Sign in to follow this  
steven8166

Church Leadership

Recommended Posts

how can that be since evil had not come into the world yet.

This is further evidence that evil existed in the mind of God before evil is ever said to have entered the world. As I said before when God first judged the Light as Good on the first day of creation it proves that "evil" existed within the mind of God for him to be able to make such a judgement. One cannot judge something as cold unless one knows within their mind what hot or warm is. In a similar fashion one cannot judge something as good unless one holds a standard of what is evil within one's mind.

Evil existed within the mind of God and it was his plan all along that it wreak havoc upon the planet. Remember he created Jesus as the propitiation for sins even before the foundation of the earth was laid knowing evil would reign and spread wildly once he planted that tree in the garden. He planted the seed and even insured it would get ate also by allowing the serpent free access to God' children. Evil is God's will plain and simple. He doesn't hate it all, he uses for his purpose.

Are you saying that the darkness in the beginning of Genesis was evil?

No I never said darkness was evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have mmore respect for science when they have found a way to prove their theories. From where I sit, they have never proven that there is not another cause for the phenomena they claim to observe. They are in the same category as most organized religions because they are based on faith rather than truth.

Much of the "proof" of science is in the fact that when the theories of science are put to work, it works. For instance, no one, not even scientist have ever seen an atom, much less an electron. No scientist has ever seen and electron "flowing" thru a copper wire to light a bulb yet when the light bulb is connected to the copper wire with appropriate amounts of electrons "flowing" thru it, the light bulb lights right up and we all accept it. Even though no one has ever seen an electron, we accept the theory of electro-magnetics to be true. But because no one has seen electrons "flowing," it can only be said to be a theory. I would not sit in the dark awaiting science to prove that theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have more respect for science when they have found a way to prove their theories.

From where I sit, they have never proven that there is not another cause for the phenomena they claim to observe.

At the risk repeating myself: "It is NOT THE JOB of science to 'prove' anything."

If you want "proofs" become a mathematician, or a police detective. :jest:

Science puts forth theories in an attempt to explain observed phenomena.

Science often disproves theories, but never "proves" them... that's not its job.

It's "job" is to discover the most likely, least complicated, theory which is capable of "explaining all of the observed data". Science is "always" open to revision, if and when new data is observed which "doesn't fit the theory".

If you want "certainty" look elsewhere. Certainty is not the job of science...but probability is.

Edited by Bro. Hex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science puts forth theories in an attempt to explain observed phenomena.

Science often disproves theories, but never "proves" them... that's not its job.

It's "job" is to discover the most likely, least complicated, theory which is capable of "explaining all of the observed data". Science is "always" open to revision, if and when new data is observed which "doesn't fit the theory".

I agree. Science is constantly evolving because it factors in new elements, as new information is received and processed, which alters the initial theory.

However, some people treat scientific theories as if they are gospel (pun intended) which, in those cases, makes it no different than a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might want to re-read the acticle and get the real info vs the headline.

Maybe you should have read the whole article.

"One reason the group believes the uranium-thorium estimates to be more accurate than carbon dating is that they produce better matches between known changes in the Earth's orbit and changes in global glaciation.

According to carbon dating of fossil animals and plants, the spreading and receding of great ice sheets lagged behind orbital changes by several thousand years, a delay that scientists found hard to explain. But Dr. Richard G. Fairbanks, a member of the Lamont-Doherty group, said that if the dates of glaciation were determined using the uranium-thorium method, the delay - and the puzzle - disappeared.

The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun. Carbon 14 is thought to be mainly a product of bombardment of the atmosphere by cosmic rays, so cosmic ray intensity would affect the amount of carbon 14 in the environment at any given time. The Lamont-Doherty group says uranium-thorium dating not only is more precise than carbon dating in some cases, but also can be used to date much older objects.Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years, but uranium-thorium dating may be possible for objects up to half a million years old, Dr. Zindler said."

Edited by Songster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years, but uranium-thorium dating may be possible for objects up to half a million years old, Dr. Zindler said."

Good, since 30,000 years is a lot more than 6000 years we can even safely use Carbon-14 methods to exclude the suggestion that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the "proof" of science is in the fact that when the theories of science are put to work, it works. For instance, no one, not even scientist have ever seen an atom, much less an electron. No scientist has ever seen and electron "flowing" thru a copper wire to light a bulb yet when the light bulb is connected to the copper wire with appropriate amounts of electrons "flowing" thru it, the light bulb lights right up and we all accept it. Even though no one has ever seen an electron, we accept the theory of electro-magnetics to be true. But because no one has seen electrons "flowing," it can only be said to be a theory. I would not sit in the dark awaiting science to prove that theory.

Many times that seems to be truth and perhaps often is. I, like you, am not sitting in the dark waiting for proof that electricity flowing through a wire is what make the bulb grow brighter. Many thimes it makes no differnce whether or not the theory is correct. We don't know if water boils at 212 F. we do know that water boils and changes form. We do not know what causes water to boil at that particular temp but do we need to know?

There are however many times where the "science has proven" such and so that is not true. That was true for snake oil salesmen and global atmosphere change and causes of diseases that if we knew the real cause, we could solve but there are many people making lots of money because some "authority" said the science was settled.

That space probes make a landing on an object far away is not proof that all the technology that was entered into it was what made it work. It could even be that those who designed the machine simply wanted it badly enough. We do know they worked for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again a theory, no evidence.

In case no one has offered up a Welcome.. Welcome. We who post here tend to be opinionated. This is good, in that it generates lots of fun discussions, but bad, in that it tends to put off lurkers who don't want to jump into a kerfuffle. It also tends to take us far a field from topics as posted.

Let me remind everyone, the topic is about church leadership.. And I concur with our new member, at least on the margins. Many churches are run by Charismatic leaders, ministers, who dominate the church's culture. Probably not a good mix. As an agnostic, I am not sure I can support Steven's "proper" model, either.. The elders are an oligarchy, which is only marginally better than the tyranny, and possibly worse in some respects. No, I tend towards a radical interpretation of Martin Luther's priesthood of all believers. There is no proper church leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we know. :rolleyes:

I suggest you start with

http://en.wikipedia..../Thermal_energy

And then if you want to calculate it start with:

http://en.wikipedia....peyron_equation

You're missing a major point. The difference between significance and workability. Among other things of course.

Science has not proven that is the reason why water boils or any of the other claims some practioners of science have proclaimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Laws of Physics" are the product of the mind of man in an attempt to explain what he has seen. God is beyond the laws od physics, time, and space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Laws of Physics" are the product of the mind of man in an attempt to explain what he has seen. God is beyond the laws od physics, time, and space.

God is physics. Sub atomic physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case no one has offered up a Welcome.. Welcome. We who post here tend to be opinionated. This is good, in that it generates lots of fun discussions, but bad, in that it tends to put off lurkers who don't want to jump into a kerfuffle. It also tends to take us far a field from topics as posted.

Let me remind everyone, the topic is about church leadership.. And I concur with our new member, at least on the margins. Many churches are run by Charismatic leaders, ministers, who dominate the church's culture. Probably not a good mix. As an agnostic, I am not sure I can support Steven's "proper" model, either.. The elders are an oligarchy, which is only marginally better than the tyranny, and possibly worse in some respects. No, I tend towards a radical interpretation of Martin Luther's priesthood of all believers. There is no proper church leadership.

Thank you for staying on tract. the name is steve

God is physics. Sub atomic physics.

God is beyond physics, He speaks and things come into existance, a creative miracle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An automobile makes a lousy spaghetti strainer, but it's nifty for getting from place-to-place! :smile3:

Now you tell me. The least you can do now is tell me how to get the strands off the gear shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I've really enjoyed this thread. As someone who struggles to convey her opinion in ways that are more neutral and less personal/offensive, I really appreciate people who take the time to explain nicely. so thank you, everyone :)

I tell you the truth.

In every church that I have seen, the "Pastor" has invariably, and mistakenly, been the "Leader" or "Head" of the church.

This is an incorrect leadership model. The churches "Leadership" team (Elders) consists of an Apostle, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers

The Holy Spirit is the head of the church that speaks through the "Elders", who speaks to the "Pastors", who as a servant, ministers to the body of Christ, the congregation.

Going the other way, the congregation speaks to the servant Pastors, who in turn speaks to the "Elders", who seeks guidance from the Holy Spirit.

It is the "Elders", with the Holy Spirits urgings, who make the church decisions, and the Pastor who caries them out.

The church meets nightly in homes about the city for the purposes of breaking bread and ministry to the body, this is where the Pastors and Teachers shine.

Breaking of bread can be construed in two different views. It can mean the preparation and consumption of a meal, or it can be construed as sharing communion.

The body meets whole, as one body, once a week, which has traditionally been on Sunday, for the purposes of unrestrained Praise and Worship.

yes, this is one of the reasons why I have struggled with so much of organized religion. it's always 'this is the right way' and the 'right way' rarely focuses on teaching you how to determine what is right for yourself, rather than following what someone else says to do.

on the other hand, how much more difficult is it to teach people to honor their own divine truth when leaders do not know how to do this for themselves? It's kind of an endless cycle... we humans are very good at repeating what we see, even though it might seem wrong, because someone else is doing it for a good reason. Reminds me of a controlled study I read about in high school that was designed to test the effectiveness of a stranger's instruction to inflict pain on others. The way they set this up was to look like the volunteer participant was helping a researcher evaluate the effect of pain on a person's ability to answer questions correctly. The volunteer participant could not see this other person, but as they read the questions and the other participant answered, they were instructed to give the unseen person a shock every time the question was answered incorrectly. A scientist in the room kept track of the record; if the volunteer ever hesitated or questioned what they were doing, the 'scientist' encouraged the volunteer to keep shocking the other participant. Phrases like 'they knew what this would entail when they signed up' or 'please continue to fulfill your obligation' were used.

What ended up happening was, as long as an instructor in the room kept instructing the volunteer to continue, most participants kept applying shock to the 'victim'. They concluded that the power of an authority figure to convince humans to keep harming humans was quite strong.

Very interesting, I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell you the truth.

In every church that I have seen, the "Pastor" has invariably, and mistakenly, been the "Leader" or "Head" of the church.

Not in any church I have known or been involved with. While at first the recognized pastor may be the one to organize a church invariably (discounting televangelists) the church always elects a governing body who then manage the affairs of the church. The pastor manages the congregation and facilitates the activities. Eventually, the pastor is merely a hired position.

At least that is the structure I have seen in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell you the truth.

In every church that I have seen, the "Pastor" has invariably, and mistakenly, been the "Leader" or "Head" of the church.

This is an incorrect leadership model.....

I would say something wise and pithy, but I have no clue on the appropriate leadership model for a church. There are just some things they don't cover in rabbinical school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen churches where the pastor is the leader, I have seen others where the membership elects a board of directors who then selects a pastor, I have seen some churches where the pastor is selected by majority vote of the whole membership.

Some have the pastor handle all operations of the the church, others have the appointed and/or elected members handle the "business" side with the pastor focused on the religious side. Even some really small churches where there is no one "incharge". I want to say that is the same model as the Quaker church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this