Devils are "right with God?"

[Aaron112]

I'm realizing that the truth is, you can;'t depend on the Bible. There are so many interpretations of the book, that is why there have come to be so many different denominations of Christianity. If you look at the history, you'll find that most denominations started because of some kind of disagreement over doctrine that resulted in a denomination splitting and a new denomination being formed with different religious dogma, it's just ridiculous.

You have noted there are errors, mistakes, and even worse in religion (and science).
You missed the point that as the Bible Says, God HImself Says, man is not dependable - the errors are from men and from demons.

God's Word remains unshakeable, unchangeable, always truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm realizing that the truth is, you can;'t depend on the Bible. There are so many interpretations of the book, that is why there have come to be so many different denominations of Christianity. If you look at the history, you'll find that most denominations started because of some kind of disagreement over doctrine that resulted in a denomination splitting and a new denomination being formed with different religious dogma, it's just ridiculous.

I was debating some religious things with a guy on another forum, then he wrote words to the effect of,' "you can't go by a literal interpretation of the Bible, because it was written by man, not by God, so it's not perfect, so you have to apply some interpretation to it." I'm reading that, about to pop my top because that is the most ridiculous, dog chasing its tail, circular logic argument I've ever heard. That's because, if what he said is true, then whoever else interprets it and applies that interpretation to it, IS ALSO A MAN (or woman), and therefore their interpretation is just as fallible as the "interpretation" of the original authors who wrote it. So, if you apply his logic, you're still no better off than when you started, LOL. You're still relying on an "interpretation" of a man, a man who was not even there when the events in the Bible allegedly took place, and never had the honor of talking directly to Jesus or an apostle, about it. Just a man 2000 years after the fact, trying to divine the meaning of something based on a shoddy interpretation that isn't correct somehow and needs to be re-interpreted. That's the ridiculous, circular logic place, you arrive at, if you follow that illogical thought process that the Bible needs to be re-interpreted by people who weren't' even there.

All the debate and discussion I've been having about it has really made me appreciate the scientific method for discerning the truth a lot more. In the scientific method, the results have to be repeatable, so no matter who conducts the experiment, no matter when, if it was 5000 years in the past or today, or even in the future, if the same things was or is done the results will be exactly the same, for everyone, no matter when, where, or by whom. AND if the person(s) conducting the trial are somehow influencing the results, then the results are considered counterfeit, and invalid, not a truth.

It sounds to me like you're educated already in the fields of logic and science. That's always a good start. Just keep in mind, though, that there are churches here and there that are independent and fit the description of "cult" more than they do "Christian." Of course, with the applications of logic you already have, I'm sure you'll discern the fake from the real as you go along and test everything.

 

[anetazo]

The bible is the source of truth. Ephesians chapter 2:20 . And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus christ himself being the chief corner stone.

The bible is bible prophecy. Its wisdom and knowledge of Gods word. How to relationship with God. Christian people must learn God's promises.

The bible warns us satan as antichrist will come 6th trump to Jerusalem.
Ephesians chapter 6 tells Christian people to have on gospel armour.

Lot of Christian people today are biblically illiterate. They will worship antichrist near future. Revelation chapter 13 to document.

Second thessalonians chapter 2 . God is putting strong delusions on those who love not the truth. They will worship antichrist.

Rejecting the bible is one way to worship antichrist near future.

Listening to misguided preachers is another way to worship antichrist near future.

I already documented that ephesians chapter 6 is wisdom and knowledge of Gods word. The gospel armour is only way past antichrist.

And the correct bible, is the king James companion bible. Its from the original king James of 1611.

You should have STRONGS concordance. To go back to the Hebrew and Greek. Get the picture.

Titus chapter 3 . Its unprofitable to debate or strive about God's laws. Find pastor to study with. Increase in knowledge of Gods word. After 15/20 years of studying under pastor, a student should be teachers of God's word.
Get the picture.

 

[anetazo]

I'm realizing that the truth is, you can;'t depend on the Bible. There are so many interpretations of the book, that is why there have come to be so many different denominations of Christianity. If you look at the history, you'll find that most denominations started because of some kind of disagreement over doctrine that resulted in a denomination splitting and a new denomination being formed with different religious dogma, it's just ridiculous.

I was debating some religious things with a guy on another forum, then he wrote words to the effect of,' "you can't go by a literal interpretation of the Bible, because it was written by man, not by God, so it's not perfect, so you have to apply some interpretation to it." I'm reading that, about to pop my top because that is the most ridiculous, dog chasing its tail, circular logic argument I've ever heard. That's because, if what he said is true, then whoever else interprets it and applies that interpretation to it, IS ALSO A MAN (or woman), and therefore their interpretation is just as fallible as the "interpretation" of the original authors who wrote it. So, if you apply his logic, you're still no better off than when you started, LOL. You're still relying on an "interpretation" of a man, a man who was not even there when the events in the Bible allegedly took place, and never had the honor of talking directly to Jesus or an apostle, about it. Just a man 2000 years after the fact, trying to divine the meaning of something based on a shoddy interpretation that isn't correct somehow and needs to be re-interpreted. That's the ridiculous, circular logic place, you arrive at, if you follow that illogical thought process that the Bible needs to be re-interpreted by people who weren't' even there.

All the debate and discussion I've been having about it has really made me appreciate the scientific method for discerning the truth a lot more. In the scientific method, the results have to be repeatable, so no matter who conducts the experiment, no matter when, if it was 5000 years in the past or today, or even in the future, if the same things was or is done the results will be exactly the same, for everyone, no matter when, where, or by whom. AND if the person(s) conducting the trial are somehow influencing the results, then the results are considered counterfeit, and invalid, not a truth.

You need STRONGS concordance, and king James companion bible. To go back to the Hebrew and Greek.

In hosea chapter 7:4 . You must have proper tools to see through a mistranslation. The word Baker in hosea 7:4 is Anger.

The Hebrew translates it to the English.
This verse is talking about politicians whose anger burns. Some politicians are greedy and immoral.
Senator Menendez is under indictment for bribery. Get the picture.

The king James companion bible is from the original king James 1611 version.

Titus chapter 3 . Tells Christian people not to debate and strive about God's laws, its unprofitable.

King James companion bible and STRONGS concordance are the correct tools.

Ephesians chapter 2:20 . And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus christ himself being the chief corner stone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First of all I NEVER use the King James version of the Bible, because:

1) the KJV is NOT even close to being the most accurate translation of the Bible out there, and
2) It is written in obsolete Old English, which makes some parts of it more difficult to understand.
3) Over the years, I've noticed that the type of preachers who try to twist the Bible into saying things it really doesn't say by preaching a false gospel seem to always LOVE the King James version. That's because that Old English of the KJV makes it harder for the layman to grasp the true meaning of some verses, that makes it easier for unscrupulous preachers to twist the meaning of the Bible.

So the fact that you come in here recommending the bad translation of the Bible that the King James version is, has me suspicious of about you too.

Now if you want to go back and try to do things by the Old Covenant Law you're in trouble with God, because then you have to follow ALL of the laws, ALL 613 laws. I bet you don't even know what all 613 of the Old Covenant laws are. So how can you follow all of them?

Look, the Old Testament is a heinous, evil, grotesque book, where God condones, the RAPE of underage women, horrible animal cruelty for God's pleasure, slavery, kidnapping, and forced gruesome ABORTIONS on women, without their consent. Yes, in the Old Testament, God condones abortions. The horrible immorality sanctioned by God in the Old Testament is just hideous, immoral, and appalling. I know you people don't like to talk about it, because it's indefensible, that's why. That book is EVIL and IMMORAL and contains hideous, evil, heinous things. Don't come at me with ANYTHING out of that EVIL, DISGUSTING, IMMORAL BOOK. If it's something that Jesus said, then maybe we can talk, but don't come at me with any nonsense out of that EVIL, IMMORAL< DISGUSTING OLD TESTAMENT.

The Old Testament is a hideous, EVIL, immoral book, so don't you dare come at me with your fake morality while reading to me from that evil, immoral book.

Now, you're just resorting to polemics and threatening to "leave" after unilaterally spamming. That's not usually the rational, academic, more scholarly way of offering criticism of those, or of those ideas (like those in the Old Testament) that you think are wrong or bad.

I think you can do better than this, especially if you're an honest and emotionally intelligent person. A better, more rational person would probably study the nature and history of Human Rights and of Human Ethics more generally, FIRST, before coming onto a public forum and asserting that the bible is all balderdash ................................................. Of course, that is what I'd do.

Please, Jane, can you show us that you're here to do more than just imitate John Henry?

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm new to Christianity,

Welcome to the family.

Anyway, the guy that runs that place, one bishop Jordan, is a real arrogant guy with a really despicable attitude, was preaching all kinds of stuff that actually CONTRADICTS what Jesus himself said in the Bible. Basically, he was making up his own gospel, because most of what he said isn't even in the gospels nor actually supported by the gospels. For example:

!) According to the gospel of bishop Jordan, God doesn't care if you're a good person, all God cares about when deciding if He is going to bless you is how much money you give to a church, and it better be at ;east 10%. According to him, that is all God cares about. He doesn't even talk about sin in his church, because he says all God cares about is how much money, tithes and offerings, you give to church.

Tithing isn't even a NT practice - Jesus did not teach it.
The early church shared their resources, they didn't tithe them.

According to him, it does not matter if you're a good person, if you want to "get right with God" you just have to give 10% to church, and then you'll be "right with God" and God will also make you rich.

A) is that correct theology?

No.

Reading what Jesus said, that theology seem to be a direct contradiction of Jesus.

It is.

B) Is that what most Christian churches are like today, just making up their own theology, more concerned with following
what the preacher says, even over and above what Jesus himself said? Is that really what Christianity has devolved into?

I hope not.

2) Here is another gem this guy bernard jordan was preaching out of his church: That Christians should do mean, immoral things to people who don't tithe to a church. Is that what Christian ministers are teaching their congregations in church?

No - at least, I hope not.
Some churches DO teach that we have to tithe. But if you study the subject from Scripture;
a) as I said, it's not NT teaching.
b) in the OT the tithe was always food - 10% of a person's crops. They took this to the temple and ate it - giving thanks to God for his goodness.
The only time that money was involved was if 10% of their crops was too much to carry all the way to the temple. Then they could sell it, take the money to the temple, buy food and sit down to eat their meal - not forgetting to include priests, (who had no allotments) and the poor.
NO ONE teaches tithing like that. Those who do teach it say it's all about giving money to the church.

I tell you what, even coming from being an agnostic I have a lot of empathy for the poor, and wanted to do as much as
I could to assist poor people, but hearing that kind of vile, and frankly irresponsible, and reprehensible, rhetoric coming from the pulpit makes me feel like I should never give a penny to a church again, because I don't want to support that
kind of immoral behavior.

Good. God has a heart for the poor too.
Stay away from that kind of behaviour.

3) That guy jordan literally preaches that all you have to do "to be right with God: is tithe money to church, then he'll try to
verbally twist your arm to tithe to HIS church. I seem to remember that the Pharisees in the Bible tithed 10% and also loved to brag and boast about their tithing, and do it in public to be seen, etc. Bishop Jordan and his followers at
his church would be taking phone calls during church, and when someone called with a big donation all the ministers
would start hooting and hollering, and shouting hallelujah real loud, making a big scene out of it, and suddenly shouting nonsense syllables, (speaking in tongues?)

I'd ignore this guy and his weird teaching. It's not Scriptural, it sounds like the prosperity Gospel.
And it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

Again, what they are doing and preaching in that church completely CONTRADICTS what Jesus taught.

Yes, it does.
And the majority of churches and Christians are not like that.

As a good, loving, moral person coming from being an agnostic and actually trying to give Christianity a chance,

It would be better to give Jesus a chance rather than Christianity.
No church and no Christian is perfect.

As a pertinent interesting note,"Rev Run" Simmons and his brother, Russel, are both involved in that church, but I heard Rev Run say himself that he was already rich from being a rapper long BEFORE he found and joined that church.

If you seriously want to look into Christianity, there are hundreds of better teachings, sermons and examples you could check out.
Like the teachings of Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, John Stott, Tom Wright. Find a church that feels right for you and ask the Minister/Pastor what books you can read.
Check out the biographies, and examples, of St Francis of Assisi, George Mueller (who built orphanages), Mother Teresa, William Shaftesbury and others who all did outstanding work for, and with, the poor. There are also many Christian testimonies available - ordinary Christians who trust God daily, live by faith and serve him. Some see great miracles; some see God in everything and count their many blessings. Some achieve great things and can boast of high qualifications etc - others of us just serve God faithfully in whatever he gives us to do (Colossians 3:17) and with the gifts that he gives us.

There is no need to emulate any of this guy's teaching.

 

[Strong in Him]

Huh? What does that mean?

I'm coming from an agnostic background checking out the Christian stuff to see if it's good and this is the kind of absolutely not helpful advice I get from you people? Those statements you made are saying a whole bunch of words that have no meaning, or the meaning is so nebulous that it could be interpreted many different ways. This seems to be the kind of inane claptrap I get from you people claiming to believe in Jesus.

Hold on a moment!
While I appreciate that verses from the Bible may not be clear to everyone, and it's not a good idea to go around quoting them without explanation - that verse was a quote from the Gospel of John, and it was quoted with the intention of helping.
Ask them to explain by all means - but don't call it "claptrap" and accuse people of "claiming" to believe in Jesus.

If you want to know; God is often portrayed in the Bible as a shepherd - think Psalm 23 "The Lord is my shepherd". Jesus told us that he is the Good Shepherd. Shepherds care for their sheep - they feed them, keep them healthy, protect them and care for them if they are injured. In those days, sheep were valuable - part of a person's income, and if a sheep was lost, the shepherd would go to look for it, rescuing it from a wolf, if necessary.
Shepherds then were not like today - a shepherd walked in front of his flock, leading it. All sheep recognised their shepherd's voice and followed only them. They also all had names.

Jesus, our Good Shepherd, who is also God, knows us all by name. If we belong to him and are close enough to him we will recognise his voice - and his teachings. Meaning that if you know Jesus, you will come to recognise which teachings/doctrines are from him.

I came to see if Christianity was legit, but I'm beginning to think my parents were right by not giving you people any respect.

Why do you say that?

The stuff I witnessed coming out of a church and wrote here is nothing short of despicable, immoral behavior.

Yes, it is.
But don't assume that EVERY church is like that, that EVERY Christian only cares about money and is guilty also of such behaviour.

What about that is supposed to make me want to continue going to any Christina church, so that I can be indoctrinated with immorality?

Nothing. But you seem to be assuming that all churches behave like that.

MY parents were agnostic, but they donated a commendable;e amount of their time to charities that raised money for underprivileged people, but not through any church, through completely secular. NON PROFIT charities.

Great!
You do realise though that it's not living a good life, giving to charity etc that makes someone right in God's eyes, but whether or not they accept his Son, Jesus?
A humanist, atheist, Muslim, JW etc can live good lives, give to the poor and work for charity. It doesn't make them Christians; people who follow, and belong to, the Good Shepherd.

Then I go to a church and the preacher says in church to his congregation that he would not be a minister if he could not get rich from doing it.

I'd leave that church and find a Biblical one.

Then he preaches, in church, that it's okay to do evil things if it's for the purpose of getting money. WHAT??????

Precisely.
You've got it; it's unbiblical nonsense.

You all do realize, don't you, that the whole tsar Wars sags was actually about religion? It has some good things in the book, but it can also cause people to get brainwashed / mind controlled into doing evil things, things that aren't good while somehow believing they are doing good. That's really what it is about.

Star Wars is not the Bible.
No harm in watching it, if you're into that, but it's not God's word.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Old Testament is a hideous, EVIL, immoral book, so don't you dare come at me with your fake morality while reading to me from that evil, immoral book.

No, the Old Testament reflects the practices and thinking of the time.
People thought nothing of killing others in war. Some people in the OT worshipped gods who demanded that babies be offered as sacrifices - they also had temple prostitutes who offered "love" to all. Unfortunately, many of God's people - the Israelites - were lured away from their God and into this false, corrupt religion.
Some OT passages are difficult to understand. But a) that's why we need good commentaries and b) we don't don't live in OT times and are not under the Mosaic law (although some Christians debate that point).
The OT prophesied about Jesus' coming, ministry, death and resurrection. The OT was the only Scripture that Jesus had, he referred to, and quoted from, it and taught how he fulfilled the prophecies. Because Israel broke God's covenant so often, he made a new one - which has been brought in and sealed by Jesus.

Follow him - learn his teachings and believe in him. THEN get some good commentaries and study the OT.
But don't read a passage about people being killed/robbed/raped, assume that Christianity/God is like that and give up on it.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm realizing that the truth is, you can;'t depend on the Bible. There are so many interpretations of the book, that is why there have come to be so many different denominations of Christianity. If you look at the history, you'll find that most denominations started because of some kind of disagreement over doctrine that resulted in a denomination splitting and a new denomination being formed with different religious dogma, it's just ridiculous.

You missed out the big picture. Humans overall lack the ability to convey history, let alone a whole theology God would like to convey. That's why Noah's flood becomes the myths in different cultures. This simply means, ancient humans will inevitably turn a history into a myth.

That's why God trained up the Jews in a harsh way, that they have the loyalty and dedication to convey the Jewish laws in both the written and oral forms. However, they failed to reckon Jesus for the NT to convey in a human-facing manner. That's why God has to use Christianity instead of Judasim to preach the gospel to all nations. They are not trained the same as the Jews, in terms of preserving the original Bible. God doesn't use that way to maintain the accuracy of the NT Bible. Translatons of the NT Bible are mostly theologically identifical disregarding the differences in context. It is crafted in a way that, different groups of Christians are led by the Holy Spirit to form a translation based on the mass of manuscripts left behind though the earliest can only be traced back to the 4th century or so (due to humans' lack of ability to keep originals).

 

[Hawkins]

1) the KJV is NOT even close to being the most accurate translation of the Bible out there, and

No. KJV represents the maximum effort with maximum resources from Christians back to 17th century. We can't argue on whether Christians in 17th century has more available valid manuscripts to be based on, or we have more valid manuscripts today.

 

[trophy33]

No. KJV represents the maximum effort with maximum resources from Christians back to 17th century.

... in England. Not worldwide. England was nothing like Rome or continental Europe. The isolated, far away, foggy island of England did the best they could, but its no maximum of Christendom of those times.

 

[Hawkins]

The problem is that the Old Testament is rife with IMMORAL, BAD IDEAS.

No again. It's the same God, but human intelligence is incapable which led to the humans questions about God. You are incapable in figuring out how the NT Bible shall be written. Same, you are incapable of understanding God when you said that OT is with imoral and bad ideas. You don't have the intelligence to to the analysis, that's the problem.

 

[B Griffin]

I'm new to Christianity, and I'm trying to figure this stuff out.

Over the years, I've noticed that the type of preachers who try to twist the Bible into saying things it really doesn't say by preaching a false gospel seem to always LOVE the King James version.

Busted!!!

 

[timewerx]

Turns out it was a "prosperity gospel" church where the whole thing is about money, money, money, that's all they talk about.

I've been and still persecuted by other Christians for my beliefs and behavior.

It turns out the "prosperity gospel" is more widespread and endemic than one would imagine and comes in many different flavors, not all noticeable in plain sight unless you read the Gospel often and very carefully.

Jesus never spoke about money as a gift. At best, money is work, responsibility, NOT a gift. If God gave you money, he's giving you work, NOT the opportunity to move to a more expensive house or buy new cars and stuff, indulge in food, and book expensive travels around the world.

That work is to provide for the less fortunate Christians or rescue those in distress and it goes beyond just tithing. Most Christians DON'T respond to God's greater provision of money in such manner, but use the greater provision of money to indulge in worldly things, to enlarge their comfort that they have nothing left to do God's work. They may leave just enough for 10% tithes but in the Gospel, the 10% tithes won't be enough.

Those who love money will hate God. You cannot love both. It would be very hard for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

If your church NEVER preaches that message in your church and has many affluent members, chances are, it preaches a form of prosperity Gospel.

 

[trophy33]

That work is to provide for the less fortunate Christians or rescue those in distress and it goes beyond just tithing. Most Christians DON'T respond to God's greater provision of money in such manner, but use the greater provision of money to indulge in worldly things, to enlarge their comfort that they have nothing left to do God's work. They may leave just enough for 10% tithes but in the Gospel, the 10% tithes won't be enough.

Its good to realize that we do not live in biblical times, in which poverty = hunger, disease and death.

In the vast majority of developed countries, we pay around 40% or more of our income as health and social insurance. From this insurance, health care bills, education, unemployment benefits, housing allowances, parental leaves, retirement pensions and other things are paid for all of us.

That means, the net salary we get is what is left after we give to other people. We receive less than 50% of our income, when taxes are included. Any other charity goes on the top of that and still many people do it.

If somebody is poor, country pays for his housing, food, utilities, education and healthcare. From the insurance we pay. Those who are homeless or without food are mostly drug addicts, alcoholics, gamblers and similar cases. Or people living alone who do not know how to get the benefits, because they are not fit (physically or mentally) to figure it out. Those are hard to find and help even if you want to.

 

[timewerx]

Its good to realize that we do not live in biblical times, in which poverty = hunger, disease and death.

In the vast majority of developed countries, we pay around 40% or more of our income as health and social insurance. From this insurance, health care bills, education, unemployment benefits, housing allowances, parental leaves, retirement pensions and other things are paid for all of us.

That means, the net salary we get is what is left after we give to other people. We receive less than 50% of our income, when taxes are included. Any other charity goes on the top of that and still many people do it.

If somebody is poor, country pays for his housing, food, utilities, education and healthcare. From the insurance we pay. Those who are homeless or without food are mostly drug addicts, alcoholics, gamblers and similar cases. Or people living alone who do not know how to get the benefits, because they are not fit (physically or mentally) to figure it out. Those are hard to find and help even if you want to.

I think some countries in Europe are an exception as they have virtually eliminated poverty among their citizens.

Yet, I know a few who do humanitarian/charity work in poor countries. They still have money left after the insurance, high tax, social welfare stuff, etc.

You won't lose your salvation for not trying, yet, it's the right thing to do, what we should all be doing. Am I making sense there? I'm simply following the logic of a certain verse in the Bible.

 

[trophy33]

I think some countries in Europe are an exception as they have virtually eliminated poverty among their citizens.

Yet, I know a few who do humanitarian/charity work in poor countries. They still have money left after the insurance, high tax, social welfare stuff, etc.

You won't lose your salvation for not trying, yet, it's the right thing to do, what we should all be doing. Am I making sense there? I'm simply following the logic of a certain verse in the Bible.

An average person does not have means to travel to poor countries and to help there. What one can do is using gofundme or similar charities. And many do.

Also, most people from rich countries do not have as much money left as you may think. Their quality of life is high, yes, but not much individual savings can be made in a social welfare country, from an average salary. Because prices of everything are high. So even relatively high salaries are spent quickly on standard things.

For example, I know some Christians from Sweden about which you could say they are rich, as they seem so (they have nice housing, furniture, car etc). But I know they are unable to create any significant savings, everything is so expensive and they pay so much in taxes, that they have just basic individual savings. And those are for their own families, communities and close proximity charities, first.

I also noticed there is some disillusion from sending help to poor countries, as this is going on for decades and people in those countries do not seem to do much better, just having more and more children (which makes them to need/want more and more help from rich countries). Poor countries have very high corruption, unstable distribution systems, even police or governments want bribes and steal from the help. Its not as easy as "you have some money, why dont you help somebody on the other side of the planet". There must be some reliable distribution system in the place and those poor people must actually do something for their own country, too, so that it will not be a life-long one-directional benefit system.

 

[timewerx]

An average person does not have means to travel to poor countries and to help there. What one can do is using gofundme or similar charities. And many do.

Also, most people from rich countries do not have as much money left as you may think. Their quality of life is high, yes, but not much individual savings can be made in a social welfare country, from an average salary. Because prices of everything are high. So even relatively high salaries are spent quickly on standard things.

For example, I know some Christians from Sweden about which you could say they are rich, as they seem so (they have nice housing, furniture, car etc). But I know they are unable to create any significant savings, everything is so expensive and they pay so much in taxes, that they have just basic individual savings. And those are for their own families, communities and close proximity charities, first.

I also noticed there is some disillusion from sending help to poor countries, as this is going on for decades and people in those countries do not seem to do much better, just having more and more children (which makes them to need/want more and more help from rich countries). Poor countries have very high corruption, unstable distribution systems, even police or governments want bribes and steal from the help. Its not as easy as "you have some money, why dont you help somebody on the other side of the planet". There must be some reliable distribution system in the place and those poor people must actually do something for their own country, too, so that it will not be a life-long one-directional benefit system.

I don't know maybe if they went for cheaper housing or mortgage. Not as as nice but cheaper, and also cheaper cars, then maybe they'll have something left for giving? Is there no cheaper housing in Sweden? Has "gentrification" invaded the whole place already?

Once someone owed us money and when we tried to collect, they said, they couldn't make the bills this month pointing to their expensive new mortgage (their big, new, and nice house). It was a very awkward moment to them. They knew and couldn't hide it!

Re: gofundme. I'm not really sure how well that works. First time I heard of it was in a movie I watched a couple of months ago. I live in a poor country yet I never heard of it from others who badly needed money and unable to get one.

Maybe it only works if you're in the poorest corners of the world where everyone, including your neighbors are starving?

 

[trophy33]

I don't know maybe if they went for cheaper housing or mortgage. Not as as nice but cheaper, and also cheaper cars, then maybe they'll have something left for giving? Is there no cheaper housing in Sweden? Has "gentrification" invaded the whole place already?

Price is not the only thing you must consider. You also need to fulfill your need for living in a developed society - proximity to work, to school, to hospitals, to dentists, to retirement homes of your parents/grandparents, veterinary... It must be large enough for a family etc. Of course there are cheaper and more expensive things, but even the cheaper ones are quite expensive.

Also, to go for the cheapest option is not always possible. Imagine for example a kid in a school. Everybody around them have mobile phones or clothes as a sign of their social status. Sure, you could buy your children some cheap old dumb phone from 10 years ago, but you would know they would suffer because of it, might be even bullied. You also do not want your children to be the only ones in town who have never been anywhere. Living in a highly developed society forces you to keep certain standards of living and of acceptable behavior for your family and yourself.

Regarding housing, most young people cannot afford to own a house or an apartment anymore, so they live with their parents or with other people in one apartment. All over the developed world. There is also health crisis, many people are obese, drink alcohol, smoke - heart attacks, cancer and diabetes are skyrocketing - which requires much more money for health care system, higher taxes etc.

The fact that developed countries grow more and more national debt is also telling that there is not much money to spare on other countries.

Other thing is that the developed world might be entering a recession or even a long depression in next years.

There is also a "new" reality now - so many illegal immigrants are coming to EU and USA that on some places its a regular humanitarian crisis. Also, war in Ukraine caused EU countries to absorb millions of refugees. The war itself is expensive too. And many countries decided to buy expensive military equipment like F-35s or modern tanks and other systems, after what Russia did. Its not a situation for significant helping somewhere far away, currently.

Poor countries can do the most work themselves - order, hygiene, discipline, good working philosophies, not killing each other, having less children, securing water and electricity supply, establishing proper checks and balances in government and to begin to produce something somebody else wants to pay for. The foreign help is rather for cases of natural disasters, not for sustaining non-working countries with corrupt politicians.

Re: gofundme. I'm not really sure how well that works. First time I heard of it was in a movie I watched a couple of months ago. I live in a poor country yet I never heard of it from others who badly needed money and unable to get one.

Maybe it only works if you're in the poorest corners of the world where everyone, including your neighbors are starving?

Gofundme is a USA-based online charity, people can create a profile there, tell their story and what they need money for and people decide if they will donate and what amount. Not sure if its available for the Asian region. I used it just as an example, there are probably other alternatives, both online and not online.

 

[The Liturgist]

@JaneHenry You have received some good advice in this thread. I have been a Christian since the mid '60s. I have been preaching and teaching for more than 40 years. I think I can safely say that most of the mainline denominations, e.g. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc. teach the truth. I belong to one and my 2 brother's-in-law are pastors in the other 2. I appears that your heart is leading you in the right direction.

Indeed. There are evil pastors, who are the wolves in sheep’s clothing Christ our Lord, God and Savior warned us of, who use the Church as a means of self-enrichment, which is Simony, the sin for which Simon Magus was guilty, when he attempted to purchase the powers of the Apostles from St. Peter, on the belief he could make money doing so. Using extortionate tactics to secure tithes or other forms of donations is simply another form of simony.

In prior centuries, in the Church in Western Europe, there was a problem with people purchasing ecclesiastical benifices, which are the trusts that paid the rector (the holder of the benefice) funds for providing ministry at a parish church, the benifice being paid for by tithes assessed on members of the parish by the Vestry. Some of these people engaging in simony would purchase a Benefice, or multiple Benefices, and the idea of selling benefices is extremely dubious and problematic, and then hire vicars to preach in them, and do their duty to a certain extent, but not personally do much as rector, so basically keeping as a profit the difference between the salaries paid to their vicars and other lower-ranking clergy such as curates (priests not formally attached to a parish) and deacons, and the amount received from the tithes due to the parishes contained in the benefice (which often included multiple adjacent parish churches). Some were even more abusive and spent as little as possible, maybe hiring one vicar to minister at multiple parishes on alternating Sundays, and availing themselves of the free services of licensed readers who were not ordained clergy but who could celebrate Morning Prayer and Evensong in the Anglican tradition - usually they were not allowed to preach sermons themselves (unlike Methodist licensed preachers), but they could read one of several homilies written by Thomas Cranmer and other early Anglican reformers, from the Book of Homilies, which at one time was an important adjunct to the Book of Common Prayer, but is now completely irrelevant, except for it being mentioned in the 39 articles (in one of the 39 articles I disagree with).

Fortunately, anger over this abuse, which was particularly bad in the 18th century, resulted in changes to the legislation governing the Church of England, and similar abuses in Continental Europe in the Roman Catholic and other Protestant churches were likewise restructured. As a rule, now, the rector is either the primary pastor of a parish or group of parishes, or the bishop, but is paid a salary from the voluntary contributions of church members and also a subsidy that some European state churches receive from the government, such as the Church of England.