Leaks about Africa

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

You're mistaken there. Gentiles are non-Jews.

Nope. That is the general line given since the dispersion, but it is not scriptural. It is a lazy characterization.

Gen 10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

The sons of Ham are not called Gentiles, and the sons of Shem are not called Gentiles. There are many Semites who are not Jews. All of Assyria was Semitic, but were not Gentiles.  Only the Semites and the Gentiles have been given charge of the gospel. Perhaps the last dispensation will see some of the sons of Ham.

Quote

I think all of that is fair. Thanks.

Your welcome.

Quote

This indicates that your your disposable income is 10% or more than your total income. That's it. No need to read the tea leaves when it comes to personal finance.

It means I adjusted my disposable income in order to pay tithe. Instead of living in a rented house, I lived in a trailer. Many people put God last after all the stuff they want - a house, new furniture, cars, a boat, and then if there is any left over it may get tithed. If they put God first they will find their "disposable income" will increase. The very idea of tithing out of disposable income puts God last. That is what your thinking indicates.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't dodge that.  As I said, I've never even considered "blessings" because of paying tithing.  It's never been my mindset.  As far as I can tell you, I've never received a blessing for paying tithing.  I don't seek such.  I don't know that any fortune (not necessarily monetary here either) is given to me due of me paying tithing. As it is, each and every fortunate thing that has happened to be has also happened to someone out there who has not paid tithing. 

Hope that helps for whatever it is you are looking for. 

Why do you pay it?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Why do you pay it?

I'm hopeful that the Church carries with it great potential.  I want her to grow so more influence throughout the world can help sharpen the Church, refine what we have.  As that happens I really hope God's will is more fully realized and that will get's more fully embraced by the Church, it's people and hopefully more and more people.  I also pay because I support some fo the programs in the Church.  I want the best for others, and I hold out hope that the Church gives to others and continues to find ways to provide for others. 

Hope that helps. 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm hopeful that the Church carries with it great potential.  I want her to grow so more influence throughout the world can help sharpen the Church, refine what we have.  As that happens I really hope God's will is more fully realized and that will get's more fully embraced by the Church, it's people and hopefully more and more people.  I also pay because I support some fo the programs in the Church.  I want the best for others, and I hold out hope that the Church gives to others and continues to find ways to provide for others. 

Hope that helps. 

Is not hope and supporting worthwhile programs a blessing to you, and not just some way for the Church to make money off of you? Does not your own knowledge of how to be self-reliant and free from poverty assist in your obtaining these blessings in this manner?

Are you familiar with Self-Reliance Services, which was rolled out in other countries before the USA: https://www.lds.org/topics/pef-self-reliance?lang=eng&old=true

Some success stories here: https://www.lds.org/topics/pef-self-reliance/success-stories?lang=eng&old=true

Ask your ward self-reliance specialist to share with you the statistics (can't find any online offhand) -- extremely impressive!

Edited June 15, 2017 by CV75

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is not hope and supporting worthwhile programs a blessing to you,

My hope and support a blessing to me from me?  I guess so. 

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

and not just some way for the Church to make money off of you?

Yes my hope and support is not some way for the Church to make money off of me.  Although, granted it could be that the Church could be trying to make money off of me, no matter my hope and support. 

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Does not your own knowledge of how to be self-reliant and free from poverty assist in your obtaining these blessings in this manner?

What do you mean by "these blessings" again?  I'm getting confused by what you are saying.  I honestly don't get the fortune that some of us land in our getting on this earth.  Some come and over the many years of the earth's existence have come to extreme conditions causing all sorts of unfair difficulties and maladies the extent of which and the pain that are put upon people are such that I simply can't comprehend. It's a difficult reality we face.  For some people they have come not having knowledge of others who might be better off, for most who have lived on this earth, they simply could not fathom the extent of luxury and ease we have.   

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you familiar with Self-Reliance Services, which was rolled out in other countries before the USA: https://www.lds.org/topics/pef-self-reliance?lang=eng&old=true

I am. 

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Some success stories here: https://www.lds.org/topics/pef-self-reliance/success-stories?lang=eng&old=true

Ask your ward self-reliance specialist to share with you the statistics (can't find any online offhand) -- extremely impressive!

I support the program. Thanks. 

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is not hope and supporting worthwhile programs a blessing to you, and not just some way for the Church to make money off of you? Does not your own knowledge of how to be self-reliant and free from poverty assist in your obtaining these blessings in this manner?

Are you familiar with Self-Reliance Services, which was rolled out in other countries before the USA: https://www.lds.org/topics/pef-self-reliance?lang=eng&old=true

Some success stories here: https://www.lds.org/topics/pef-self-reliance/success-stories?lang=eng&old=true

Ask your ward self-reliance specialist to share with you the statistics (can't find any online offhand) -- extremely impressive!

With respect, this seems to be a pretty low bar. Is everything that allows/provides hope worthy of our money and dedication? The lottery provides "hope" to many people, not only financial reward but also the social benefits and programs that are paid through the program. It seems like it would really be a stretch to claim that because the lottery provides hope, it is necessarily good.

Is the church the only place that teaches self-reliance? Without the church, would Stem (or any of us) be totally incapable of self-reliance, or is that principle a part of western civilization in general?

I'm not suggesting the church isn't good, only that these claims of value seem like a pretty thin thread.

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Ah, not so fast. The very first sentence in your link is: "Christian views on slavery are varied both regionally and historically." That is exactly what I pointed out in a complete paragraph to you. There is no uniform Christian viewpoint on slavery. You are merely looking at a gentile practice learned through the Roman Empire and Catholicism. However, to their credit Catholicism did stop the practice of slavery. As I indicated not all Christians adopted slavery, and the NT speaks against it. So saying Christians had no problem with slavery is just not accurate. It depends on which Christian group, and where you are talking about. In early Christianity the Eastern Church was just as big if not bigger than the western Church, and it never practiced slavery that history shows to my knowledge. Gentiles tend to think of Christianity as only the western form, and that is just not so - at least not in the early Church. The western form is just what survived Islam, until true Christianity was restored as prophesied in Revelation 12, 1260 years later.

Christians had no problem with slavery for hundreds of years before Catholicism ever existed.The NT does not speak against slavery.   BTW I never said ALL Christians have always supported slavery. Whatever the Truth Claims of the Church. Slaves were held in Utah prior to it becoming a state.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

I would agree with those people. The fish and the loaves is, IMO, metaphor.

 

Typically the reasoning goes like this.

Pay tithing. > Get into financial trouble > Eventually get out of financial trouble. Somewhere along the way God is inserted between part 2 and 3, although how anyone would know that God was intervening somehow is beyond me. God could just as easily be inserted between part one and part two as the change agent.

But God doesn't work like that. We know how God works, if we'll open our eyes and look. God does not intervene. Natural consequences are part of the nature of God.

Given that you believe all miracles are just metaphors and that God doesn't intervene in our lives (beliefs that I think are incredibly sad for any LDS member to espouse, are also very incorrect, and also contradict and how i've seen God work in my life with my own open eyes), I can understand why you would believe what you do about tithing.  You can believe whatever you want about it, that makes no difference to anyone else.

But your beliefs don't agree with the teachings on the church on it, so it makes no sense for you to try to hold other members to beliefs about tithing that they don't agree with.  

[juliann]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Talk about a eye roller, Juliann.  Calling a few observations, questions and concerns about a powerpoint that may or may not have the backing by the Church itself, a slam is really rather petty.  You consider that I raised the issues I did petty?  Great.  Don't care, honestly.  I found your participation in this thread not only petty, in the extreme, but hostile.  So there ya go. 

With that said, I realize no matter what you say, you will get posters giving you thumbs up (my goodness you got 3 thumbs up when you suggested I sounded like a sexual predator).  That's the nature of this place.  Good for you and good for them.  I find the extreme efforts you have made to create sides distasteful.  many here support that which I find distasteful.  So be it. I say move on.  I'm wanting to. 

No, you don't get to play victim when I switch out you "suggesting"  the church wants to fleece poor people through tithing as you demand that Mormons not be disgusted by your words to the "suggestion" of you being sexual predator...with an equivalent demand that you not be offended by it. But it doesn't work that way when false accusations are about you instead of the church, does it?   But I really didn't mean it, you see! I wasn't saying that at all! So it is perfectly ok. Right? You have proved my point, you are still objecting to it.

But my biggest concern is over your abuse of BD. She is one of if not the most caring, gentle, thoughtful posters this board is gifted to have. Not only that, as a white man continues to pontificate about poor black people, she reminded you,

Quote

I come off passionately because the people addressed in the PP are a part of my people. My direct relatives all of a generation back.   

Does that not register with you or do you simply not care? Or is it both. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

No, you don't get to play victim when I switch out you "suggesting"  the church wants to fleece poor people through tithing as you demand that Mormons not be disgusted by your words to the "suggestion" of you being sexual predator...with an equivalent demand that you not be offended by it.

Well it's obvious to any reader of English I did not suggest the Church wants to fleece poor people through tithing.  I keep repeating that I don't know that the powerpoint is even sanctioned by the Church.  I clearly took issue with the wording, saying this wording makes it sound like the Church wants those in poverty to get richer so the Church can make more money.  But I dont' think the Church sanctions the wording at all, and I'm surprised you and others are so defensive and supportive of the wording.  Now I know I've repeated this explanation to you and you keep saying I have suggested that which I have not.  But, I still feel it worth it to explain that which you simply aren't grasping whether intentionally or not. 

Quote

But it doesn't work that way when false accusations are about you instead of the church, does it?   But I really didn't mean it, you see! I wasn't saying that at all! So it is perfectly ok. Right? You have proved my point, you are still objecting to it.

You simply haven't grasped what is going on. 

Quote

But my biggest concern is over your abuse of BD. She is one of if not the most caring, gentle, thoughtful posters this board is gifted to have.

She came into this thread guns ablazing claiming crap about my views that were not true--kind of like you did.  I did not suggest nearly anything she attributed to me--and it was offensive to me that she somehow read that stuff into anything I was saying.  I challenged her.  She said she was backing off those claims, mostly because she couldn't support her position, I assume.  Calling her out is not abuse. It's called challenging her claims.

Quote

Not only that, as a white man continues to pontificate about poor black people, she reminded you,

Does that not register with you or do you simply not care? Or is it both. 

Of course I care that she is passionate about it.  I am too--my son's biological father is from Central Africa Republic, which happens to be right outside this area.  But they/we have family throughout western Africa.  We met up with a bunch of the family not more than 2 weeks ago.  They came for my son's graduation.  I love them and appreciate them as family. 

But in my mind, her attempts to put words in my mouth, and define my motives, had nothing to do with her heritage.  It was simply a hostile act on her part.  I remain hopeful we can all move on and stop this nastiness. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by stemelbow

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well it's obvious to any reader of English I did not suggest the Church wants to fleece poor people through tithing.  I keep repeating that I don't know that the powerpoint is even sanctioned by the Church.  I clearly took issue with the wording, saying this wording makes it sound like the Church wants those in poverty to get richer so the Church can make more money.  But I dont' think the Church sanctions the wording at all, and I'm surprised you and others are so defensive and supportive of the wording.  Now I know I've repeated this explanation to you and you keep saying I have suggested that which I have not.  But, I still feel it worth it to explain that which you simply aren't grasping whether intentionally or not. 

 

 

Well, it is obvious to any reader of English I did not suggest Stemelbow wants to be a sexual deviant. So why do you think I did? I'm surprised you are so defensive. I've repeated this explanation to you. So it's true. But, I still feel it worth it to explain that which you simply aren't grasping whether intentionally or not. 

Quote

   It was simply a hostile act on her part.  I remain hopeful we can all move on and stop this nastiness. 

Says the hostile nasty guy. 

Double standards, gotta love 'em. 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Well, it is obvious to any reader of English I did not suggest Stemelbow wants to be a sexual deviant. So why do you think I did? I'm surprised you are so defensive. I've repeated this explanation to you. So it's true. But, I still feel it worth it to explain that which you simply aren't grasping whether intentionally or not. 

Says the hostile nasty guy. 

Double standards, gotta love 'em. 

Peace to you, Juliann.  I have no desire to continue this nonsense.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Christians had no problem with slavery for hundreds of years before Catholicism ever existed.The NT does not speak against slavery.   BTW I never said ALL Christians have always supported slavery. Whatever the Truth Claims of the Church. Slaves were held in Utah prior to it becoming a state.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah

What point are you trying to make that I have not already said? Yep. You are right that BY as governor of a bunch of ex-Protestants apparently allowed slavery in Utah. So? How does that negate what I said? Protestants learned that behavior from the Roman Empire their ancestors conquered. They also believed in the Cain curse tripe which they brought with them into the LDS Church. All this does nothing to negate what I said that there is no evidence that Eastern Christians/Persian Christians practiced slavery. Protestant Christians(read western Christians) have this false impression that the early Christian faith only spread within the Roman Empire. That is just not true. It spread like wildfire in the Parthian Empire to the East, which later became the Persian Empire again until it was conquered by Muslims when the Persians had severely weakened themselves trying to defeat the Byzantine Empire. The Church of the East once had millions of members. There is no evidence they practiced slavery. You keep getting rep points so someone must like something about what you are saying, but it doesn't negate what I said. What? Are you arguing for slavery or something?

The only place the NT speaks of slaves is in a disapproving verse as being the fruits of Mystery Babylon which most agree Peter called Rome:

Rev 18:

10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

These verses are saying Rome sold slaves, and that when the teachings of the great harlot fall, no men will buy slaves anymore, and will regard the souls of men as precious. 

That is a strong denouncement of slavery. The "slavery" of the OT used by Protestants to justify the practice was really that of indentured servitude or buying services for a period of years. After that period biblical indentured servants were free. It was not ownership of the person as chattel, but more akin to a contract for services or ownership of services which could be transferred. The English word slave is used only because it was a servant-master relationship, but is not really an appropriate word given the usual modern meaning of the word. God has never approved of the practice the word slave refers to, which is just another area where I strongly disagree with BY. However, since BY was not particularly happy with Washington at the time, it may be that it was a political move just to prevent being dragged into the civil war on the side of the Union, but that is doubtful. Go ahead, argue for slavery some more. I've said my piece.

Edited June 15, 2017 by RevTestament

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

My hope and support a blessing to me from me?  I guess so. 

Yes my hope and support is not some way for the Church to make money off of me.  Although, granted it could be that the Church could be trying to make money off of me, no matter my hope and support. 

What do you mean by "these blessings" again?  I'm getting confused by what you are saying.  I honestly don't get the fortune that some of us land in our getting on this earth.  Some come and over the many years of the earth's existence have come to extreme conditions causing all sorts of unfair difficulties and maladies the extent of which and the pain that are put upon people are such that I simply can't comprehend. It's a difficult reality we face.  For some people they have come not having knowledge of others who might be better off, for most who have lived on this earth, they simply could not fathom the extent of luxury and ease we have.   

I am. 

I support the program. Thanks. 

The Church’s hope (as expressed in leaked item #6) is that "members rise from poverty through the payment of tithes and offerings and the application of self­reliance principles.” You said you pay tithes and offerings for the blessings of hope and channeling your support of Church programs (whichever they may be), which outweigh your second-guessing yourself or undermining those reasons with pessimism and fear of cross-purposes. So I conclude that you support the Church's Self-Reliance Services, both in attitude and with your tithes and offerings, which meshes well with item #6.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

With respect, this seems to be a pretty low bar. Is everything that allows/provides hope worthy of our money and dedication? The lottery provides "hope" to many people, not only financial reward but also the social benefits and programs that are paid through the program. It seems like it would really be a stretch to claim that because the lottery provides hope, it is necessarily good.

Is the church the only place that teaches self-reliance? Without the church, would Stem (or any of us) be totally incapable of self-reliance, or is that principle a part of western civilization in general?

I'm not suggesting the church isn't good, only that these claims of value seem like a pretty thin thread.

Your comment is a low-bar of tangentiality but I will reply anyway. My conversation with stem was about his attitude toward tithing. Are you suggesting his hope and purpose in paying tithing and in playing the lottery are the same? That is between you and him. But since you brought it up, how do you describe your hopes in the payment of tithe in comparison to your playing the lottery?

Note that my question to him about self-reliance was not Church-centric, which is why I took the effort to find and post links to advertise what the Church is doing in this area, and suggest that his support is well-aligned with the Church’s on this hope.

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by CV75

[USU78]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Slaves were held in Utah prior to it becoming a state.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah

You know the political reasons for Utah territory being established as slavery-friendly. You know the paucity of actual nontransitory slaves in the territory. You know JSJr and the early Saints' beliefs on slavery. You know the Missourians' reply to those beliefs upon their being publicly expressed. You know, moreover, that antislavery historically was the province of low church Anglo-Saxons.

So what is your point? The learned Constable is too cunning to be understood.

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did I? CFR. If you are going to make that claim, I'd like to see it so I can review whether or not you are accurate. Did I use the word "homophobe"? I don't recall this interaction. If you choose not to answer the CFR or can't, I hope you'll remove the accusation.

If you find something, I'd like to see it so I can see whether or not you "inferred" wrong. However, I would suggest that there is a difference between "inferring" you are saying things that are homophobic and "calling" you homophobic. Not that "inferring" is very polite either but it does seem different than blatantly accusing you of something.

I just want to make sure that your claim is more accurate than Juliann's claims about a variety of things she has attributed to me on this thread that have been demonstrated to be untrue.

No sweat. You couldn't remember it in the very thread after I got banned so I don't expect for you to remember it now.

Here's to the mighty mighty CFR you so valiantly utilize .

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68949-gay-clergy-umc-church-division/?page=3#comment-1209717109

"No need to yell. Your exclamation is bordering on homophobia.  Your disgust at the possibility is duly noted."

"borderline homophobia"?

"[my] disgust"?

If you can imagine God our Father in a homosexual relation, gave at it, I admittedly cannot even fathom it. I am repulsed by the idea but "homophobia"... really HappyJack?

Just a quick rundown: "infer" is done by the reader/recipient of an accusation. "Imply" is done by the writer/accuser. I too had to edit my origi so post to correctly use these two terms.

As for Julian, it was over the top but I fully agree that sometimes a push back is needed. And her assezmemr of you is accurate.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

You know the political reasons for Utah territory being established as slavery-friendly. You know the paucity of actual nontransitory slaves in the territory. You know JSJr and the early Saints' beliefs on slavery. You know the Missourians' reply to those beliefs upon their being publicly expressed. You know, moreover, that antislavery historically was the province of low church Anglo-Saxons.

So what is your point? The learned Constable is too cunning to be understood.

Utah was not admitted as a slave state. Utah was admitted in 1896 well after the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was ratified n 1865.

[USU78]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Utah was not admitted as a slave state. Utah was admitted in 1896 well after the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was ratified n 1865.

Please to read for comprehension:  "You know the political reasons for Utah territory being established as slavery-friendly."  Not state.  Territory.  Where BY was governor.

Or do you not?

And what is the frickin' point?

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/13/2017 at 7:33 PM, USU78 said:

I'm offended that Jesus is represented as being Jewish

Goy, goy, goy!!!  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sweet! I've got some questions that a person who hangs out with God would likely be able to answer.

You sound envious. Didn't you get your invite?

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sweet! I've got some questions that a person who hangs out with God would likely be able to answer.

What does God look like?

When is the last time you spoke face to face?

What did God say?

What's the best joke God has told you?

Does God have a favorite song?

 

Or are you claiming you hang out "metaphorically"?

1) Invisible

2) I don't know. Literally, never, how many times God was standing right next to me as Elder L. Tom Perry at the Provo MTC walked past me while exiting the fireside he gave at the Orovoe MTC, once. (Celestial angels were there too). But He was still invisible. 

3) Go to church, pay your tithing, Joseph Smith is His true prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, all the Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints and the Church itself are true.

What did God tell you, Happy? 

4) How Firm a Foundation. 

"fear not, I am with thee,

oh be not dismayed..."

What's your favorite song, Happy? 

 

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You sound envious. Didn't you get your invite?

He was baptized and served a mission. I guess it didn't work for him.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

But you’re using an equation when you should be using a formula to describe multiple interrelated processes and not just a simplistic correlation between two states that are part of a larger sequence.

 

Does the formula look like this?

 

 

Quote

When you understand math enough to use a formula rather than an equation, you will see it.

But let’s cut to the chase, which you and @stemelbow dodged all day: what blessings do you receive from paying tithing and living the principles of self-reliance? Posted 23 hours ago  Or, why do you do these things?

Here's how it worked with me.

Get married -> low income job -> pay tithing, always broke -> look for better paying jobs to compensate for tithing income loss -> rising debt due to tithing payments we couldn't afford -> seek out and get higher responsibility/income jobs to keep head above water -> start long process of getting out of debt

I think tithing can be an incentive to succeed - you kind of have to because otherwise you're economically disadvantaged. It's like walking with an anchor tied to your leg. You're slowed down, but your leg will get strong. Either that or you'll just get stuck and have to take off the anchor.

There's no magic happening. I think that's why there are so many LDS professionals (lawyers, dentists, physcians, etc). It's tough to afford to be Mormon if you have a low income. Which is a shame, given the name on the front of the church building.

Of course on the other hand tithing no doubt contributes to high bankruptcy rates as well.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Given that you believe all miracles are just metaphors and that God doesn't intervene in our lives (beliefs that I think are incredibly sad for any LDS member to espouse, are also very incorrect, and also contradict and how i've seen God work in my life with my own open eyes), I can understand why you would believe what you do about tithing.  You can believe whatever you want about it, that makes no difference to anyone else.

But your beliefs don't agree with the teachings on the church on it, so it makes no sense for you to try to hold other members to beliefs about tithing that they don't agree with.  

Sure. Christian Scientists are just as adamant about the miracles of having enough faith not to go to the doctor. Seeing the intervening hand is really a form of divination, no different from interpreting the Tarot cards. It doesn't really have anything to do with how spiritual or not you are. Superstition and spirituality are not the same thing at all.

And honestly, if there God did intervene, I would trust that God would be good and wise enough not to sully himself with the kinds of tithing miracle stories people talk about while children are starving. I have a higher opinion of God than that.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Nope. That is the general line given since the dispersion, but it is not scriptural. It is a lazy characterization.

Gen 10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

 

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The sons of Ham are not called Gentiles, and the sons of Shem are not called Gentiles. There are many Semites who are not Jews. All of Assyria was Semitic, but were not Gentiles.  Only the Semites and the Gentiles have been given charge of the gospel. Perhaps the last dispensation will see some of the sons of Ham.

Your welcome.

I think you've misread something there. The word gentiles doesn't actually appear in that chapter. But it generally refers to non-Jews or non-Israelites. Genesis presents origin myths about the origins of the various tribes, Hebrew and Gentile.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0110.htm