What Is Love?

[Webers_Home]

.
● 1Cor 11:33-34 . . My brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for
each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you
meet together it may not result in judgment.

The command doesn't frown upon things like church banquets, men's'
breakfasts, ladies' luncheons, and/or potlucks per se. What it's criticizing is a
lack of congregational unity. Here's comments leading up to that verse.

● 1Cor 11:17-22 . . Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you,
since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all,
when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among
you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that
those who are approved may be recognized among you.

. . .Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat The
Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others;
and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to
eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who
have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not
praise you.

Their lack of love and unity during church functions was nothing short of
hypocrisy seeing as how The Lord's supper speaks of sacrifice rather than
selfishness, elitism, and hoarding. In other words; seeing as how Christians
all share in Christ's blood equally-- and deserve hell equally --then everyone
should be given equal treatment at church regardless of age, gender, skin
color, intelligence, income level, nationality, what side of the tracks they live
on, or social status.

None of Christ's body parts are untouchable; nor are any of them
expendable. God forbid that there should be some sort of caste system in a
gathering of people for whom Christ suffered and died equally for each one.
That just wouldn't be right: it would be an insult to the principles underlying
The Lord's supper.

● Matt 26:27 . . Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them,
saying: Drink from it, all of you.

If Christians are all drinking from the same cup, then they should all be, at
the very least, eating the same food and not be overly concerned about
where they sit and/or who they sit next to and/or who they're seen with.
And they should also make double sure that everyone gets enough to eat
and that no one gets left out and nobody gets more than his fair share. And
they should all sit down together at the same time.

I just hate it when people don't wait for each other. Some get back to the
table and start in gulping, slurping, clattering, and clanking while others
from their table are still in line.

And they should also take into consideration the possibility that a number of
their congregation are in assistance programs like TANF and SNAP. In other
words; don't just bring enough food from home for yourself; but, if you're
able, bring enough for those among you who can't bring anything at all. And
for heaven's sake, don't bring a side dish of gourmet food along just for
yourself. Leave your special gourmet stuff at home. There's just no excuse
for flaunting your "sophistication" around church thus giving everyone the
impression that everyone else's tastes are below yours.

You know; why am I even saying these things? In point of fact, why even
did Paul? I mean: shouldn't Christians be eo ipso sources of the milk of
human kindness without somebody shaming them and lecturing them into
being humane with their fellow believers and taking thought for their
feelings? Why must so many Christians be practically strong-armed into
being courteous with one another?
_

 

[justbyfaith]

.
● 1Cor 11:33-34 . . My brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for
each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you
meet together it may not result in judgment.

The command doesn't frown upon things like church banquets, men's'
breakfasts, ladies' luncheons, and/or potlucks per se. What it's criticizing is a
lack of congregational unity. Here's comments leading up to that verse.

● 1Cor 11:17-22 . . Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you,
since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all,
when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among
you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that
those who are approved may be recognized among you.

. . .Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat The
Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others;
and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to
eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who
have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not
praise you.

Their lack of love and unity during church functions was nothing short of
hypocrisy seeing as how The Lord's supper speaks of sacrifice rather than
selfishness, elitism, and hoarding. In other words; seeing as how Christians
all share in Christ's blood equally-- and deserve hell equally --then everyone
should be given equal treatment at church regardless of age, gender, skin
color, intelligence, income level, nationality, what side of the tracks they live
on, or social status.

None of Christ's body parts are untouchable; nor are any of them
expendable. God forbid that there should be some sort of caste system in a
gathering of people for whom Christ suffered and died equally for each one.
That just wouldn't be right: it would be an insult to the principles underlying
The Lord's supper.

● Matt 26:27 . . Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them,
saying: Drink from it, all of you.

If Christians are all drinking from the same cup, then they should all be, at
the very least, eating the same food and not be overly concerned about
where they sit and/or who they sit next to and/or who they're seen with.
And they should also make double sure that everyone gets enough to eat
and that no one gets left out and nobody gets more than his fair share. And
they should all sit down together at the same time.

I just hate it when people don't wait for each other. Some get back to the
table and start in gulping, slurping, clattering, and clanking while others
from their table are still in line.

And they should also take into consideration the possibility that a number of
their congregation are in assistance programs like TANF and SNAP. In other
words; don't just bring enough food from home for yourself; but, if you're
able, bring enough for those among you who can't bring anything at all. And
for heaven's sake, don't bring a side dish of gourmet food along just for
yourself. Leave your special gourmet stuff at home. There's just no excuse
for flaunting your "sophistication" around church thus giving everyone the
impression that everyone else's tastes are below yours.

You know; why am I even saying these things? In point of fact, why even
did Paul? I mean: shouldn't Christians be eo ipso sources of the milk of
human kindness without somebody shaming them and lecturing them into
being humane with their fellow believers and taking thought for their
feelings? Why must so many Christians be practically strong-armed into
being courteous with one another?
_

I suppose that it is an indictment on the Christian Church.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● 1Cor 16:20 . . Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Kissing was a common form of greeting in the old world; and still is in the
Middle East and certain parts of Europe; but here in America-- a super-sized
racial/cultural/ethnic amalgam of customs from all over the globe --it's wise
to dispense your kisses with discretion. Some of us don't even like to be
hugged, let alone bussed; and if you should perchance try to make physical
contact with an autistic Christian, you're liable to cause them a panic attack;
so go easy on the touchy-feely stuff.

The people to whom Paul referred as "one another" are one's fellow born
again Christians. We're not required to be cozy with unbelievers. You can be
courteous to them, yes (cf. Matt 5:47) but reserve especially warm greetings
for your siblings; viz: those who've undergone a second birth as per John
1:12-13 and John 3:3-8, and thus share your adoption into God's home as
per Rom 8:15-17.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● 1Cor 16:22 . . If anyone love not The Lord, let him be accursed.

One's love of The Lord is evidenced by loyalty.

● John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

● John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

● John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

Does a Muslim have to be a terrorist to be accursed? No; they only have to
be a loyal follower of Muhammad ibn `Abdullāh instead of a loyal follower of
Jesus Christ; same goes for Atheists, Nonreligious, Baha'i, Buddhists,
Chinese Universalists, Confucianists, Jains, Kabbalah mystics, Shintoists,
Spiritists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Sikhs, and Hindus-- they're all
accursed and there is nothing to be gained in arguing about it.

How many people am I talking about? Well, as of mid 2014, worldwide there were:

550,000 Scientologists
1,500,000 Mormons
8,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
7,794,000 Baha'i
515,951,000 Buddhists
451,292,000 Chinese Folk Religionists
8,424,000 Confucianists
974,597,000 Hindus
5,567,000 Jains
14,142,000 Jews
1,673,590 Muslims
2,819,000 Shintoists
24,918,000 Sikhs
14,183,000 Spiritists
8,660,000 Taoists
196,000 Zoroastrians
828,594,000 Nonreligious
692,111,000 Agnostics
136,483,000 Atheists.

The grand total of just those categories alone is 5,369,071,000

If those figures are in the ball park, and if classical Christianity is the reality;
then a minimum of at least 75% of the earth's 2014 population of 7.2 billion
people didn't love The Lord.

NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are Christians, yes, but not in the
classical sense.

Joseph Smith's movement is a spin-off; in other words: there's some
classical Christianity in Mormonism, but comprises only a portion of
Mormonism. The rest of it is extreme, to say the least.

Neither do Jehovah's Witnesses qualify as Christians in the classical sense.
Charles Taze Russell's movement is a spin-off too. There's some classical
Christianity in the Watchtower Society's doctrines, but comprises only a
portion of Russell's doctrines; and his slant on it is very peculiar.

BTW: A book that I personally consider an essential volume in every
Christian's library is called: "Kingdom Of The Cults" by Walter Martin.
_

 

[justbyfaith]

.
● 1Cor 16:22 . . If anyone love not The Lord, let him be accursed.

One's love of The Lord is evidenced by loyalty.

● John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

● John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

● John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

Does a Muslim have to be a terrorist to be accursed? No; they only have to
be a loyal follower of Muhammad ibn `Abdullāh instead of a loyal follower of
Jesus Christ; same goes for Atheists, Nonreligious, Baha'i, Buddhists,
Chinese Universalists, Confucianists, Jains, Kabbalah mystics, Shintoists,
Spiritists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Sikhs, and Hindus-- they're all
accursed and there is nothing to be gained in arguing about it.

How many people am I talking about? Well, as of mid 2014, worldwide there were:

550,000 Scientologists
1,500,000 Mormons
8,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
7,794,000 Baha'i
515,951,000 Buddhists
451,292,000 Chinese Folk Religionists
8,424,000 Confucianists
974,597,000 Hindus
5,567,000 Jains
14,142,000 Jews
1,673,590 Muslims
2,819,000 Shintoists
24,918,000 Sikhs
14,183,000 Spiritists
8,660,000 Taoists
196,000 Zoroastrians
828,594,000 Nonreligious
692,111,000 Agnostics
136,483,000 Atheists.

The grand total of just those categories alone is 5,369,071,000

If those figures are in the ball park, and if classical Christianity is the reality;
then a minimum of at least 75% of the earth's 2014 population of 7.2 billion
people didn't love The Lord.

NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are Christians, yes, but not in the
classical sense.

Joseph Smith's movement is a spin-off; in other words: there's some
classical Christianity in Mormonism, but comprises only a portion of
Mormonism. The rest of it is extreme, to say the least.

Neither do Jehovah's Witnesses qualify as Christians in the classical sense.
Charles Taze Russell's movement is a spin-off too. There's some classical
Christianity in the Watchtower Society's doctrines, but comprises only a
portion of Russell's doctrines; and his slant on it is very peculiar.

BTW: A book that I personally consider an essential volume in every
Christian's library is called: "Kingdom Of The Cults" by Walter Martin.
_

How many Christians in that number?

 

[Nancy]

.
● 1Cor 16:22 . . If anyone love not The Lord, let him be accursed.

One's love of The Lord is evidenced by loyalty.

● John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

● John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

● John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

Does a Muslim have to be a terrorist to be accursed? No; they only have to
be a loyal follower of Muhammad ibn `Abdullāh instead of a loyal follower of
Jesus Christ; same goes for Atheists, Nonreligious, Baha'i, Buddhists,
Chinese Universalists, Confucianists, Jains, Kabbalah mystics, Shintoists,
Spiritists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Sikhs, and Hindus-- they're all
accursed and there is nothing to be gained in arguing about it.

How many people am I talking about? Well, as of mid 2014, worldwide there were:

550,000 Scientologists
1,500,000 Mormons
8,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
7,794,000 Baha'i
515,951,000 Buddhists
451,292,000 Chinese Folk Religionists
8,424,000 Confucianists
974,597,000 Hindus
5,567,000 Jains
14,142,000 Jews
1,673,590 Muslims
2,819,000 Shintoists
24,918,000 Sikhs
14,183,000 Spiritists
8,660,000 Taoists
196,000 Zoroastrians
828,594,000 Nonreligious
692,111,000 Agnostics
136,483,000 Atheists.

The grand total of just those categories alone is 5,369,071,000

If those figures are in the ball park, and if classical Christianity is the reality;
then a minimum of at least 75% of the earth's 2014 population of 7.2 billion
people didn't love The Lord.

NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are Christians, yes, but not in the
classical sense.

Joseph Smith's movement is a spin-off; in other words: there's some
classical Christianity in Mormonism, but comprises only a portion of
Mormonism. The rest of it is extreme, to say the least.

Neither do Jehovah's Witnesses qualify as Christians in the classical sense.
Charles Taze Russell's movement is a spin-off too. There's some classical
Christianity in the Watchtower Society's doctrines, but comprises only a
portion of Russell's doctrines; and his slant on it is very peculiar.

BTW: A book that I personally consider an essential volume in every
Christian's library is called: "Kingdom Of The Cults" by Walter Martin.
_

It has always been my understanding that "few" will make it into The Kingdom as, many will choose the wide road. And, what say you about:
"And, If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" 1 Peter 4:18 So it sure seems very few will be saved. So, did you figure there to be maybe like, 1% will be those who spend eternity with The Lord? More? Less?
Would you agree that any and all who claim Christianity, yet deny the divinity of Christ should be under the banner of "Christian"? Not sure about Mormonism but I do understand that J.W.'s do not believe Jesus was God. I have heard of the Kingdom of The Cults by W.M. and will be ordering it. There is a study guide as well but, would the study guide be a different book?
Good post, and puts things in perspective. God isn't fooling around!! Amen

 

[Webers_Home]

.

And, what say you about:

The things you ask are all good question; however, they have the potential
to hijack the thread and take it off-topic. I'd much rather stay the original
course-- What love is: how to recognize it and how to apply it.
_

 

[Nancy]

.


The things you ask are all good question; however, they have the potential
to hijack the thread and take it off-topic. I'd much rather stay the original
course-- What love is: how to recognize it and how to apply it.
_

Sorry, thought I was responding directly to your post, at least parts of it. I do not want to derail and I am realizing I do that, allot, without realizing it but then, there are those who derail their own posts too

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● 2Cor 2:5-10 . . The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is
sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so
that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore,
to reaffirm your love for him.

The cause for which Paul wrote that section was a guy in the Corinthian
church sleeping with his stepmother (1Cor 5:1). Paul had commanded the
congregation to not only hold the man's feet to the fire, but also to ostracize
him.

Some time had passed since then, and the man was apparently regretting
his actions, and broken off the illicit relationship with his kin, so it was time
to let him back into the group. No doubt the humiliation of it all had a
tremendous impact upon his attitude— probably upon the congregation's too
because at first their attitude wasn't all that good about it either. (cf. 1Cor
5:2)

Here in America scolding and ostracizing a church member would probably
just make them indignant rather than repentant.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● 2Cor 2:9-11 . . If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have
forgiven-- if there was anything to forgive --I have forgiven in the sight of
Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not
unaware of his schemes.

One of the opposition's tactics is to create disunity in a church. Sure enough
when that happens-- as when one portion of the congregation believes in
judging and ostracizing while the other doesn't --people start taking sides
and the church will end up divided into cliques and factions. According to the
lord and master of New Testament Christianity, a house divided against itself
cannot stand.

Paul mentioned that his extension of forgiveness was "in the sight of Christ".
There exists some controversy as to the exact meaning but I think it's just
saying that Paul's forgiveness of that man was done in accordance with.
Christ's approval; to the end that the Corinthians all go along with it, i.e.
stand together as one.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Gal 5:26 . . Let us not be conceited, provoking one another, envying one
another.

Webster's defines "conceit" as: excessive self-appreciation of one's own
worth or virtue.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having strong core values and/or
believing in yourself, but if you should find yourself somewhat indignant
and/or resentful when others don't believe in you, or when they think very
little of your core values; then watch out because that's a symptom of
conceit, and it will hinder you from obeying The Lord's orders in regard to
getting along with fellow believers.

The koiné word for "envy" is phthoneo (fthon-eh'-o) which means: hostile
toward a rival, or towards someone believed to enjoy an advantage. In other
words; we're talking about a competitive spirit-- not the good-natured,
friendly kind but a malicious kind of competitive spirit that resents others
doing better than itself, or more popular than itself, or more recognized than
itself, or more admired than itself; viz; it's all about self.

Rivalry is a very destructive passion. It got Abel slain by his own brother,
and it got Christ slain by his own people. Rivalry makes otherwise sensible
people behave contrary to their own better judgment, and gets them
embroiled in oftentimes unnecessary vendettas; e.g. gender rivalry and
racial rivalry. Now those two there are very destructive social influences.

If none of the above describes you; consider yourself fortunate.

The koiné word for "provoke" is prokaleomai (prok-al-eh'-om-ahee) which
means to challenge; viz: to get in somebody's face in an obnoxious,
assertive, confrontational manner; which is a kind of behavior that prevents
people from deserving identification with God's kin.

● Matt 5:9 . . Blessed are the peaceable: for they shall be called the children
of God.
_

 

[Nancy]

This is like, a blog!! I'd never get to a single other post if I read this thread, LOL! Good stuff but, should it not be "blogged"?

 

[justbyfaith]

but if you should find yourself somewhat indignant
and/or resentful when others don't believe in you, or when they think very
little of your core values; then watch out because that's a symptom of
conceit, and it will hinder you from obeying The Lord's orders in regard to
getting along with fellow believers.

We will get along just fine with fellow believers if we keep to our core values; it is unbelievers that we don't get along with because they disregard our core values: it is not a sin that we do not find fellowship with them over this.

2Co 6:14, Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15, And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16, And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It is not conceit to hold core beliefs in high regard; for in doing so I do not hold my own intellect in high esteem: but rather I am holding the source of my belief system in high esteem, in that I hold the Bible to be authoritative. This is not conceit; this is a biblical faith!

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Gal 6:1a . . Brethren, even if someone is caught in the very act of any
trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness;

The koiné Greek word for "trespass" is interesting. It can refer to willful
misconduct and/or to unintentional misconduct. Seeing as how willful
misconduct is dealt with harshly and summarily as per 1Cor 5:1-13 while in
this situation gently, then I'd say Gal 6:1 is referring to unintentional
misconduct; which doesn't merit a public flogging; but rather a quiet talk;
and the more private the better in order to avoid embarrassing the
unintentional offender.

Restoration does not apply to visitors; only to members on a church's roles;
i.e. the congregation. The visitors' business is none of our business so don't
go sticking your nose in it.

The Greek word for "restore" basically means to repair or adjust, viz:
restoration applies to maladjusted Christians, i.e. the ones whose
misconduct is habitual, and quite possibly detrimental to a church's overall
health.

A spirit of gentleness precludes the use of bullying, intimidation, rage.
yelling, demeaning comments, ugly remarks, carping criticism, brow
beating, and such. Those kinds of behaviors aren't gentle, no, they're cruel
and abusive.

NOTE: The instructions given in Gal 6:1 pertain only to spiritual Christians;
garden variety, rank and file pew warmers-- viz: marginal Christians --need
not concern themselves with it.

In churches where people are conceited, assertive, confrontational,
embroiled in petty rivalries, debating, quarrelling, and maybe even jostling
for notoriety; the spiritual ones are obviously going to be as scarce as
California Condors.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Gal 6:1b . . each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted.

The Greek word for "tempted" is somewhat ambiguous. It primarily means
to test; but can also mean endeavor, scrutinize, entice, and/or discipline.

I think what the restorers are being cautioned against is going about a right
thing in a wrong way so that they themselves wind up taken to task for
conduct unbecoming. In some people's minds, the end justifies the means so
long as it benefits the so-called greater good. But that's Machiavellian
thinking rather than Christian thinking.

In other words: the restorers need to tread lightly because if they go after
an alleged offender like a lynch mob; then they themselves should expect to
be seen by others as a toxic menace and a threat to peace and cohesion.

Confronting somebody in a holier-than-thou attitude is unacceptable too.
Just because someone has been taken in fault does not make the jury
somehow superior human specimens.

● Phil 2:3 . . Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in
humility consider others better than yourselves.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Gal 6:1-2 . . Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

It's human nature to shun people with problems so they don't drag us into a
world of inconvenience and/or negativity. But that is not what I call fulfilling
the law of Christ; which reads thusly:

● John 13:34-35 . . A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have
loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you
are my disciples, if you love one another.

The love that is defined by "As I have loved you" is a kind of love willing to
suffer inconvenience, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and disgrace for
the sake of another. Christ's love isn't a fault-finding attitude; it's a
supportive virtue: it doesn't only feel your pain, it gets involved in your pain.

Church can be the loneliest place on earth when nobody cares enough about
you to get involved in your pain; but instead would just as soon not know
about it. Sadly, there is about as much love for one another in modern
churches as there is amongst an audience of strangers at the movies. I
sincerely believe that a lot of that indifference has to do with modern
churches just simply being too big and too busy.
_

 

[justbyfaith]

.
● Gal 6:1-2 . . Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

It's human nature to shun people with problems so they don't drag us into a
world of inconvenience and/or negativity. But that is not what I call fulfilling
the law of Christ; which reads thusly:

● John 13:34-35 . . A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have
loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you
are my disciples, if you love one another.

The love that is defined by "As I have loved you" is a kind of love willing to
suffer inconvenience, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and disgrace for
the sake of another. Christ's love isn't a fault-finding attitude; it's a
supportive virtue: it doesn't only feel your pain, it gets involved in your pain.

Church can be the loneliest place on earth when nobody cares enough about
you to get involved in your pain; but instead would just as soon not know
about it. Sadly, there is about as much love for one another in modern
churches as there is amongst an audience of strangers at the movies. I
sincerely believe that a lot of that indifference has to do with modern
churches just simply being too big and too busy.
_

I suppose that that is another indictment on the church.

In its defense, I want to say that not everyone who walks into a church is necessarily the mature type.

You may have 50 people who are all looking for someone to love on them; instead of obeying the command of scripture to be doing the loving.

We need to be not so quick to judge the churches for containing people who are in need rather than those who are full of the Holy Spirit and can give to those in need.

It has been said despairingly that Jesus and going to church is like a crutch: and certain pastors have responded by stating that it is a whole hospital!

It is always important that there be a mature core group in any given church that can reach out and love the majority who come seeking help because of their need.

The latter cannot reach out in love because they are in need themselves. And are we to judge them over this?

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Gal 6:10 . . So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men,
and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

Good can take any number of forms but I think a useful description we could
apply here is "beneficial".

Jesus did good (Acts 10:30) i.e. he was very definitely beneficial; not just on
the cross or by his teachings, but in non spiritual ways too.

Those who are of the "household of the faith" are actually kin; viz: siblings;
and like they say: charity begins at home.

Some churches have what they call a deacon's fund; to assist members who
are down and out and/or in dire straits.

And don't overlook your church's senior citizens. Some may be getting up in
years and finding it difficult to even maintain their own homes and yards
anymore. Chores may not seem all that spiritual; but pitch in anyway if for
no other reason than your assistance is beneficial.
_

 

[justbyfaith]

Chores may not seem all that spiritual;

Chores are very spiritual.

One of our Lord's major teachings was that if anyone wishes to be great among you, let him be the servant of all.

 

[Philip James]

Chores are very spiritual.

One of our Lord's major teachings was that if anyone wishes to be great among you, let him be the servant of all.

; viz; it's all about self.

Here we have the contrast between what is love and what is not.

Love denies self for the sake of the other.

Love does not run on ahead to its own satisfaction and glory, but helps those around it so as to bring Glory to God.

Love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things... Not for itself but for the One Who IS love!

Self must decrease and HE increase, then we will truly love one another and lay ourselves down for one another and for HIM who laid Himself down for us...

Peace be with you!