"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...."

oceanclub

I've seen references in this group to the sin of homosexuality, despite the fact that Jesus himself never said anything about this. OK, fair enough.

However, one thing that Jesus did explicitly talk about was wealth, when he made the above statement. It's pretty clear cut and unambigious. And yet it's freely ignored by Christians. Indeed, the US Family Research Council has just come out with a list of "sins" that concentrate to a large extent on how tax, even inheritance tax is evil:

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09F17.pdf

Can anyone explain this conundrum to me? Surely commandments made by Jesus himself are considered pretty important?

P.

PDN

The reason you see references to homosexuality here is generally because atheists keep wanting to talk about it.

Jesus did not condemn wealth, but he condemned greed and the love of money. I regularly preach on this and I hear it spoken about often in other churches.

oceanclub

PDN wrote: »

The reason you see references to homosexuality here is generally because atheists keep wanting to talk about it.

And Christians don't bring up the issue at all? That's at odds with what I see. But anyway...

Jesus did not condemn wealth, but he condemned greed and the love of money. I regularly preach on this and I hear it spoken about often in other churches.

Just in case I'm accused of paraphrasing, here's the entire context:

http://bible.cc/mark/10-25.htm

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’d”

20“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it ise to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

It seems absolutely clear that this passage has nothing to do with greed. There is no sense in which the young man appears to be greedy, wants more wealth than he already has, or wants to get wealth in a immoral way. Jesus explicitly tells him to give his wealth away to the poor, and then states clearly it is hard for the rich (not the greedy) to enter heaven.

P.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

I've seen references in this group to the sin of homosexuality, despite the fact that Jesus himself never said anything about this. OK, fair enough.

However, one thing that Jesus did explicitly talk about was wealth, when he made the above statement. It's pretty clear cut and unambigious. And yet it's freely ignored by Christians. Indeed, the US Family Research Council has just come out with a list of "sins" that concentrate to a large extent on how tax, even inheritance tax is evil:


Can anyone explain this conundrum to me? Surely commandments made by Jesus himself are considered pretty important?

Consider the stories essential elements in sequence:

A rich man approaches Jesus looking to be told how he can gain eternal life. "What must I do.." he asks.

The man is asked whether he's kept the Law and he acknowledges that he has. Jesus has one more legal hurdle for him to jump through - and it is a thing this man cannot do (with Jesus, of course knowing that he can't do it).

"Give up your wealth and follow me" (involving as it does the Law which demands that a person love God with all their heart, soul and mind)

And so this wealth-attached man walks away saddened .. and in possession of a vital lesson: "I cannot do what it takes to gain eternal life" It's a lesson intended for everyone.

If the man had been attached to power he would have been asked to give up his power. If to laziness, his laziness. If to gossiping, his gossiping. Jesus has no objection to wealth per se, he objects (gently) to people thinking they can earn their own salvation. And so he sets the bar we've to jump over too high for us to jump over.

Camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle high

oceanclub

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so this wealth-attached man walks away saddened .. and in possession of a vital lesson: you cannot do what it takes to gain eternal life.

So surely this parable also applies to all people attached to wealth? Are you seriously saying there's a large subsection of rich people who don't care about their wealth?

Jesus also says "a rich man"; not "this rich man". Unless the standard translation used is wrong, he appears to be talking about all rich men.

P.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

So surely this parable also applies to all people attached to wealth? Are you seriously saying there's a large subsection of rich people who don't care about their wealth?

Jesus also says "a rich man"; not "this rich man". Unless the standard translation used is wrong, he appears to be talking about all rich men.

P.

Jesus doesn't say "a rich man" - it's not a parable. The story starts out saying that a rich man approach Jesus. So it is speaking about that rich man. Which is not to say we can't see the message and see it's greater significance.

I'm sure you could find more than one rich person in the world who would give up their wealth for eternal life if asked. (Bear in mind that if you so much as possess a bank account you're classed an being in the top 10% of richest people on earth.).

Which misses the point of the story. Everyone on earth could be asked a question like that: to give up something they just couldn't give up - in exchange for eternal life.

All it takes is God knowing which question to ask you.

Hardly difficult..

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

So surely this parable also applies to all people attached to wealth? Are you seriously saying there's a large subsection of rich people who don't care about their wealth?

Jesus also says "a rich man"; not "this rich man". Unless the standard translation used is wrong, he appears to be talking about all rich men.

P.

This guy was very attached to his wealth, so much so that he was unwilling to foresake his wealth to follow Jesus.

Just in case I'm accused of paraphrasing, here's the entire context:

No, not the entire context. For that you would have had toinclude verses 26 and 27: The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

So Jesus is saying that rich people can become Christians, but it is much harder for them than for the poor. He also said that it is easier for those who are aware of their sinfulness to become His followers than those who are self-righteous.

This is, I believe, one of the reasons why Christianity is growing so rapidly in the developing world, and why atheism (by that i mean the voluntarily chosen variety) tends to be much more prevalent among the 3 W's (wealthy, western and white).

oceanclub

antiskeptic wrote: »

Jesus doesn't say "a rich man"

He does in Matthew 19:23-24 (see bolded below):

So it is speaking about that rich man.

Yes, and then he goes on to make a point about rich people in general:

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[a] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

It even states that the disciples were amazed at his words.

This hair-splitting over Jesus' actual words seems very odd to me.

P.

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

This hair-splitting over Jesus' actual words seems very odd to me.

P.

To be fair, your wording was rather ambiguous. I had to read your post a couple of times to guess whether by "a rich man" you were referring to the words of Jesus or to the specific young man in the account.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

And Christians don't bring up the issue at all? That's at odds with what I see. But anyway...

I can't remember a single instance in my church over the last number of years when homosexuality was mentioned. I do, however, remember when the pastor mentioned that he was talking to a transgendered person who assumed that (s)he would not be welcomed in the church, which wasn't the case. That is not to say that Christians are without opinions on the subject of homosexuality or homosexual acts. But as with all walks of life, some people are more tolerant than others.

oceanclub wrote: »

It seems absolutely clear that this passage has nothing to do with greed. There is no sense in which the young man appears to be greedy, wants more wealth than he already has, or wants to get wealth in a immoral way. Jesus explicitly tells him to give his wealth away to the poor, and then states clearly it is hard for the rich (not the greedy) to enter heaven.

P.

I suspect that the low levels of religiosity in certain European countries could be linked to people having financial security. If you can cater to your needs and desires I guess God gets forgotten. Besides, how do one determine what constitutes rich? What is the yardstick that wealth measured against?

As for the US Family Research Council, I have no idea who they are or why I should pay them any attention. Reading the first link there are some very odd US-centric sins listed. Some of the more amusing (or scary) are as follows.

• Looking away as America’s spiritual & religious history were rewritten
• Deceitfully leading America into New World Order
• Deliberate destruction of America’s military defense
• Imposition of Statism and Socialism in every arena of American life (schools, medicine, business, charity, etc.)
  and my personal favourite
• Usurpation of parents’ authority by indoctrinating children into sexual promiscuity, pantheism (worship of the environment), polytheism (multiculturalism), atheistic humanism, liberal politics, socialism & statism under the guise of public “education” while failing to teach fundamental academics or simple truths of right & wrong.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

[*]Looking away as America’s spiritual & religious history were rewritten
[*]Deceitfully leading America into New World Order
[*]Deliberate destruction of America’s military defense
[*]Imposition of Statism and Socialism in every arena of American life (schools, medicine, business, charity, etc.)[/I]
[*]and my personal favourite - Usurpation of parents’ authority by indoctrinating children into sexual promiscuity, pantheism (worship of the environment), polytheism (multiculturalism), atheistic humanism, liberal politics, socialism & statism under the guise of public “education” while failing to teach fundamental academics or simple truths of right & wrong.

Do they provide free tin-foil hats - or would that be too socialistic?

Splendour

Hi oceanclub,

I think Jesus looked into the heart of this particular rich man and knew that if he didn't give up his wealth it would always get in the way between him and God.
Also as PDN has pointed out, it can be more difficult for a rich person to get into Heaven as alot of the time money becomes a god to them and therefore they've no need of the one true God.

oceanclub

Splendour wrote: »

Hi oceanclub,

Also as PDN has pointed out, it can be more difficult for a rich person to get into Heaven as alot of the time money becomes a god to them and therefore they've no need of the one true God.

But in this case, that explicitly does not apply. The rich man states that he has kept all the commandments, and Jesus accepts this statement, judging by the following:

21Jesus looked at him and loved him.

So even though money had obviously not become his god and he was still a good person, Jesus still demanded he give up his wealth.

It's not the case that Jesus was talking to Seanie Fitz.

P.

Splendour

oceanclub wrote: »

So even though money had obviously not become his god and he was still a good person, Jesus still demanded he give up his wealth.

P.

Yep.He could keep all the commandments and yet still not get into Heaven if money got in the way of a relationship with God.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

But in this case, that explicitly does not apply. The rich man states that he has kept all the commandments, and Jesus accepts this statement, judging by the following:



So even though money had obviously not become his god and he was still a good person, Jesus still demanded he give up his wealth.

P.

I think you actually miss the subtitle behind Jesus' words. Keeping the commandments is good - being good is good - but it's not the way to redemption.

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

But in this case, that explicitly does not apply. The rich man states that he has kept all the commandments, and Jesus accepts this statement, judging by the following:

You seem to be confusing two different things.

Keeping the commandments is one thing. Making money your god is something else.

The young man chose to keep his money rather than to be a follower of Jesus, so his money does appear to have been his god.

oceanclub

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

Why would you give up even after 3 people all try to help you to understand the deeper meaning behind the words.

oceanclub

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why would you give up even after 3 people all try to help you to understand the deeper meaning behind the words.

It seems to me that the "deeper meaning" on Jesus' words is more like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient teaching.

P.

Splendour

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

Contrast Jesus telling the rich man to give up his wealth with this story:

John 12

3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

In this incident Jesus lets the woman go ahead with annointing his feet when the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

PDN

oceanclub wrote: »

It seems to me that the "deeper meaning" on Jesus' words is more like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient teaching.

P.

Hmm, it seems to me that you started the thread with a bit of a preconceived notion, and I doubt anything we say will make much difference to that.

We've all said that it is harder for a rich person to be saved, and I personally know a number of Christians who have given away everything they owned when they felt that was what the Lord was asking of them

I must say I find it rather ironic when an atheist accuses others of explaining away inconvenient teachings.

Fanny Cradock

oceanclub wrote: »

It seems to me that the "deeper meaning" on Jesus' words is more like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient teaching.

P.

I don't know what to say. If you come to the table with such cynicism and suspicion then I'm not surprised you are an atheist. Ho-hum...

uncleoswald

PDN wrote: »

We've all said that it is harder for a rich person to be saved, and I personally know a number of Christians who have given away everything they owned when they felt that was what the Lord was asking of them

But is a camel passing through the eye of a needle not impossible? Therefore he is saying that its not harder but for a rich person to be saved but impossible? Or was Jesus just exaggerating for effect?

Sorry to come here and dispute what the Bible means, I'm certainly not an authority but just curious.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

He does in Matthew 19:23-24 (see bolded below):

Not in the section of the story with which we are dealing. The man is a specific man, and is posed a specific challenge and fails that challenge.

Yes, and then he goes on to make a point about rich people in general:

Indeed. The 'a rich man' widens the specific case to make a general point. And given Jesus' propensity to talk obliquely, that widening of the specific case need not be restricted to money wealth. It could be referring to any wealth that becomes a god.

This hair-splitting over Jesus' actual words seems very odd to me.

Given who we're speaking about (we are assuming for the sake of discussion), hair splitting is warranted. When God says something you'd better give it good attention before filing it away under 'completely understood'.

antiskeptic

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

That's a little weak.

Jesus is using story and parable to turn specific instances into generalised principles that will both apply and appeal ("to those who have ears to hear") all people at all times. Working for your salvation is a universal, timeless aspect of man. And it is something that is done in order that man can keep possession of the gods he has made for himself: "I'll obey your law on murder, adultery, honouring father and mother - just let me keep my god (wealth or whatever)"

Granted, you might not lick this overview off this particular story. But folk here aren't taking this story in isolation.

PDN

uncleoswald wrote: »

But is a camel passing through the eye of a needle not impossible? Therefore he is saying that its not harder but for a rich person to be saved but impossible? Or was Jesus just exaggerating for effect?

Sorry to come here and dispute what the Bible means, I'm certainly not an authority but just curious.

He's obviously not saying it's impossible when, in the passage we're quoting, He says that with God all things are possible.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

We've all said that it is harder for a rich person to be saved..

Not quite. Not me

I don't see the passage indicating it harder for a rich man than any other man. Hard for a rich man (without comparison with poor men). And easier for a camel to pass through.. (without comparison with poor men)

I'd warrant that by 'rich', Jesus isn't limiting himself to money wealth. It's worldy richness of one form or another than keeps a man haughty before God. It's worldy richness that stands in the way of the spiritual poverty that characterizes those who will see God.

A pauper can be rich in many ways - making it as hard for him as for a rich man.

prinz

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, I give up; despite my being a professional writer, the Bible must be way too subtle for me, which is why I'm obviously still an atheist.

P.

If you were that smart you'd know that there was a thread on wealth and Christianity only last week or so. Maybe you should have read that. The same parable was included IIRC.

uncleoswald

PDN wrote: »

He's obviously not saying it's impossible when, in the passage we're quoting, He says that with God all things are possible.

So since god can pass a camel through the eye of a needle fairly easily the whole message becomes kind of pointless? So how does a rich person achieve saviour? By becoming rich by accident and not by seeking it? Or just been generous with their money? How generous?

It is a shame minority Christian organisations such as this US Family Research Council get so much press but crazy people who kick up a fuss will always make for a better story then rational types.

Fanny Cradock

uncleoswald wrote: »

So since god can pass a camel through the eye of a needle fairly easily the whole message becomes kind of pointless?

You do realise that this story isn't about camels, right? It is simply a tool that is used to emphasise the difficulty a person with skewed loyalties (wealth or whatever) will have in giving himself over to God. You are a professional writer. I can't see why this concept should be difficult for you to understand.

uncleoswald wrote: »

So how does a rich person achieve saviour? By becoming rich by accident and not by seeking it? Or just been generous with their money? How generous?

The same way as poor, black, gay, straight, etc., etc. people do - by following Jesus.

uncleoswald wrote: »

It is a shame minority Christian organisations such as this US Family Research Council get so much press but crazy people who kick up a fuss will always make for a better story then rational types.

I'm not sure about the US Family Research Council - I've never heard of them - but isn't it always the same way? Fringe groups throughout all walks of life often generate the most noise and heat.

homer911

PDN wrote: »

Do they provide free tin-foil hats - or would that be too socialistic?

To stop the aliens reading their brain waves?