Isn't It Two-Faced of People/Government to Demand Separation-of-Church-&-State, and Yet to Charge Churches Money?
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
January 29, 2017 11:49am CST
Just a random thought here: Shouldn't 'it's for the church' be good enough to serve as payment for things? (I know as soon as I ask that--if it were good-enough--people would misuse it enough to make it useless again ) It makes me think of 'the donkey used for Lord Jesus' Triumphal Entry' when Lord Jesus told His disciples just to go untie the donkey and--if anyone tried to stop them--to tell them "The LORD has need of it." I imagine picking up a few dozen pizzas for my church and--when the workers ask me for money--just replying, "The LORD has need of them!" Just how far do you think I'd get with them?
• United States
29 Jan 17
I don't think it is a bit two-faced, really. I think it would be a bit arrogant to think since you believe in your God that I should just hand stuff over for Him. Maybe I worship the Great Spaghetti Monster. Just saying...
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
30 Jan 17
I guess 'where preachers/pastors/etc. get their excuse for having us do that' (other than in the Bible where a couple 'turned to dust' after they wouldn't give 100% of their resources to 'the church') is the old saying "Put your money where your mouth is!" The idea being that--if you put your full faith in God to provide "your daily bread"--you should put all your money in his church!