2 Services?

Let's be nice and all get along now. There's no need for hateful name calling and chest puffing. Next thing we know we'll see you guys rolling on the floor....then we'd have to call you pentecostals!

 

I agree with that. However there are cost considerations....didnt have to tell ya that did I? LOL

 

In post #38, he encourages us to apply for all of the welfare programs we're qualified for.

 

When you were a baby, did your crib have lead paint?

 

I guess when you can't prove your argument through rational devices and actual evidence the easiest way to attempt to salvage personal credulity is by slandering others.

Obviously you don't want an honest intellectual exchange, perhaps since that kind of encounter is beyond your ken we can understand to stay away from your ridiculous demands and unChristian slandering.

 

What's your point? I think its wrong to steal; but if a thief takes your money, its not wrong to take it back! That is just IDIOTIC.

Apparently you think we should just say, "Yes, master (uncle Sam). Take all my money you want. I will just sit here and cry and whine about it in the corner. I won't actually DO anything about it."

If more conservatives would quit being stupid (yes, stupid), and start taking their money back (instead of allowing it to go to people who aren't working), and maybe invest some of those savings in our cause, maybe we would change something...


Side Note:

I have a couple of different relatives who work in the food stamp office. I have seen the people getting food stamps. MOST of them are hard working folks, who because of the government's robbery, cannot even make ends-meet working 40 to 50 hours a week.

So yes, I believe as long as the government is robbing us of our money, we should take all of it back that we can; while also working to change the system.

 

If someone was indeed eligible for some type of welfare program -- unemployment benefits, Medicaid health care, food stamps -- then why shouldn't they apply? Are you stating that it is wrong for them apply?

And by applying, or encouraging them to apply, does that make one a socialist? Is everyone who participates in a government program, including Medicare and social security, a socialist?

 

Well, if I do, then I certainly know not to come here looking for it.

 

If they don't need it, then yes, it's wrong.

 

I didn't call them entitlements - simply government programs. Personally, I do not like the term "entitlements."

While social security payments are based upon what you put into the program, most seniors' monthly payments today far outweight whatever they put in.

 

Salty,

I beg to differ brother. First, a person can make 50K a year, pay in several thousand dollars a year in taxes (the largest chunk of which goes to welfare programs), and still be eligible for food stamps, and DEFINITELY for medicaid for their children, etc.

Second, that person has already been paying in on these welfare programs for years...just like social security. No difference. If a person works for fifteen years, paying an average of 10k a year in fed. income taxes, the largest piece of which goes INTO these welfare programs, how is this any different from Social Security?

Of course, my opinion is the government has no business in the food stamp business, OR the social security business.

As far as your "lower the taxes" statement, I wholeheartedly agree!! However, until they do, I encourage those who qualify, and could use such benefits, to get back their money.

 

Thanks for getting us back on track.

 

JDF, thank you for de-legitimizing your position through such a childish outburst.

I can't think of a better argument for my position, than to show yours and simply remain silent...it becomes self-evident.

 

And thank you for showing us that you're really incapable of addressing the substance of my argument.

 

Because it doesn't have any.

 

Actually, there were several substantive points made. Whether you choose to address them or just continue to attack me is up to you.

 

Wow...where to start?

I get tickled when someone takes an extreme example and applies it across the board. I've been at my church for eleven years, and we've never covered a "dead or alive" song ("Right Round").

That's an issue of how something was implemented. Sounds like the church handled it poorly.

Let's put it in another context: the theme song from "Bob the Builder" is OK...but not appropriate for worship. In that we can agree--there are songs that simply don't involve aspects of worship--adoration, instruction, edification, repentance, etc.--so therefore it is the content that makes it so.
But to disqualify based solely on your musical tastes--you simply cannot back that up, except to say, "I just don't like it." That's not sufficient cause.

So, the primary goal is unanimity? I don't think that Jesus had that in mind when he talked about us being unified. We're going to disagree. It's how we disagree that speaks volumes. And on a subject such as this--one where Scripture is silent--that becomes paramount.

FYI: We have multiple services and styles. They're all doing well. They're all growing. And we've had none of the "worship wars" I've heard so many others discuss. But we were gradual, transparent, open to discussion & suggestions, sought Scriptural basis for how we handled any transitions, and we've poured our all into every type of service we do. IMO, the how is just as important as the what...but it's so often ignored.

Help me understand--what is "worldly?" Is it the tempo ? Drums? Electric guitar--or just the distortion pedal? Time signature? (I'll concede that 5/4 is satanic) Worship leader wearing hip, black-framed glasses? PowerPoint? How 'bout the organ? Are there any "worldy" stops on it we shouldn't use? If we use colored lighting on the platform...is that worldy? We have a stool & table now, rather than a pulpit. Is that worldly?

What if we sing an old or ancient hymn, but use newer instruments. Is that worldly?

Scripture, please?

 

It was what happened in our church and is consistent with stories I've heard about many, many other churches.

And yet, based on the way you guys treat me when I bring it up here, it sounds like you would have done the same thing.

Which is precisely why we never disqualified it based on our musical tastes.

I don't think it is, either, which is why I never claimed that it was.

Just because a word is the same doesn't mean it applies the same way to two different contexts.

Good for you.

Mimicking the world in order to be like the world.

For what?