Salaried church officials and your donations

Originally posted by twhitehead
But why pick on the priest? Surely the whole congregation and then some were Christians too? Was your brother a Christian?
Why does your brothers 'point' only apply to Christians? As a human being, why should you live in a huge house all by yourself when lots of families in town are living in small sheltered accommodation? (Here in Cape town, there are h ...[text shortened]... richer than their neighbors? Do priests have a special obligation to be exemplary Christians?

He was an alcoholic going through bouts of mania and alcohol induced pyschosis, rational thoughts didn't go through his head.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Technically speaking, all believers are the church, but I hardly think that was your drift.

No, what I am saying is that I am not beholden to any denomination, as I find no support for the same biblically. While I will not darken the door of certain denomination buildings for any type of worship, there remain a few wherein worship can take place, albei o gain the approbation of the designated deity.

If that's defensive in your book, so be it.

oh yes i forgot, you're an all faith and no works makes jack a saved boy, how terribly convenient for you, ironic really considering your evaluation of those who may just be doing something to help others out of some type of self sacrificing motive, i mean, how unchristian of them to do so, there naturally must be no correlation whatsoever between giving and happiness, what an earth was Jesus trying to assert?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh yes i forgot, you're an all faith and no works makes jack a saved boy, how terribly convenient for you, ironic really considering your evaluation of those who may just be doing something to help others out of some type of self sacrificing motive, i mean, how unchristian of them to do so, there naturally must be no correlation whatsoever between giving and happiness, what an earth was Jesus trying to assert?

oh yes i forgot, you're an all faith and no works makes jack a saved boy, how terribly convenient for you...
Apparently you missed the memo:

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.""

It is highly inconvenient to have to change my way of thinking to His. Everything within the natural man compels him to work for those things he wishes to have. It is not merely counter-intuitive, it is a complete and utter relinquishment of one's state of mind. It is purposeful and demanding of constant vigilance.

ironic really considering your evaluation of those who may just be doing something to help others out of some type of self sacrificing motive
The only evaluation occurring was relative to their motivation, certainly not an evaluation or judgment of the quality of their work. In as much as you are willing to confer upon them such noble aims, surely you must consider my work here on equal footing? Get back to me on that, will you?

i mean, how unchristian of them to do so, there naturally must be no correlation whatsoever between giving and happiness, what an earth was Jesus trying to assert?
Your measuring rod needs some truing up, it would appear. We are to live like He lived, i.e., in complete reliance on the Father, not ourselves--- He never told us that our assignments were the same as His. Confusing the two leads to all kinds of problems, the most grave of which includes self-justification based upon some arbitrary schedule of works.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]oh yes i forgot, you're an all faith and no works makes jack a saved boy, how terribly convenient for you...
Apparently you missed the memo:

[quote]"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it grave of which includes self-justification based upon some arbitrary schedule of works.[/b]

sorry to remind you, but ummm, you have been put to the sword by finer adversaries than me more than once for these ill conceived statements, its rather tiresome to say they least, to have to do so again!

Originally posted by twhitehead
But why pick on the priest?...

Because that's the official representative of that church.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
During my brothers drinking days, he once knocked on the towns vicars front door. The vicar lives in a massive house all on his own next to the church (which is the counties largest). And asked him if he thought it was acceptable as a Christian that he should live in this huge house all by himself when lots of families in town were living in small shelte ...[text shortened]... int he threw up on the doorstep.

Apart from being very drunk, i think my brother had a point.

traditionally ever since the clergy laity distinction arose, the clergy have generally lived in rather ostentatious abodes. This is true of pre Christian cultures also. Who can deny that churches and cathedrals are fairly lavish in comparison to many parishioners homes. You should try talking to them about the bible on their doorstep, they do not like it one bit!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry to remind you, but ummm, you have been put to the sword by finer adversaries than me more than once for these ill conceived statements, its rather tiresome to say they least, to have to do so again!

Do tell.

I didn't realize we were adversaries; I always considered you a well-meaning but ultimately confused seeker with a near-to-perfect superficial grasp of the Bible's basic themes. I guess, in a sense, that puts us at odds in varying degrees, but none that would warrant fist-to-cuffs, or anything else that remotely resembles an even exchange.

If someone herein (or anywhere else, for that matter) has been able to dispatch with Paul's doctrines from God, I must have completely missed the lesson(s). As of this point, I am still under the persuasion that the words which were written by Paul as evidenced amidst the various 27 books of the New Testament--- and as further supported by the 39 books of the Old Testament--- are considered Scripture, the God-breathed words of doctrine by which believers live their spiritual lives.

Of course, since the close of the canon of Scripture, there have been more than a few crackpots who have come insisting that the canon is not yet complete, is in error, or is somehow misconstrued from its traditional intentions. You know, folks like Chuck Russell and his ilk. Invariably, such miscreants (probably much like you: self-convinced of their well intentions) wish at first to simply adjust the truth a scosch, then eventually correct the truth in places, until they finally replace the same with something other.

Much like you're insisting here. Paul clearly tells us that the just shall live by faith, that our salvation is wrought--- just as the Lord Jesus Christ said on multiple occasions--- through faith, not through our work. In your world, this just ain't so. There's no way God could mean to have us not work, right?

Wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do tell.

I didn't realize we were adversaries; I always considered you a well-meaning but ultimately confused seeker with a near-to-perfect superficial grasp of the Bible's basic themes. I guess, in a sense, that puts us at odds in varying degrees, but none that would warrant fist-to-cuffs, or anything else that remotely resembles an even exchange.

st ain't so. There's no way God could mean to have us not work, right?

Wrong.

someone else can argue with you, i am and too happy to be bothered.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He was an alcoholic going through bouts of mania and alcohol induced pyschosis, rational thoughts didn't go through his head.

Yet you felt he had a point. What is your excuse?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
someone else can argue with you, i am and too happy to be bothered.

Ah, gee...

Yes i have met many persons like that, always interesting if not a little defensive.

Originally posted by Badwater
Because that's the official representative of that church.

Thats a good point. However, I am not quite convinced that a representative of any organisation needs to act out the stated aims of the organization to a greater extent than the members.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
..And asked him if he thought it was acceptable as a Christian that he should live in this huge house all by himself when lots of families in town were living in small sheltered accomodation ie. my brothers.

Apart from being very drunk, i think my brother had a point.

nice one 😉 "in vino veritas..."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ah, gee...

Yes i have met many persons like that, always interesting if not a little defensive.

sigh,

(James 1:25) But he who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and who persists in it, this man, because he has become, not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, will be happy in his doing it.

(Matthew 7:21) . . .“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.

sigh, i transcend the forum with my happiness.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh,

(James 1:25) But he who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and who persists in it, this man, because he has become, not a forgetful hearer, but [b]a doer of the work, will be happy in his doing it.

(Matthew 7:21) . . .“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the ...[text shortened]... will of my Father who is in the heavens will.

sigh, i transcend the forum with my happiness.[/b]

... and murky it up with your gross interpretations of the Word.

Carry on, my wayward son.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you felt he had a point. What is your excuse?

Excuse for what? You've lost me.

Theists constantly remind us that they get their morals from the Bible, the revealed/inspired word of God. A vicar/priest or whichever title you wish to use, live their lives by the word of God. I think you would agree with me that such members of the clergy therefore should be setting an example to the rest of us? Seeing how they live their life by Gods word.

At a point in history where we are being told to live more within our means, economize, be more frugal, etc etc. It doesn't really portray a good image of the church when the vicar lives in quite possibly the largest house in the town. Granted as Conrau pointed out the house serves other purposes. But we're talking about a substantial property that only two people live in, it easily looks like it could have 5 bedrooms.

Incidentally where my brother now lives, which is a small village out of town, the rectory is the largest house in the village also.