|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2007-10-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	ribbitt

User	Blue Monk | 2007-10-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	ribbett

User	mae | 2007-10-19 |
Subject	untitled
Message	That is true. mae

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-10-19 |
Subject	untitled
Message	but there was a structure to the group. the apostles appointned the deacons to manage the day to day affiars and the believers came to them when there were issues of doctrine (like did the gentile believers need to be cirsumsised).

User	mae | 2007-10-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	first the Apostles, then the Deacons, then Paul) Paul was not a part of church leadership. He was what we would call now a "church planter." Every church he established had its own pastor, elders and teachers. He, Barnabas, Silas, John Mark and Peter, Phillip and James brought the gospel and established churches in Israel and around the world. The apostles were only ’church leaders’ at the Day of Pentecostand for a short time afterward. After that, they all went their separate ways preaching the gospel. Peter remained in that position longer than the others because he was with the Jews in Jerusalem. But even he found it consumed too much of his preaching time, so he established elders in the Jerusalem church. (Book of the Acts of the Apostles). They all viewed their primary mission to be one of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and establishing the church of Jesus Christ. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2007-10-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	We still have Deacons lurking around just to keep an eye on things.

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-10-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Monk: There was clearly still leadership (first the Apostles, then the Deacons, then Paul) even though the followers had their possessions in common.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-10-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I might add that while the early church very much resembled communism in that everyone shared for the common good, it was understood that it was the KINGDOM of heaven that ruled.

User	Outlaw | 2007-10-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Alright, and you can use this for future reference, when I speak of an ism in question, I speak of it as an idealism. So when I say communism, I mean "true" communism as blue has called it - the one where the people running the state do in fact dissipate, wherein it’s not a socialist thing. Clear?

User	mae | 2007-10-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	As Blue pointed out, there is a difference between true communism and what we all think of as communism - as in the Communist Party. Before I answer your question, will you clarify for me which you are thinking of? That way we can both have the same understanding of the word. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2007-10-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	If I may interject, actually the early Christian Church operated pretty much as a true Communist entity. When I say a "true" one, it filters out much of our negative connotations where people saying "Communist" really mean Socialist (the ownership of everything by the State as opposed to the people), as in the now extinct U.S.S.R. One might also remind oneself what NAZI stood for, since they too were socialists. True Communism if it could ever work might be a paradise/utopia as was experimented with by some Hippie communities in the past. Unfortunately, human greed, self serving interests and the desire for control over their fellow man, control over everything, eventually takes it’s toll on any such "utopian" society, or any attempt at organized religion. The focus on God is easily given over to the quest for power, etc., etc. What is needed is a little more regular smiting of the offenders, but it’s not considered nice to pray for God to smite the bastards now, is it?

User	Outlaw | 2007-10-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Well, let’s try it again. Tell me, one at a time, what I missed. I’ll give it my best shot. mae Instead of rephrasing my ideas I will just ask you a simple question... What’s the difference in your mind between a communism and your religion? - and try to be flexible with understandings, for my sake =).

User	mae | 2007-10-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	OL - then not having liberty could become the liberty of choosing to not have any, which is still freedom (By the way, thanks for the explanation concerning ’self-serving’) You statement above is really not far off the mark, Outlaw. There are no restrictions as such on believers. We are told to love the Lord God with all our heart, soul and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Those are our only direct commands from Christ. The writers of the Bible tell us of a ’better’ way to live, but, for example, we are never told that it is a sin to drink alcoholic beverages; we are never told not to become angry, etc. As it is with everyone, when we love God, we want to follow his ways (If you love me, you will obey my commands) and act in a manner that will please him. And we do want to bind ourselves to him. Early in the old testament, when God is setting down the voluminous Jewish laws, he makes a provision for a slave or servant who has married and has a family. If the master is giving the slave his freedom, the spouse and family are still held as servants. If the servant loves his master and wants to stay with his family, he could request that the master ’pierce his ear’. The master would (according to the Bible), put the servant up against the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl (the lobe, I’m assuming) and this would signify that the servant had voluntarily bound himself to the master for life. This is essentially what believers do when they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Yet, even within this freedom, there is freedom of action. Since we are forgiven and our debt paid by grace, we are not restricted in any way, other than by our own consciences. mae

User	mae | 2007-10-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	On the other hand, not to be rude, you did miss things. I don’t really hold it against you (more myself for not being able to be clear in my presentation, but oh well) but I find it a pity, because I’d love to hear your opinion within the same context of understanding. Well, let’s try it again. Tell me, one at a time, what I missed. I’ll give it my best shot. mae

User	Outlaw | 2007-10-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Let me ask you - if you have eaten a wonderful meal and are fully satisfied, would you be inclined to partake of another meal immediately afterward? I’m not talking about a dessert, I’m saying another meal. If you did, you’d be very uncomfortable, right? With Christ, we are full. It is not being satisfied with ’littleness’ as you put it, to hold to our beliefs. It is being filled with a wonderful meal. Nothing else would be as good. -mae To be frankly honest, today answers that question. I ate three full meals within two hours, basically consecutively. I was full after the first (which was even a four course meal), full after the second meal... and beyond stuffed by the end of the third. Was I uncomfortable? Not in the least (besides maybe a bit of acid reflux). I get what you mean to say though... Mae, by littleness I did not mean to imply something small... merely meant to show the similarity between the ideas. I believe you are right in thinking I have too many ideas floating around in my mind... and I should rectify them one by one... but I can’t help it as much, I only understand things the way I do, and often times with subjects like these, my understanding can and is very confusing. On the other hand, not to be rude, you did miss things. I don’t really hold it against you (more myself for not being able to be clear in my presentation, but oh well) but I find it a pity, because I’d love to hear your opinion within the same context of understanding. Did you even read what I wrote, Outlaw? Belief in Jesus Christ as Lord does not oblige us to any activity. There is perfect freedom in Christ. -Mae Sorry for just pasting your sentences.. it’s hard to keep track of my thoughts will all these different micro-conversations. Yes I did read what you wrote, but in the same sense a belief can be lopsided. If you take suppose that it’s self-serving (and I really don’t mean that in a bad sense.... I apologize about your feeling insulted. I realize that it may have a negative connotation, but I mean it more in a.. self-answering, perfect cycle type of sense) then not having liberty could become the liberty of choosing to not have any, which is still freedom (not either saying that this is the specific case, just an example to have you possible understand what I mean.) BlueMonk... I look for you to correct me. Great deal of motivation is gained when curiosity is reached, and these are little bulbs. But then I must ask.. What does Jesus have to say about LOVE? Is there a difference between that held for your wife and your neighbour’s wife? And if there isn’t, doesn’t that difference have a significance? I just can’t swallow that the preacher of love would innovate a religion implementing the belief that no love matters beyond his. Like I said, it seems (in my mind) to go against itself.

User	Ronswords | 2007-10-08 |
Subject	Hi
Message	Mae That is a very tue statement Though The Lord was always with me throughout life I was toodarn selfish to invite him into my Heart and let His Love guide me I will say though since that day almost 2 and a half years ago All doors have opened up for me and I am finally at Peace with my Life My writings are a direct resukt of His Love carrying me forward He gave me the words to put forth to Help Others understand just how beautiful life can be with His Love in your life Not a day goes by that I dont Thank Himfor continually blessing this world throughout time God Bless Ron

User	Blue Monk | 2007-10-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Many of us did not come to Christ until we were adults. - Mae Actually, of all the Christians I have met, those with the very strongest faith and most appreciation of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit are the ones who came to the Lord relatively late in their lives. It’s almost as if it was something, the most important of somethings, that they had been missing all of their lives until now - The dawning of a new life.

User	Jeniffer | 2007-10-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Yeah, that’s true too. We don’t want to lose what we have here on earth, which is everything we have ever known. Whatever lies beyond is so foreign that we don’t know what to expect and it boggles the mind. Change is completely inevitable; I think it’s what kind of change that determines if people embrace it or shrink from it. If we see death as a negative change, then of course it is frightening. But if we see death as a positive transition, that can change the whole outlook on life. The apostle Paul’s attitude was that he saw living on earth as a burden; he would much rather be in heaven, but was staying behind to bring the gospel to rest of us.

User	mae | 2007-10-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Outlaw, that was an awful lot of words to say...what, exactly? I didn’t answer your question before because I wasn’t sure I understood it - and, to be perfectly honest, I didn’t much like being referred to as self-serving. How not to get your question answered: insult the person you’re asking. Anyway, I THINK I get what you’re asking. Sometimes, it seems, my dear, that you need to limit your thinking to one thought at a time. Your questions get very confusing. First of all, you need to clarify in your own mind who you think God is and what he does. You compare his creation to genetic engineering. Now, either you believe God actually created the world and mankind or you think he didn’t. If you think he did, how can you call it genetic engineering. He CREATED genetics. If you think he didn’t, then why even bring it up? God created the process of reproduction and genetics. He doesn’t ’engineer’ it. Now, your other point, if I understand it correctly: that all believers want the same thing and because of that "religion" is similar to communism. Outlaw, I am a believer in Jesus Christ, as I think, Blue Monk is and Jennifer is. I can guarantee you that we do not all want the same thing, with the exception of eternity spent in the presence of God. If, when I said that your wants begin to align with God’s wants, you assumed I meant we all want the same thing, you are incorrect. Our belief in God and Jesus Christ in no way robs us of our individuality, which communism does. Nor does God want it to. He has created each of us with a personality, unique fingerprints and tastebuds, and a separate and distinct future. Our thoughts are our own; our desires are our own; the combinations of our likes and dislikes are unique to each of us; and so are our wants. OL - God could be scaling it all.. to make the believers happy in their own. God does not promise anyone happiness. He does promise joy as a direct result of believing in Christ. Joy and happiness are not the same thing. Happiness is dependent on external circumstances while joy is internal. That’s why believers can be sad when a loved one dies, but joyful at the same time if that loved one was also a believer. They are sad to lose that person here on earth, but glad that they have entered into the presence of God Almighty. As Blue Monk suggested, Outlaw, you need to actually study these questions (he was suggesting on marriage; I’m suggesting on all these questions) rather than relying on the erroneous statements made by inexperienced people on these boards. (By ’inexperienced’, I mean people who do not have direct experience as a believer.) OL - They are bred to only know what they have... and in that sense one could believe that they are greatful to have what littleness they do have.. because they don’t know any better. Is it my understanding that religion, especially as you just defined it Mae.. Does just that. Obliges prefunctory things like prayer, and given beliefs so that... You grow the believe you don’t need anything besides what littleness you are given Did you even read what I wrote, Outlaw? Belief in Jesus Christ as Lord does not oblige us to any activity. There is perfect freedom in Christ. Let me ask you - if you have eaten a wonderful meal and are fully satisfied, would you be inclined to partake of another meal immediately afterward? I’m not talking about a dessert, I’m saying another meal. If you did, you’d be very uncomfortable, right? With Christ, we are full. It is not being satisfied with ’littleness’ as you put it, to hold to our beliefs. It is being filled with a wonderful meal. Nothing else would be as good. No one is born a believer, so why do you think we "don’t know any better"? Many of us did not come to Christ until we were adults. We know very well what it is like to not believe. Now, did I miss anything? mae

User	Blue Monk | 2007-10-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Doesn’t it go against itself to say it is holy and eternal and then to later on make it worth nothing? Because only Jesus’ or the Lord’s love will matter? - Outlaw | 2007-10-06 | Marriage is not eternal, Christian marriage vows usually specify "til death do us part". OL, Perhaps if you understood more of the actual teachings of Jesus aside from making blind suppositions you would know what He said about the status of marriage in Heaven. Mat 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Mat 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Mat 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. Mat 22:27 And last of all the woman died also. Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. As far as we can determine, the relationships promised in heaven far surpass anything resembling any mortal marriage, and such is in fact eternal.