Religious instruction without payment.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I have to question the whole concept of having a building. Is it necessary for teaching or learning?

Where would they have AA meetings?

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Where would they have AA meetings?

LOL! 😀

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps you miss the point. The teacher of a religion with compassion as one of its basic tenets should freely and gladly share his knowledge with others in order to help them. The quality of such knowledge is immaterial under such a scenario. Perhaps charging to share such knowledge is an indicator that the quality is not very high.

If you think the quality of such knowledge is immaterial, I invite you to turn to Bennie Hinn. But, as one astute pastor once said, he will not be there to visit you when you are sick, marry your children, or perform funerals when family members die. Enjoy.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Thus far, any "points" by you have been through the words of Paul. Why would anyone place the words of Paul over the words of Jesus?-----------ToO------------


.

....that's just plain inaccurate. I have spent many posts quoting
" When he the comforter comes he will guide you into all truth" and making points around this. You have not responded at all to it. St Paul did not say these words. Someone else did.

C'mon, this post was addressed to josephw.

Are you capable of making an honest post?

Originally posted by pawnhandler
I always taught religion (outside of school) for free, as did all the other volunteers. Any fees the students paid were for supplies.

Bravo. 🙂

At least I think so. I'm not sure what your parenthetical phrase means.

Originally posted by twhitehead
First of all we must not confuse a typical Church set up with 'religious instruction'.
Secondly, I am not sure that spreading the gospel (what Jesus was talking about in the movie) is religious instruction either.
A Church's primary purpose is to provide a place for people to get together for worship. The cost of building and maintaining the Church is t ...[text shortened]... etc.
Of course there are some Churches which are little more than money making enterprises.

I'm not sure how to respond to this or even if you wanted one. I sense that perhaps you didn't understand my original post.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Where would they have AA meetings?

Good one.

Originally posted by kirksey957
If you think the quality of such knowledge is immaterial, I invite you to turn to Bennie Hinn. But, as one astute pastor once said, he will not be there to visit you when you are sick, marry your children, or perform funerals when family members die. Enjoy.

I was thinking that you'd understand my meaning within context, but evidently I need to be more explicit. The quality is immaterial with respect to "payment" since there wouldn't be any charge.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon, this post was addressed to josephw.

Are you capable of making an honest post?

However, I was clearly mentioned and compared to Josephw. So maybe as a technicality your point about St Paul was applicable to Josephw and not me , but that's a side issue. Even taking that into account it still begs the question of why you don't respond when I quote the words of Jesus instead of Paul?

If my experience is anything to go by Josephw could start quoting Jesus's words and you would still be unlikely to engage or respond in an adult manner.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
My position of is simple. Jesus taught salvation through righteousness as evidenced by the following:
"Depart from me, you who work iniquity."

"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave ...[text shortened]... nstead you and KM have to resort to lies, half-truths, distortions, name calling, etc.

There is no debate because these words are explicit and clear. I imagine that if you or KM could refute these words with the words of Jesus, you would.----ToO------------------



But I for one am trying to refute this position using the words and teachings of Jesus and you just don't respond. My starting point for this refutation is simply this. Jesus said and taught and did a lot more than you quote him as saying and doing. It's this first stumbling block that you simply refuse to engage with.

The refutation begins very simply with a recognition that your position rests on selectiveness. What percentage of Jesus's teachings are you actually representing here? 5% say?

The problem is that your version of the NT and Jesus's teachings appears to have only one page in it. Unless you are prepared to explore the full range of what he said and did then you cannot claim to represent his teachings congruently and no-one can penetrate such a position.
I can't put it any more logically than that. If you don't understand this basic point then you are lost because even a valid refutation would stand no chance against such a mindset. It's basically a game you have set up where only you can win.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There is no debate because these words are explicit and clear. I imagine that if you or KM could refute these words with the words of Jesus, you would.----ToO------------------



But I for one am trying to refute this position using the words and teachings of Jesus and you just don't respond. My starting point for this refutation is simply this. J ...[text shortened]... nce against such a mindset. It's basically a game you have set up where only you can win.

Please leave this thread if you have nothing to post on this topic.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Bravo. 🙂

At least I think so. I'm not sure what your parenthetical phrase means.

The parenthetical phrase means I also taught at Catholic schools during the day. But I taught religion nights and weekends (depending on where I lived) for free, to both children and adults.

But FWIW, although Jesus didn't get a weekly paycheck, someone was providing him with food at least. He wasn't making cabinets during the week and then preaching for free on the sabbath, as far as I know.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In the film "King of Kings" with Jeffry Hunter as Jesus, there's a scene where Jesus instructs His disciples to go teach others what He has taught them. One of the disciples asks what they should charge. Jesus simply says, "You have received without payment, give without payment.".

Should religious instruction be "without payment" like the air we breath?

One key here is that the disciples received without payment. That is not the case of educated preachers. If someone starts a congregation after just picking up a Bible and reading it, then so be it. He can work full time and preach for free on his sabbath.

But most preachers within Christianity have taken numerous theology and history and language courses and have degrees. They paid for an expensive education to not just read a book that everyone else can just as easily read for him- or herself, but to be able to explain its historical context, cultural significance, etc. They have received at great expense, and so if the quote is valid, they are therefore not expected to give without payment.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
One key here is that the disciples received without payment. That is not the case of educated preachers. If someone starts a congregation after just picking up a Bible and reading it, then so be it. He can work full time and preach for free on his sabbath.

But most preachers within Christianity have taken numerous theology and history and languag ...[text shortened]... expense, and so if the quote is valid, they are therefore not expected to give without payment.

Of course this begs the question, "Should have they received without payment?".

Also the question of the value of "theology and history and language" courses.

"Religion" is big business. Should it be? It just doesn't seem right to me that it is.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Of course this begs the question, "Should have they received without payment?".

Also the question of the value of "theology and history and language" courses.

"Religion" is big business. Should it be? It just doesn't seem right to me that it is.

Suppose you take away the history and language courses. You have Bibles translated into a bunch of languages; how do you know what's right? What was originally intended or written? For example, without education "suffer the children" is nowhere near the same meaning as "allow the children" -- because in modern US English those are two totally different concepts. Without scripture study, ignorance prevents people from understanding and appreciating the different forms of writing within the Bible. It isn't an encyclopedia of expository writing. There are forms of writing within it that are literature and not intended to be taken as literal historical accounts. There is beautiful poetry that isn't simply whining and complaints or brown-nosing praise.




Sorry, I'm still in a lot of pain from my abcessed tooth. I'll explain this better like tomorrow or when the pain goes away.