...if he was a anti-religious communist?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/30/real-living-wage-n...
The Church of England now qualifies as a non-religious organization.
Why do people who do not believe in Christianity insist on explaining it to those who do? Should this be AtheistSplaining? Jesus was concerned about your SOUL not your BODY. Those who do believe understand this... those who do not believe think it needs fixing!
"church .....now qualifies.....'
Because ? I am sorry, I am not getting that from article could you explain further what leads you there.
I share Bruce's confusion. The Bishop of Durham advocates government mandates intended to raise wages of low-income workers, as if such mandates will actually work.
Where's the "anti-religious communist" and the "non-religious organization?"
Jesus was concerned with salvation, individual by individual.
Charity is one way to do His work on earth.
Coercion is not charity, but an appeal to empathy (that might unleash the charitable instincts of those darned others who just aren't doing enough for the common good) might make individuals feel better about themselves.
I believe that Jesus expected his church to care for those in need. He didn't advocate for the government to do that.
Amen, Brother.
So the example of Jesus and biblical teaching is irrelevant for non-believers? Is that what you’re saying?
The church of England has been essentially a social club for a long time, more concerned with socialism and liberal philosophy than saving souls. This latest pronouncement is in keeping with that focus.
Analysis by those who do not believe focuses on re-interpreting the message to re-focus on the temporal issues that suit the socialist message best. Disinformation, and thus of no value.
As others here have already noted, all of the guidance He gave on social issues is meant to inspire personal action, not government actions paid for with other people's money. If these hypocrites actually believed anything they said, they'd be doing it. With their own money.
One of the charity fundraisers featured talk on how much more effective the fundraising elites are at helping others than those who help directly, even ridiculing people like Mother Theresa as "ineffective". And I suddenly understood why it might be difficult for a rich man to enter Heaven. With or without the camel and needle.
The easiest answer is not to join the Church of England.
I like Jasper's photo, notice Jesus has a future designated "assault" weapon in his hand.
That doesn't help when this organization, and many others, insist on forcing you (and shaming you) into accepting their dogma. You know, like all those evil religions of the past used to do...
And let's not forget the MSM, which chose to misrepresent the whole point of the religion... at Easter, of all times!
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55089-leftmedias-deliberate-mischaracter...
Perhaps it should be pointed out that this ridicule of religion includes, by implication, Judaism and Islam as well. Same God. Sacrilege any way you slice it.
Don't let them immanentize the eschaton.
Who listens to NPR anyway.
They probably are the reason for the item in picture with Jesus.
That looks like a nickel-plated Winchester model 1894 carbine. A lever action (not an assault rifle), and a classic Maine deer rifle, especially if a 30.30.
a duh
Immanentize the eschaton
In political theory and theology, to immanentize the eschaton means trying to bring about the eschaton (the final, heaven-like stage of history) in the immanent world. It has been used by conservative critics as a pejorative reference to certain utopian projects, such as socialism, communism, and transhumanism.
_________________________________________________________________________
Provided for the benefit of any who don't 'immanentize the eschaton' on a regular basis. Spell checker doesn't recognize either, either.
A thank you to taxfoe !
Yes, thanks, Taxfoe.
In other words, the Bishop of Durham is committing theological error.
Last time this phrase appeared on AMG, francisz recognized it right away.
Don't let them immanentize the eschaton. Catchy.
Oh, for Christ's sake, thanks for what? Can't anyone use google? Oh, and by the way:
Good morning Smegma !!!
For what ? Being polite.
Use Google? Yes, when using Jasper in a search the same picture is displayed.
Oh, by the way to the owner (who ever that is ,if Susie), this is Jaspers' message to you. Shared by many here.
Now that you've shown again what a vulgar intolerant person you really are... here's a challenge.
Do that again, with a picture of Mohammed. You're a coward - you wouldn't dare to that to someone who would fight back.
Toolsmith that was for me I believe.
You are approaching Smegma in all the wrong ways.
Just recognize his purpose and address him appropriately. I use a name given by another, to address his vulgarness ,vile ,rotten name calling etc.. I highly recommend using the same name for him. It was created in response to an effort to standardize names for the situation.
To many were being used and it was confusing trying to keep them straight.
One might as well since nothing else has any affect on the situation. Warning ,never suggest anyone could use physical violence with him as that
irritates the sensibilities of the owner . Vulgarity is ok not suggested violence ! PM me if you would like details.
Remembr every once in awhile he does make a good point, it is just difficult to publicly agree with it.
So the example of Jesus and biblical teaching is irrelevant for non-believers? Is that what you’re saying?
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)
By definition, those who are non-believers are not following the teachings of the Master.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph 2:8-9)
I wasn't suggesting violence. I was suggesting that his cheap shot was primarily because he, and many others, know that those of certain religions won't retaliate. They, and he, avoid any suggestion at such disparagement with other faiths they know wouldn't "turn the other cheek". This is the classic behavior of a bully - aggressive towards the passive, passive towards the aggressive. IOW, cowards.
I dislike vulgarity, and don't use it. That's a personal choice - do what you like. When used against me, it only confirms the vacuity of the opposing argument.
The teachings were about changing your behavior... not government policy. His only comment about the Romans was "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Nothing at all about trusting the Romans to administer Charity! (What an amusing concept!)
Challenge met!
That earns one !
Drumroll and Rimshot !
Lol
Funny, but not likely to provoke a response. Well, maybe from BLM?
Pages