Charity

2 Corinthians 9:5-7 So I considered it necessary to urge the brothers that they go on ahead to you and arrange in advance your previously promised generous gift (blessing) that the same would be ready as a generous gift (blessing) and not as one grudgingly given due to greediness (covetousness). 6 Now I say this: the one who sows sparingly (refraining) will also reap sparingly (refraining), and the one who sows generously (upon blessings) will also reap generously (upon blessings). 7 Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Sparingly = 5340 pheidomenós (adverb): Sparing, refraining, withholding. This is in the context of verse 5 which says "not as one grudgingly given due to greediness" NASB which is one Greek word - 4124 pleonexia meaning greed, covetousness. So sparingly here isn't about giving a small amount but giving a small amount because of greed (an intense and selfish desire for something). IOW, you don't have to give out of what you need, but out of your blessings. Generously = 2129 ep' eulogia (noun): upon (on the basis of) blessings (See 1909 epi) I know it can be a challenge to get past twi's doctrine and expectations of habitual giving/abundant sharing in order to begin giving according to one's own heart. And again, the purpose for Paul's collection in 2 Cor 8 and 9 is for the poor saints in Jerusalem maybe because of a famine or because of persecution or both. My last word on this is the concept of giving "in order" to receive. Can't see how this is a right attitude to have.

I've obviously extended this thread to include "giving" (aka twi's doctrine of abundant sharing) as well as tithing. If anyone finds this is being , I can start a new thread.

That's how I understand it as well. Apparently, once the temple was destroyed, the transactional tithe in order to receive God's blessings took on a mandatory monetary value according to some religious organizations.

I want to look at the words "generous gift" in 2 Corinthians 9:5 So I considered it necessary to urge the brothers that they go on ahead to you and arrange in advance your previously promised generous gift, that the same would be ready as a generous gift, and not as one grudgingly given due to greediness. (NASB) Translations of 2 Corinthias 9:5 shows parallel verses which used different word(s) instead of "generous gift." They include willing gift, blessing, a matter of bounty, matter of generosity, bountiful gift, etc. However, 2129. eulogia gives the definition of eulogia as meaning "blessing, praise, benefit." It also shows it's specific meaning for 2 Cor 9:5 as "the blessing of a collection sent from Christians to their brethren" (See 5a). The word "generous" is not mentioned. Finally, Verses with eulogia show how this word is translated as "blessing" in all its usages (except Romans 16:18) and 2 Cor 9:5-6 where it is translated in terms of bounty or generosity. Why is this? 2 Corinthians 9:6 is the next verse that should be looked at as well.

(Highlighting and colour of font above is mine) 2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance (logos), and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also. You said that you saw this verse as showing abounding is the "standard that is supposed to underscore our motivation to give." I see it also as "abounding" in all of the areas are necessary in order for any one specific area to be successful in God's eyes. IOW, you need to abound in faith if you want to abound in all the others; you need to abound in speaking the word if you want to abound in all the others; you need to abound in knowledge if you want to abound in all the others, etc. According to BibleHub, "abound" is 4052 perisseuó meaning to abound (exist in large numbers or amounts), to be in abundance (a very large quantity of something), to overflow (the excess or surplus not able to be accommodated by an available space), to excel (to be superior to: surpass in accomplishment or achievement). Is it taking it too far then to say that this abounding in all 6 things is required to receive anything from God as opposed to pfal's list of 5 things to do in order to receive anything from God?

Your last line (highlighting is mine) shows the error in twi's calling giving (tithe/AS) a law. However, in their writings about giving, they do (or at least did) quote the two promises above to support their concept of guaranteed results. Malachi says "bring" and God will "open and pour." 2 Cor 9 says "be a cheerful giver" and God is able to provide "all grace, all sufficiency and an abundance." A promise is defined as "a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that a particular thing will happen." God's promises are guaranteed according to Isaiah 55:20, "For as many as the promises of God are, in Him they are yes; therefore through Him also is our Amen to the glory of God through us." So, is twi's only error in calling giving and receiving a law whereas God accurately considers giving and receiving a promise? What difference is there really between the two?

Thank you for confirming that they call it the law of giving which lines up with their law of believing. In both cases, however, when the law doesn't work then the giver/believer must be doing something wrong (not cheerful enough, not generous enough, not trusting enough). Been there, done that. Yet, the promises are there in the bible. For tithing, there's Malachi 3:10 10Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and put Me to the test now in this,” says the LORD of armies, “if I do not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. For giving, there's 2 Corinthians 9:7-8 7Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace overflow to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed; Is a biblical promise and a law not similar in some way?

The reason for this collection in 2 Corinthians 8 is given in Romans 15. 25 but now, I am going to Jerusalem, serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27 For they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to do them a service also in material things. How does this compare to what twi does with their collections from the saints?

There will never be a perfect world, but do you think if humanism was promoted more so that more people could choose to live accordingly (instead of living religiously), this would be a positive thing for societies? Below is some information about what people would learn about humanism. What is Humanism?

I really find your point that man has not changed (I assume you mean mankind and since the beginning of time) interesting and open to various explanations as to why this might be. One would be the theory based on evolution and another would be the doctrine found in the bible. Since we cannot erase the millennia of years where religious beliefs have dominated cultures, looking forward with progressively less religious doctrine to "guide" us would include letting go of the following. Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. The issue I have with verses 22 and 23 is that non-religious people are quite capable of experiencing what the bible calls “fruit of the spirit.” This is so obvious, and yet the bible claims they are derived from the spirit. (I’ve been told that the fruit of the spirit is of a higher quality, a greater degree of excellence, more supernatural than what humans can experience on their own, but there is no scientific evidence which supports this – only subjective reporting.) So why does Paul call them spiritual fruit when they’re not? I think it is to reinforce his belief stated in Romans 7. Rom 7:14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin. 15For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate. 16However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. 17But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 18For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. In Galatians 5, Paul gives a long list of actions associated with the flesh, actions that mankind has been a slave to since the fall of Adam, if you believe Romans 7, and actions that will prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God (with the unfortunate alternative being cast into the lake of fire according to Revelation 21:8). Paul is representing man as being evil within, again since the fall of Adam, and upgrading the positive aspects of mankind as being spiritual - originating from a god. The intended purpose is for people to want to follow his teachings to accept Christ as their lord. What would life be like without accepting the above as truth? I think it would mean accepting mankind for simply what it is - made up of human beings capable of change. I think endeavoring to understand why human beings can be so full of greed, pride, envy, hatred, etc., beginning with an evolutionary POV, would be more advantageous.

I'll read the rest of your post later but judging whether my skin is "thick" enough to be on the internet is again focusing on me instead of my POV. I'll continue to point this out to you as long as you continue to do it.

I so appreciate your post. Thank you for taking the time to compose it.

I think this is why being around little children is so often just plain fun.

This is not a shock to me WordWolf and insinuating it might be is a bit of an ad hominem statement on your part. This thread is not about other kinds of institutions. Here is the context in which I used that quote: "I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences. GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders. The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ have mandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing." Under this context, however, I did use a broad brush to infer that all churches and spiritual institutions have expectations, rules and regulations (I'll add beliefs as well) that result in negative consequences from them personally or from their supernatural god if they are not followed. This was ignorant on my part as I'm certainly not educated on every one of the thousands that are out there.

I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences. GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders. The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ have mandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing.

Campbell begins the video by talking about being in Japan, a place that never heard of the Garden of Eden story. I felt some joy when I heard that because it's what I experience each time I wipe that account right out of the bible because of the depravity it saddles upon humans at the time of their birth. But he does talk throughout the video about the benefits of myths and traditions held by different cultures. Some teach the divine presence of the creator is in creation/nature itself including every human being which promotes treating both with respect. I personally see this as an improvement over the Jewish, Islamic and Christian god. Near the end, he speaks of deeply challenging rituals that traditionally have transitioned boys into responsible men and how the traditions of today are too watered down to build this sense of responsibility in our youth which is why our societies are in such a mess. I’ve only listened to the video once so if I have misrepresented Campbell’s views, please correct me. One quote I will share from within the first 5 minutes is the following: “I think what we’re looking for is a way of experiencing the world in which we are living that will open to us the Transcendent that informs it and at the same time, informs ourselves within it. That’s what people want – that’s what the soul asks for.” The definition of Transcendent being something that is “beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.” (Oxford Languages) This is where humanism differs because there is no divine or supernatural aspects to it. Can this not be enough for us to live in this world?

I have started a thread called "A Complete atheist, anti-supernatural society" in the Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith sub forum if anyone wants to discuss the above.

JoyfulSoul wrote the following in the "I had a very interesting stop at HQ" thread in the "About the Way" forum: "I began as a college atheist 45 years ago. I'm long gone. Over the edge gone. Unreachable. Forever lost. If we ever enforce a complete atheist, anti-supernatural society, take me first, drag me around back and shoot me." What would such a world be like without all the supernatural beliefs in a heaven and hell be like? Or without the concept of a chosen people and a promised land? Or with the concept of humanism being our motive to love and care for one another? There are many other "Or" examples that could be given from either side of a supernatural vs atheism POV. If ad hominem attacks can be avoided, this could be an interesting discussion.

Pardon me for including my atheistic comments on this thread in response to Joyful Soul's disconcerting post about dealing with a demonic transference between LCM and himself. If there is any interest in discussion this topic, I will start a thread in the Matters of Faith forum.

Just in case someone might read "Chasity" as a misspelling of Chastity and think such a person exists on GSC (like I did at first ), I now recognize you meant me. Also, Chastity would have been an unusual, though interesting, name to give oneself .

I don't know if twi was heavily into these incredible (as in impossible to believe) "personal" encounters with Jesus and angels, but I do know that many of the people and ministries you've mentioned before have claimed the most ridiculous of them. "Seek and you shall find" can also be known as bias confirmation. Would telling you to keep a skeptical approach when looking at these unprovable claims be of any use?

The are NO SUCH THING as devil spirits. You learned about them while in twi and this explains why you thought of one when LCM looked at you with all the pride and evil that were behind those eyes of his. Being involved with the other ministries you've mentioned only cemented your belief in demons because they are steeped in teaching about them and falsely claiming to rebuke them. Christianity is a fear-based doctrine that ministries/religions feed off of and become rich from because of the hold this doctrine has on keeping people in line. If you want to be free of having to cope with such a mythical being as an evil spirit, start deconstructing from what the bible teaches about them. Begin with the whole concept of the fall of Lucifer and then go straight to the most inane story of the serpent with Adam and Eve in the garden whereby all mankind supposedly inherited an evil and sinful nature and Satan became the god of this world. I sincerely hope you do.

I was never personally involved with IHOPKC. I learned of Bickle when a couple of his books were part of a Vineyard church library I was overseeing. If you type "bickle" in the search box above, you will see my posts about them. If you want to follow up on any of them, you can do it through those threads.

I got very caught up with the Bickle sexual abuse scandal and the IHOPKC coverup and how similar it was to weirwille's and twi's. What did you know about the latter and what is twi saying about it now? There's no way I respect twi today for their lies and coverup for this man. Do they still call him "the man of God for our day and time" or just their "father in the word?"

I'm assuming that you are not finding what you want to know about revelation-and-impartation manifestations right from the bible or personally from asking God. Do you wonder why this could be? Nevertheless, if you or anyone else is able to find an author who has reliable evidence for the working of miracles, healing, faith, discerning of spirits, etc. which truly works for you as well, please be sure to share it on your thread. Thanks.