0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Was Mother Teresa in New York?
A:Yes, a number of times, sometimes for medical treatment. In 1985, Mother Teresa had cataract surgery in St Vincent's Hospital , New York, having, because of cost, publicly declined the same treatment from the St Francis Medical Centre in Pittsburgh the previous year, although the earlier offer would have cost only $5000.On another occasion, Mother Teresa planned to convert a building in New York that had been donated to her order into a shelter for homeless men. The Misionaries of Charity could easily have afforded to modify the building and install an elevator as required by state law, but refused. The City of New York offered to fund installation of the elevator, but Mother Teresa still refused on the grounds that an elevator was a "luxury", and that the sisters of the order could easily carry disabled men up and down the stairs. Her order cultivated an image of ostentatious humility.
What does San Diego mean in Spanish?
Saint James. San Diego is in spanish already, I don't think is a translation of "Diego" to English as Jaime for James or Eduardo for Edward. San Diego could be "Saint Diego" in English although personal names or place names are not usually translated.
Did the native Americans get along with the missionaries at Santa Clara DE as is mission?
The people who ran the Mission at San Diego viewed anyone who they baptized as owing labor to the of mission, King and God. The Native people had to work every day, men and women had to live separately and could not marry without permission and they were not paid. The profits went to running the mission and the Church. Women were raped and food was stolen from natives. The leaders of the mission viewed this as normal and any attempt to refuse or run away as treason and denial of God and his order. Punishments were severe. Deaths were high. There were repeated revolts. The most famous was in November 1775. Most people today would feel that being forced to work for no pay, being told how to live and where and to be whipped or killed if you didn't would be called slavery. Is was not called that by the Spanish but it fits most definitions. The Friars believed that it was the Devil who was making the Native people not want to live and work there. The Father Palou wrote: "The enemy, [Satan] envious and resentful, no doubt because the heathen in that territory were being taken away from him, and because the missionaries, with their fervent zeal and apostolic labors, were steadily lessening his following, and little by little banishing heathenism from the neighborhood of the port of San Diego, found a means to put a stop to these spiritual conquests." We can't know for certain, but it seems likely from their actions (repeated revolts) that most of the Natives resented and were angry at their treatment by the Friars. In the revolt of 1775 they burnt most of the buildings and religious artifacts and killed the Father running it. Most would call that not getting along at all.
How were the Norse gods and goddesses worshiped?
The Norse mythology always had a sort of relaxed attitude, especially compared to other religions. Except for that there's always someone who gets fanatic so there were a few "shamans" or w/e they'd be called, the Norse gods wasn't worshiped. The Gods had no demands on how humans should live, with exception to 1 rule (I think), something about never turning down someone who wants shelter for the night. Anway, some occastions was considered as necessary to please the Gods, like before embarking on a sea trip, going to battle, and ofc varied due to wealth. The actuall religios act was offerings, different things depending on what they were going to do. Before and after battles it was common to burn flesh (before) and if victorious some would take enemy weapons and dispose of them (could be in a river or by fire) as a gift to the Gods. But other then that, burning flesh was considered to please the Gods most. It's hard to know how they felt about the gods now for us, but from whats been written down, the reltion towards the gods was all but friendly, only Thor was considered friendly. The reason one would sacrifice before sailing was probably much more to make sure they wont be pissed and whip up a storm, etc, and so it seems to have become a wierd "avoiding" thing between the Norse people and their gods. However, there's always those who go nuts and a annuall gathering at Uppsala which purpose was trade, strenghten friendships, find crews for raids and settling disputes with Envigs (duel to death) or let 3 judges decide who wins. This turned into a religios event not so long before the christian misionaries started coming in hordes. a first, enslaving them, realizing they're worthless they were hung ina tree like Odin and shot at with nine arrows. its a resemblance to when Odin had to hang in a tree for 9 days.
Should ministers be paid?
It would no doubt be a good idea to take a look at how the apostles and their associates were financed back in the first century when the Christian ministry was first established. That would be helpful because in that way we would see what "methods" they used and then follow their example. (1Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17) As we all know the apostles and other Christian ministers of that day did a great deal of traveling and it was quite costly. Lodging, food , clothing and sailing from one place to another--all this had to be paid for in some legitimate way. So then, how did they manage? The apostles and associate ministers took care of their expenses in two ways. The first way was by accepting hospitality that was kindly offered by their Christian brothers and sisters. (Acts 16:13-15; Acts 10:17, 18). The second way was by working at a trade and taking care of they're own expenses. (Acts 18:1-3) It could be interesting to keep in mind that first century Christianity was "one" Christianity; it hadn't yet branched off into the differing groups known today as Christendom. In the first century the church functioned like a large extended family in which all the congregations looked out for each other. Money needs were readily passed back and forth between congregations. (Acts 2:44-47; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Hebrews 13:16) All Christians fell under the protection of being able to ask for financial help from the congregations. (2 Corinthians 8:14, 15) When you got back on your feet and didn't need to be helped any longer you became a "giver" again; willing to offer help to fellow believers in need. (1 Timothy 6:17, 18) So the apostles and their minister companions conducted themselves in much the same way. When traveling and in need of assistance they gratefully accepted the hospitality of others and if they stayed for an extended period they took care of themselves and extended hospitality by sharing what they had with others. (Acts 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:9) An encyclopedia search shows us that the clergy did not get paid for preaching until the middle of the third century which was when a distinction between the laity class and the clergy class was first put in place. Therefore, historically speaking, no minister was paid for their ministry (as a secular job) until after that date. When we combining scriptural history with secular history we could conclude that if a minister is traveling from place to place staying with hospitable fellow Christians, that would certainly fall within the guide lines of how the apostles first organized the church to function. Additionally, a minister would not be wrong in accepting money to cover travel expense and the like from one congregation to the next. However, as we see there is no scriptural or historical basis for a member of the clergy to become "Hospitality Dependent." (Acts 20:33-35, 2 Thessalonians 3:7-12) (Scriptural confirmation of statements are added in order for the public forum to understand that the contributor's reasoning on the subject matter is objective rather then subjective. 1 Timothy 2:4) Answer: From a practical, not theological, basis, ministers do need to be paid. Perhaps misionaries can survive on the kindness of strangers, but a minister to a particular congregation is going to have daily expenses of food, clothing, and shelter. If a minister is to travel in this day and age, a credit card is a necessary back-up, one that needs a credit history and a bank account behind it. Ministers are not tax-exempt, and the amount they are reimbursed (meaning they have to outlay the money initially) does not cover the actual cost of gas. If they are expected to give (tithe, even) they must have some source of income. How are they to pay for furthering their education? Attending conferences? Replacing pens and paper on which to write their sermons? To grow in faith one does not need money; to grow a church demands it. ANSWER: As stated the stresses of the ministry today are formidable. Thus, the Apostle Paul is a excellent and practical example for all ministers today to follow. He wrote more books of the New Testament then anyone else, all the while founding and keeping in close contact with congregations in many different lands. As well he spoke publicly and gave sermons wherever he went; (Acts 20:20; Romans 10:10) quite a feat considering the modes of transportation in the first century and the antiquated forms used to write and preserve his manuscripts. (2 Timothy 4:13) Ministers of today can take heart in Paul as an exemplar for he shows us that the stresses he faced and overcame to accomplish his ministry easily over shadow what we endure today as he was: stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19), shipwrecked (Acts 27:41), beaten and imprisoned (Acts 16:22-24) to name but a few. Though he supported his physical needs as a tent maker (Acts 18:3) and was helped along the way by hospital fellow believers (Romans 16:23) his true means of support was his surpassing faith that God would provide his necessities. (Matthew 25:31, 32) This factor was without doubt the cornerstone of his ability to play his part in growing the church that still stands today; the church loved so dearly. (Romans 8:35-39) (Scriptural confirmation of statements are added in order for the public forum to understand that the contributor's reasoning on the subject matter is objective rather then subjective. 1 Timothy 2:4)
