willingly, just as he is willingly giving the Gospel free of charge without demanding anything. He is giving up his rights twofold, 1) he HAS to minister, he has no choice. 2) he has the right to demand financial support to do so. He's using both those positions to communicate to the Corinthians that they are obligated to support those who serve through ministry and that they must do so with a good attitude about it, because its bringing the gospel.

In a similar vein of people who make the "why should I pay to educate or medically treat other people's kids?" argument when it comes to health care or public education. Paul would have likely had something to say about that, that they SHOULD support those things and do so willingly. If his argument sounds coercive that's because it is, clergy coerced people all the time. Modern Christians just use these sentiments out of context to justify greed.
Click to expand...
100% correct. What Christian does not strive for and hope to curry the love of God? "God loves a cheerful giver" isn't just Christmas exhortation. A gift not given freely isn't a gift. A Christian should desire to give freely and not need to be compelled.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Sorry to burst your leftwing bubbles, but no, Jesus wasn't an SJW.

Corinthians 9:7: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Jesus was dead when this was written.
 
Sinister said:
That's what I took away from that passage? No that's what that passage means. Paul was soliciting funds and was saying that the Corinthians MUST give, and they must give with a good attitude about giving. They must do so willingly, just as he is willingly giving the Gospel free of charge without demanding anything. He is giving up his rights twofold, 1) he HAS to minister, he has no choice. 2) he has the right to demand financial support to do so. He's using both those positions to communicate to the Corinthians that they are obligated to support those who serve through ministry and that they must do so with a good attitude about it, because its bringing the gospel.

In a similar vein of people who make the "why should I pay to educate or medically treat other people's kids?" argument when it comes to health care or public education. Paul would have likely had something to say about that, that they SHOULD support those things and do so willingly. If his argument sounds coercive that's because it is, clergy coerced people all the time. Modern Christians just use these sentiments out of context to justify greed.
Click to expand...
The passage clearly states it up to whoever to decide what to give. It even goes as far to say not "under compulsion". Thats why its charity and not government socialism. I know you goofs like to stretch and try to come up with gotchas as to why everyone that isn't far left is evil, but this isn't it.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Thats what you took away from that passage? <36>.

Edit - BTW "willfully giving" sounds nothing like socialism.
Click to expand...
That’s what it’s about.
How’d you make the leap to this proving Jesus wasn’t concerned with social justice?


First Corinthians 9:1–18 describes Paul's case for why he, as an apostle, has the right to ask for financial support from the people he serves, including the Corinthian Christians. Though he could demand, Paul refuses to insist on his right. He doesn't want anything to get in the way of someone hearing the gospel. He must preach the gospel; he has no choice. But Paul wants to be able to boast about offering the gospel free of charge even though he has the right to ask for financial support. This passage establishes that believers have an obligation to support those who serve through ministry. This message is made more valid since Paul is not benefitting from his own argument.

Chapter Summary
Paul encourages Christians to willingly give up their ''rights'' for the good of those who are weak in their faith. Paul shows that he, too, has given up his rights, including the right as an apostle to receive financial support from those he serves. Instead, he boasts that he serves the Corinthians without any compensation, even at great cost to himself. Paul describes himself as an athlete competing for the prize of a crown in eternity. His point is for believers to pursue godliness, and the good of others, with that kind of commitment.
 
emefer said:
That’s what it’s about.
How’d you make the leap to this proving Jesus wasn’t concerned with social justice?
Click to expand...
You can read my other reply and the post I was replying to. The argument devolved into socialism and redistribution.
 
Mr Holmes said:
The passage clearly states it up to whoever to decide what to give. It even goes as far to say not "under compulsion". Thats why its charity and not government socialism. I know you goofs like to stretch and try to come up with gotchas as to why everyone that isn't far left is evil, but this isn't it.
Click to expand...

I like how you goofs always tie the idea of socialism to "Government." Paul is saying the Corinthians MUST give him money, and they must do so freely because of the validity of spreading the gospel. You can flip that around any way you like, it just shows you have no idea what you're talking about and should have never tried this "gotcha."
 
Sinister said:
I like how you goofs always tie the idea of socialism to "Government." Paul is saying the Corinthians MUST give him money, and they must do so freely because of the validity of spreading the gospel. You can flip that around any way you like, it just shows you have no idea what you're talking about and should have never tried this "gotcha."
Click to expand...
Whats the difference between socialism and charity?
 
Sinister said:
Paul isn't asking for charity. He is saying the Corinthians must support him, and feel good about it. He is communicating to them that its their duty as Christians to.
Click to expand...
Corinthians 9:7: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Click to expand...
I'm highlighting the important parts for you that you. You seem to be ignoring these words.
 
Mr Holmes said:
I'm highlighting the important parts for you that you. You seem to be ignoring these words.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring those words, I'm putting them into context. You aren't capable of processing the bigger picture because you want that passage to mean that people can just not give anything if they want to, which wasnt the message at all. Paul was compelling the Corinthians to financially support his ministry by saying that they must do so, and they must freely do so with open hearts, to gain divine favor, just as he was ministering without charging.

It's hilarious that you would keep taking this position considering this is the basis for pretty much every single Church collecting money from their members. They'll tell you you can either give or not give, and then use this kind of double-speak to insinuate that if you dont give, God wont love you.
 
Sinister said:
I'm not ignoring those words, I'm putting them into context.
Click to expand...
No, you're changing the context so you can go on with your ridiculous Jesus was a socialist nonsense.

Sinister said:
Paul was compelling the Corinthians to financially support his ministry by saying that they must do so, and they must freely do so with open hearts, to gain divine favor, just as he was ministering without charging.
Click to expand...
The words from the bible say the opposite. The meaning of that passage is the giving is voluntary. That is exactly what it says in plain english. Nowhere does it say it "must" happen.

Sinister said:
It's hilarious that you would keep taking this position considering this is the basis for pretty much every single Church collecting money from their members. They'll tell you you can either give or not give, and then use this kind of double-speak to insinuate that if you dont give, God wont love you.
Click to expand...
Great, you finally contradicted yourself. Giving money to church is universally known as charity.


I'm starting to think you're a follower of Rev. Nathan Empsall (he/him)
 
Mr Holmes said:
No, you're changing the context so you can go on with your ridiculous Jesus was a socialist nonsense.


The words from the bible say the opposite. The meaning of that passage is the giving is voluntary. That is exactly what it says in plain english. Nowhere does it say it "must" happen.


Great, you finally contradicted yourself. Giving money to church is universally known as charity.


I'm starting to think you're a follower of Rev. Nathan Empsall (he/him)
Click to expand...
Who is that guy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,245
Messages
55,546,342
Members
174,824
Latest member
Rank Wang

Share this page

Back
Top