Don't Talk Religion At Garage Sales

It Could Elevate The Blood Pressure

Published on February 27, 2010 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Blogging

I have a friend who loves to go to garage sales. I can take them or leave them but do have an interesting time looking around when we go out. Some days are good and we come home with some "bargains and treasures" and other days not so much. One thing's for sure, we do meet some interesting people along the way.

Today not only did we grab a few things on the cheap side we also had an interesting discussion with one lady selling her wares in her very crowded garage.

This neighborhood had 20 homes participating in a community garage sale. You would have thought we were going to a state fair with all the traffic. It was quite unbelievable at 7:45 in the morning with cars coming and going parking on both sides of the street for quite a distance. We actually got stuck sitting in our golf cart not being able to move to the left or right as the traffic was in quite a jam on one of the narrow streets. They couldn't move and we just sat there until somebody figured something out and traffic started moving again.

So we went down one of the side streets, and I believe it was the last house we went to that we met this "interesting" lady.

Upon entering her garage we saw quite a few Christian CD's/DVD's, books, etc and overheard her say they were materials from a church they had somewhere prior. I overheard her mention that her husband is a Pastor so I spoke up and said mine was as well. She told me the name of her denomination which I wasn't familiar with and went on to explain it was evangelical and biblical. So far so good. Some of the materials in her garage were by authors/singers I was familiar with and some not.

As I was browsing, she went on to explain that another well known famous Pastor (whom I was quite familiar with and like) left her denomination over his belief that women shouldn't be Pastors. So I told her, as I looked thru her CD's, that I would agree with that Pastor saying it wasn't my opinion but what the bible taught.

We bought a few things and then prepared to leave, stopping to check one last box on the way out, when the lady got up from inside the garage and engaged us further in this conversation about women Pastors. I'm thinking, after the fact, that she has quite an aggressive personality and she was just about to show us.

She admitted to us then that she was a woman Pastor to which I said I would have a problem with that because the bible is clear that men were to be leaders in the church and the home. She said the churches are missing out by not having woman pastors to which I respectfully disagreed. At that point I explained that I think women have important roles to play in ministry just not as spiritual heads over men citing the roles of Adam and Eve and explaining that those roles got reversed and we've been paying for it ever since. Not to mention that it's clearly outlined from the gospels on that men were to lead the church.

She bristled at that and very sharply said in a loud voice "well I can see you don't want to hear what I have to say." I was aghast since she not only followed us out she very clearly stated her position before I had my say. As soon as I cited scripture explaining my position she got angry. She then went on to give quite a lengthy explanation saying there are different flavors of ice cream for different tastes and mumbled something about the culture back then is different than today not giving anything but her opinion. She said she didn't want to argue with me (she followed us out) and that it all comes down to essentials which I agree with. She also said when all is said and done it's going to come down to "who do you say that I am" which I also agree with but if you're following Christ why would you deny His teaching and not live by His truth? If this very clear mandate is not followed, what else do they believe? To deny His word is to deny Him.

Obviously this lady doesn't really, deep down, believe what she's trying to convince me is truth or she wouldn't have been angered so easily. I barely said anything but evidently it was enough and to the point. She obviously had nothing to go on but her opinion and the opinion of others. For a woman Pastor you would have thought she would have given me something a bit more objective.

As my husband says...all the time..."it is what it is."

Comments (Page 7)

lulapilgrim

on Mar 11, 2010

kfc posts:

Sorry to see that because I prepared a rather lengthy response to Lula regarding her assertion that it was Jews who were persecuting the Christian Jews in and around Rome and not the pagan Roman empire. I mentioned Nero, Domitiian and Diocletian among others. It was NOT Jews who persecuted the Christians it was Rome who eventually got on board and took over what they couldn't put a stop to from Constantine onward.

Actually I agreed with you. I know well that the ancient Romans persecuted the early Chruch. I just reminded you that before Rome persecuted the first Christian converts, they persecuted the Jews and cited that Titus slaughtered tens of thousands of Jews when he destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem in 70AD.

We discussed that the fledgling early Church experienced the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in Jerusalem. It was in Jerusalem that the multitudes were converted and baptized. This fulfilled Christ's prediction...""You shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." Acts 1:8

The first few chapters of Acts tell of the life of the early Church in Jerusalem. It records how the Infant Chruch was growing but at the same time the Jews who rejected Christ persecuted the first Christian converts. The Gospel is spread but not without persecution by the Jewish establishment, ending in the martyrdom of St. Stephen.

But Scripture is clear that the Jews were hostile first to Christ then to the Jewish converts. In St. John, "for fear of the Jews" comes up quite often. So, yes, Jews were persecuting the first Christians who had converted from Judaism. Read the story of the man born blind but was healed by Jesus. Word of the miracle spread but the Jews who opposed Christ wouldn't believe it and in order to confirm the Jews sent for the blind man's parents (who were also Jewish), but they were intimidated, refusing to speak about it "out of fear of the Jews, who had already agreed to expel from the synagogue anyone who should acknowledge Jesus as the Christ." St.John 9:22.

So right there in the Gospels we see a split and the hostility that would lead to persecution for some time even after Christ's death. Once Jesus claimed to be the "Son of man", He called for a decision from the Jews. St.John 7:11, "At the festival the Jews were on the lookout for Him: "Where is He?", they said. People stood in groups whispering about Him. Some said, "He is a good man."; others "No, He is leading the people astray." Yet, no one spoke about Him openly for fear of the Jews."

There is no confusing the use of the word "Jew" in this context. A "Jew" is someone who is openly hostile to Christ and willing to persecute those Jews who accept Him as the Messias. "For fear of the Jews" here indicates that at this point in time the Jews were afraid of "Jews". The well-being of the Jews who accepted Christ was being threatened by the Jews who rejected Him.

THe identity of all Jews both Christian and "Jews" was established by Christ. The parents of the man born blind exhibit "fear of the Jews" becasue "the Jews" threaten to expel followers of Jesus, also Jews, from the synagaogue. The identity of both groups was essentially religious not ethnic. The Jews who acknowledge Christ were expelled from the synagogue. The Jews who rejected Him, the people St.John calls "the Jews" defined themselves by that rejection.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 12, 2010

Regarding:

Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Chruch, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven." St.Matt. 16: 18-19.

and

"and Jesus came and said to them, "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded, and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." St.Matt. 28: 18-20.

lula posts:

Christ gave His authority and power “to bind and loose on earth” to His Church starting with St.Peter and then the Apostles..As the Book of Acts clearly points out, the Apostles passed on their authority and power by ordaining other good men by the laying on of hands and not to “all believers in many denominations.”

lula posts:

Claim what you will, but there is not one Protestant believer who has Divine authority “to bind and loose”.

kfc posts 86

says who? You? Jesus at the first here in Matthew 16 and later in 18:18 gave this "authority" to Jews. Not Catholics. Not Protestants but Jews. Do you even know what it means to "bind and loose?"

As to the first part of your reply,

Yes, the Apostles except St.Luke were Jews, but at this point in Scripture, it isn't about the Apostles' ethnicity. Christ gave His authority to St.Luke who wasn't a Jew so we know it's not about ethnicity.

In St.Matt. 16, Christ gave St.Peter His authority to bind and loose and then later in 18:18 to the Apostles. At this point the Apostles had already accepted Christ and His teachings of the new Christian Faith (although they wouldn't get full knowledge of Truth until Pentecost). Then, in St.Matt. 28:18-20 , the Risen Christ appears and He tells them the authority which He is going to give them to equip them to carry out His mission to the whole world until the end of time derives from His own Divine authority.

Yes, I know what it means "to bind and loose". To the point that I said, there is not one Protestant believer who has Divine authority “to bind and loose”.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 12, 2010

Wow Lula. I actually agree with your posting #91. I just want to add that when it says "The Jews" in the gospels or Acts generally it means the Jewish leaders. They were very much against Christ and then later his followers. Paul was included in that until he was converted and then he was attacked as he attacked previously.

but your posting #92 is another matter. You can stop quoting Peter and the Rock now. You've more than not worn that verse out here. You know I disagree so why do you keep pushing?

Yes, I know what it means "to bind and loose". To the point that I said, there is not one Protestant believer who has Divine authority “to bind and loose”.

I disagree. Who says it's the RCC? Not Jesus. So what does it mean?

Leauki

on Mar 12, 2010

You made an interesting accidental admission there.

For years you had maintained that (Roman Catholic) Christianity was the logical continuation of Judaism and that current Judaism (presumably Rabbinic Judaism, Karaism and Samaritanism) is a religion different from pre-Christian Judaism.

But now, when you had to make the point that Jews persecuted Christians, you had to admit that Jews _converted_ to Christianity, accepting new beliefs and parting with the old, while those Jews that didn't convert then persecuted them.

Yes, early Christians converted from Judaism. But the rest of your story is not quite accurate. Jews have often been unfriendly towards members of other Jewish sects (as Jesus pointed out in his story about the Samaritan). But they did not "persecute" them. The Romans, however, did persecute Jews, all the sects, including the new Messianic Jews, the Christians.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 12, 2010

Jesus said, 18 "And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Chruch, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven." St.Matt. 16: 18-19.

kfc

You can stop quoting Peter and the Rock now. You've more than not worn that verse out here.

Well, OK, I can understand your saying this. However, in order to properly discuss verse 19, the God-given power or authority to bind and loose, then verse 18 comes into play. For the full context and meaning, v. 19 can't be split from v. 18. Why should we split the two when OUr Lord said it all at the same time the same person?

For example, v. 19 Christ's promise of giving was to one person only....St.Peter. And the keys to the kingdom ....kingdom refers directly back to His Church in v. 18.

lula posts:

Yes, I know what it means "to bind and loose". To the point that I said, there is not one Protestant believer who has Divine authority “to bind and loose”.

kfc posts:

I disagree.

OK, please explain.

lulapilgrim

on Mar 12, 2010

YEAH!

Dr Guy

on Mar 12, 2010

Leauki

reply 94

From a strictly political viewpoint, you are correct. In order to persecute, you have to have authority. And since at the time of Christ, the Jews were not in charge, they could only discriminate or "be unfriendly" to the new sect. Even Herrod passed the buck.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 12, 2010

Well, OK, I can understand your saying this

but you don't really or you don't care because here you are...quoting once again even after I made a comment on this (again).

And the keys to the kingdom ....kingdom refers directly back to His Church in v. 18.

we've been over this a GAZILLION TIMES! Why do you keep pressing? It's NOT ABOUT PETER! It's about Christ. It's HIS church, not Peter's! Christ is the Rock...NOT PETER.

For more than 1500 years the RCC has maintained that this passage teaches the church was built on the person of Peter. Such an interpretation is both presumptuous and unbiblical because the rest of the NT makes abundantly clear that Christ alone is the foundation and ONLY head of His church!

This was made absolutely clear, that Christ DID NOT establish His church on the supremacy of Peter, a short while after Peter's great confession. When the disciples asked Jesus who was greatest in the kingdom of heaven, He replied by placing a small child before them and said "whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." 18:1-4. I know first hand (believe me) the pride in the RCC. It's staggering actually.

Had the 12 understood Jesus teaching about the ROCK and the keys as referring exclusively to Peter, they would hardly have askd who was greatest in the kingdom correct? Jesus would have answered by naming Peter as the greatest if as you say. He did not. Later the mother of James and John asked Jesus to give her sons the chief places of honor in His kingdom. 20:20. They were directly involved in this request, one they should never had made had they understood Peter to have been given primacy as Christ's successor.

It's all manufactured by the RCC Lula. You've been deceived. It's not taught in scriptures.

Christ turns around and then calls Peter Satan in v23!!! You never mention that tho, do you? Right after he tells him (according to you) that he is the supreme Apostle?

OK, please explain

I already did. You want me to go further into explanation when you haven't given me your definition of "binding and loosing" even tho I've asked now twice?

lulapilgrim

on Mar 12, 2010

lula posts:

Yes, I know what it means "to bind and loose". To the point that I said, there is not one Protestant believer who has Divine authority “to bind and loose”.

kfc posts: I disagree.

LULA POSTS: OK, please explain.

KFC POSTS:

I already did.

regarding the highlighted: Well, if you did, I can't find it.

In 86, you said

Jesus at the first here in Matthew 16 and later in 18:18 gave this "authority" to Jews. Not Catholics. Not Protestants but Jews. Do you even know what it means to "bind and loose?"

A....you haven't backed that up and B....I refuted your explanation in 92.

kfc posts:

You want me to go further into explanation when you haven't given me your definition of "binding and loosing" even tho I've asked now twice?

OK. Next post I'll explain what St,Matt. 16:18-19 and 18:18 means in reference "to bind and loose".

100

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 13, 2010

I refuted your explanation in 92.

no, I don't see it. I read it. All you said is a Protestant can't do this to which I disagreed.

I'm done talking to you about Peter and your belief that he was a Supreme Apostle. I'll second Paul's response to this conversation by invoking Acts 18:6

101

lulapilgrim

on Mar 13, 2010

leauki posts:

Yes, early Christians converted from Judaism. But the rest of your story is not quite accurate. Jews have often been unfriendly towards members of other Jewish sects (as Jesus pointed out in his story about the Samaritan). But they did not "persecute" them. The Romans, however, did persecute Jews, all the sects, including the new Messianic Jews, the Christians.

Re: the highlighted...that is another point altogether other than the one I was making in my post 91.

lula post 91

But Scripture is clear that the Jews were hostile first to Christ then to the Jewish converts. In St. John, "for fear of the Jews" comes up quite often. So, yes, Jews were persecuting the first Christians who had converted from Judaism. Read the story of the man born blind but was healed by Jesus. Word of the miracle spread but the Jews who opposed Christ wouldn't believe it and in order to confirm the Jews sent for the blind man's parents (who were also Jewish), but they were intimidated, refusing to speak about it "out of fear of the Jews, who had already agreed to expel from the synagogue anyone who should acknowledge Jesus as the Christ." St.John 9:22.

lula posts 91

There is no confusing the use of the word "Jew" in this context. A "Jew" is someone who is openly hostile to Christ and willing to persecute those Jews who accept Him as the Messias. "For fear of the Jews" here indicates that at this point in time the Jews were afraid of "Jews". The well-being of the Jews who accepted Christ was being threatened by the Jews who rejected Him.

I've re-read my post 91. I can't see where I was inaccurate. As you can see, I addressed only those Jews who persecuted those Jews who believed in Christ, were baptized and became Christians.

102

Leauki

on Mar 14, 2010

Yes.

But note that they discriminated against every other sect, including the new Christians and the old Samaritans and everybody else who wasn't orthodox Judaean. Jesus specifically pointed that out. The new Jewish sect around Jesus was formed as an answer to discrimination, it was not and in no way the specific group that was the victim of such discrimination.

All those sects discriminated against the others. Perhaps the early Christians didn't, but the Christians certainly did once they had the power to do so.

To speak of persecution of Christians by Jews or even discrimination against Christians by Jews is just wrong. The first is technically wrong and the second is misleading, as Christians were never* the specific targets of discrimination by any Jewish sect (at the time).

(*NB I read a few weeks ago about a case of Christians being discriminated by Jews in modern Israel. I point this out for completeness' sake. A Messianic Jew lost the kosher cert for his restaurant because he converted to Christianity and the Rabbinical authorities decided that a Christian cannot run a kosher restaurant in Israel. However, there are lots of Muslim-owned businesses that are certified kosher and hence the decision appeared to be Christian-specific after all.)

103

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 14, 2010

Perhaps the early Christians didn't, but the Christians certainly did once they had the power to do so.

I would like to add that these were NOT Christians. In name maybe but not in reality. A Christian follows Christ. A so called Christian doing any type of persecuting is NOT a Christian. If they were, God would most likely take them out of commission. I see it all the time even today in our mainstream churches. Most of these "so called" Christians have a personal agenda. Look at Judas. From all outside appearances he looked just like the others. But only God knew his dark, black heart. It all comes out in the end. He was taken out of commision quick enough. See it all the time.

Just like my newspapers all week have been filled with child sex abuses in the RCC. I guess a huge scandal is breaking out all across Europe as we speak. It started in Germany and is quickly spreading. The Pope's brother is even involved. Actually they are saying it really started in Ireland a few months ago. This is NOT Christian. But for years, they had the appearance of Christianity. Christ's church (of which I'm a member of his body) would do no such things.

You mentioned earlier that the RCC failed miserably. I don't think anything's changed. They've always been like this. Look thru the centuries. It's been a club of greed, power, influence, murder, sexual perversion and pride. It's exactly the opposite of what Christ preached. He said "you will know a tree by its fruit"

"Ireland which was until relatively recently the most enthusiastically Catholic country in Europe. Its half-dozen seminaries exported priests worldwide. All but one of those seminaries is closed now illustrating the rapid falloff in Mass attendance as the economy has advanced and secularism has spread." AP wire

I've met some good Godly Catholics so I'm not talking about individuals here, but of an institution.

the Rabbinical authorities decided that a Christian cannot run a kosher restaurant in Israel.

shows the heriditary nature of these "Rabbinical authorities" since these were the same people who persecuted Jesus and His followers. Paul, himself, being one of them in the beginning.

the decision appeared to be Christian-specific after all.)

As you know, there are exceptions but for the most part I don't hear much about Jews persecuting Christians. Jews know more than anyone about persecution as they have been the most persecuted people of all time. Christians are right behind them.

104

Leauki

on Mar 14, 2010

I would like to add that these were NOT Christians. In name maybe but not in reality.

I agree.

But I was talking about the sect here, not the believers.

Whether at any given moment in time the sect "Christians" really are true Christians is another question.

105

Dr Guy

on Mar 15, 2010

Leauki

reply 102

The new Jewish sect around Jesus was formed as an answer to discrimination, it was not and in no way the specific group that was the victim of such discrimination.

Interesting angle on the issue! I have never heard it voiced that way before, but that is a good one!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!