Do Christians "really" believe in God?

silverharp

If God resided at the top of the Sugar Loaf and said the following below you would do it without question right? the fact that nobody does seems to, indicates that they dont really believe in God? I cant see anyway of watering down the commands and if someone doesnt do it, it cant be put down to human weakness as its more of an intellectual choice which should flow from believing.

Or in a more general sense do Christains behave as if God isnt really there and are more intersted in being advocates or associated with God but not true followers?





Luke 14:33
Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.



Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.



Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."



Matthew 19:28-29
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

PDN

Yes, Christians "really" do.

And each year over 100,000 of them make the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives when they are murdered because of their faith.

Countless millions more give sacrificially of their time and money in order to spread the Gospel and to care for the poor, the sick and the homeless.

bonniebede

'All' christians don't do anything. (If by christians you mean what someone decides to call themselves.)

Some Christians believe in God, some don't, some follow a version of God they have made up in their own head, or borrowed from some other nutter.

Of those who really believe in God, some try hard to follow Jesus' teaching on money and other things as you have quoted, some don't.

Of those who do try hard, all fail to some degree, but some succeed to a heroic degree nonetheless. (Ever met one of the Missionaries of Charity, that's Mother Teresa's nuns?)

For anyone at all, God, who knows our weaknesses is always ready to forgive when we ask, and to give us help to turn our lives around and walk in a new way.

Everyone will be eventually examined on this.

How are you doing?

Matthew 25:31-46

New International Version (NIV)

The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”

antiskeptic

silverharp wrote: »

If God resided at the top of the Sugar Loaf and said the following below you would do it without question right? the fact that nobody does seems to, indicates that they dont really believe in God?

What do you mean when you say 'believe in God'?

1) Do you mean believe he exists? In which case you've a non sequitur going above.

2) Do you mean believe he exists but don't believe what he says? In which case you likely encounter Christians who formulate their view of what Gods says other than by plucking a couple of verses out of their context and shoehorning them into a 'gotcha' moment.

Take the rich young ruler encounter for example:

Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

The context is a man coming to Jesus wanting to know how he, the man, could work his way into heaven. "What must I do..." he asks at the start of their encounter. So Jesus set's the standard for him - if doing it himself is how he wanted to go about it. And that standard was set high - seeking out the very thing the man wouldn't be able to do.

The lesson here was to demonstrate that every man who seeks to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail. Because we all have things we cannot give up for the Kingdom of God.

Which set's things up for God's way of getting man to heaven: not by what man does but by what God has done. By God's grace, not by man's work.

Which is a pretty well supported notion biblically speaking

__________


Context Context Uber Alles...

jank

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Christians "really" do.

And each year over 100,000 of them make the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives when they are murdered because of their faith.

Countless millions more give sacrificially of their time and money in order to spread the Gospel and to care for the poor, the sick and the homeless.

Do you have a source for that. Not nitpicking but curious.

silverharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do you mean when you say 'believe in God'?

1) Do you mean believe he exists? In which case you've a non sequitur going above.

2) Do you mean believe he exists but don't believe what he says? In which case you likely encounter Christians who formulate their view of what Gods says other than by plucking a couple of verses out of their context and shoehorning them into a 'gotcha' moment.

in the sense that if God sat in a public place and was visible to all, one could still choose to ignore God but if you choose to follow what he says you would pretty much follow it to the letter. I put it to you that most christians dont live lives that show that they are in commune with the God of the NT because most want to get on with their normal lives or in some sense want to negotiate their relationship with God based on their own terms, and to me that would be madness.
I take the point above that Christians in the past have paid with their lives but in a modern western setting 99.9% of christians are not in that position but yet have not done what Jesus is clearily asking people to do.

NotForResale

jank wrote: »

Do you have a source for that. Not nitpicking but curious.

Maybe he's referring to the Christians of varying sects killing each other throughout the centuries, turning one another into martyrs.

totus tuus

Christian Persectution:

A Pew Forum study in 2011 estimated that Christians are persecuted, either by government or hostile social forces, in an incredible 131 of the world’s 193 countries, and they constitute 70 percent of the world’s population. The World Evangelical Alliance believes that 200 million Christians are being singled out for persecution at any one time. At a 2011 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) conference in Lithuania on the topic of Christian persecution, one delegate estimated that approximately 105,000 Christians lose their lives every year for their faith—a figure that translates into approximately one Christian killed every five minutes.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-worldwide-attack-on-christians/

PDN

NotForResale wrote: »

Maybe he's referring to the Christians of varying sects killing each other throughout the centuries, turning one another into martyrs.

And maybe a jellyfish is really a donkey.

antiskeptic

silverharp wrote: »

in the sense that if God sat in a public place and was visible to all, one could still choose to ignore God

True

.. but if you choose to follow what he says you would pretty much follow it to the letter.

Only if you choose to follow to the letter. If you choose to only partly follow what he says then to the letter you will not follow. So far so self evident

I put it to you that most christians don't live lives that show that they are in commune with the God of the NT because most want to get on with their normal lives or in some sense want to negotiate their relationship with God based on their own terms, and to me that would be madness.

I would say that no Christian follows God to the letter (those that say they do "are liars and the truth (communing with God) is not in them" says the Bible).

Rather than madness though, I (or rather the Bible) see it as incongruous: a child of God, who has had God do so much for them in saving them and forgiving them and adopting them ... doing evil? Madness of the incongruous type.

I take the point above that Christians in the past have paid with their lives but in a modern western setting 99.9% of christians are not in that position but yet have not done what Jesus is clearily asking people to do.

What Jesus is asking people to do and what Jesus is asking Christians to do are two different things. The rich young ruler (for example) wasn't a Christian and Jesus was asking the impossible of him. It wasn't that Jesus expected the man to be able to do the impossible - or that he even wanted him to try to do it. He knew the man couldn't do what he asked. He had picked out the false god the man worshipped (money/power/influence/status). This Jew, a man who thought he followed all the rules was breaking the very first commandment.

That was the whole point: ask the impossible so as to place the man in an impossible position regarding his salvation (i.e. "gaining eternal life")

Wiggles88

Edit: <snip> apologies, saw totus link after i posted, please delete if you wish.

joseph brand

totus tuus wrote: »

Christian Persectution:



http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-worldwide-attack-on-christians/

one delegate estimated that approximately 105,000 Christians lose their lives every year for their faith—a figure that translates into approximately one Christian killed every five minutes.

So, it's dangerous to be a christian? I'm assuming these christians are killed by some other religion's followers? (Hindus and Muslims)

nucker

I haven't been to Church for over 10 years, yet I still "believe" in God. I haven't even explained to myself why I haven't gone back to church in all those years. It was nothing to do with the fact that my gran tried to force me to go to church even though I was really down with the flu, for some reasons I just stopped going, yet I find myself wanting too as well.

I feel that if I say something about other Christians, that in some ways I am judging them, that is something I don't want to do.

Onesimus

nucker wrote: »

I haven't been to Church for over 10 years, yet I still "believe" in God. I haven't even explained to myself why I haven't gone back to church in all those years. It was nothing to do with the fact that my gran tried to force me to go to church even though I was really down with the flu, for some reasons I just stopped going, yet I find myself wanting too as well.

I feel that if I say something about other Christians, that in some ways I am judging them, that is something I don't want to do.

I was in your position too. And the first time I went back to Church I went alone. It took a lot of courage ( Gods grace ultimately ) to help me just wander up to the local Church on a Saturday evening vigil and stand there as a young man. I just kept standing there thinking ''I bet all those who know me are just looking at me now and saying 'Whats he doing here?' ''

Paranoia struck but I stuck with it. And now I do my best to just simply read the scriptures, attend weekly Mass, go to confession ( at least once a month ), pray the rosary and go to adoration all in a week. I still have yet to start trying to fast again.

But doing all these things didnt come at once. If you wanna go back to Church, just go and you are always welcome.

Onesimus

philologos

OP: I discussed the passage in Matthew 19 on this forum a few weeks ago, have a read of what I've said and see what you think.

In short, yes I do believe in God, and trust in Him.

sponsoredwalk

antiskeptic wrote: »

The context is a man coming to Jesus wanting to know how he, the man, could work his way into heaven. "What must I do..." he asks at the start of their encounter. So Jesus set's the standard for him - if doing it himself is how he wanted to go about it. And that standard was set high - seeking out the very thing the man wouldn't be able to do.

The lesson here was to demonstrate that every man who seeks to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail. Because we all have things we cannot give up for the Kingdom of God.

Which set's things up for God's way of getting man to heaven: not by what man does but by what God has done. By God's grace, not by man's work.

Which is a pretty well supported notion biblically speaking

__________


Context Context Uber Alles...

This is the most shameful casuistry I've seen on boards - if you're going to pull stories out of the air to feel good about ignoring the plainest words of the bible then at least try to find one that doesn't sicken the legacy of those people who've lived lives of misery due to their understanding that the words meant what they obviously mean.

Snappy Smurf

antiskeptic wrote: »

True



Only if you choose to follow to the letter. If you choose to only partly follow what he says then to the letter you will not follow. So far so self evident




I would say that no Christian follows God to the letter (those that say they do "are liars and the truth (communing with God) is not in them" says the Bible).

Rather than madness though, I (or rather the Bible) see it as incongruous: a child of God, who has had God do so much for them in saving them and forgiving them and adopting them ... doing evil? Madness of the incongruous type.




What Jesus is asking people to do and what Jesus is asking Christians to do are two different things. The rich young ruler (for example) wasn't a Christian and Jesus was asking the impossible of him. It wasn't that Jesus expected the man to be able to do the impossible - or that he even wanted him to try to do it. He knew the man couldn't do what he asked. He had picked out the false god the man worshipped (money/power/influence/status). This Jew, a man who thought he followed all the rules was breaking the very first commandment.

That was the whole point: ask the impossible so as to place the man in an impossible position regarding his salvation (i.e. "gaining eternal life")

The rich young man was not asking how to get to heaven but how to be perfect. He was already doing well with the Commandments. He had a love for God. However, the next step was to be perfect in this life and that meant giving up the riches. People almost always (Catholics included) think the rich young man was not able to get to heaven. THat wasn't at stake. WHat was at stake was his earthly perfection which could be achieved by following the LORD more closely by giving up his riches.

antiskeptic

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is the most shameful casuistry I've seen on boards - if you're going to pull stories out of the air to feel good about ignoring the plainest words of the bible then at least try to find one that doesn't sicken the legacy of those people who've lived lives of misery due to their understanding that the words meant what they obviously mean.

It's a story assembled from considering what the Bible as a whole has to say regarding an interpretation of Jesus here - as opposed to one which relies on hauling a verse out of any context and insisting that 'plain reading' rules okay. The former approach is called exegesis, the latter eisegesis.

What's casuistry by the way?

antiskeptic

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The rich young man was not asking how to get to heaven but how to be perfect.

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life ?”

He was already doing well with the Commandments.

Indeed.

But you'll note both here (in what Jesus says) and all over the Bible, that 'doing well' isn't how you get eternal life - if getting it under you own steam (as this rich young ruler intends) is your method.

Perfection is the standard. 100% adherence to the commandment. Jesus nowhere says that doing well or trying your best will do.

He had a love for God.

I don't see where you can infer that from the passage. He might well have been motivated in his attempts to follow the commandments by a fear of God or a fear of whatever no eternal life might mean (I'm not au fait with first century Judaism's view on the afterlife)

However, the next step was to be perfect in this life and that meant giving up the riches.

The context is gaining eternal life by own effort. The score was pretty good but not perfect. Eternal life requires perfection. Perfection not possible. Dilemma (the rich young ruler walks away sad)

People almost always (Catholics included) think the rich young man was not able to get to heaven.

Many think that but the point is that this story is applicable to everyone since everyone has something that Jesus could point to that they can't/won't give up.

The key point is eternal life gained by own effort - and the reason why it's a fool's errand. And why it is we must rely on God to obtain eternal life for us.

It's a major theme in the Bible

THat wasn't at stake. WHat was at stake was his earthly perfection which could be achieved by following the LORD more closely by giving up his riches.

As I say, you cannot ignore the context of the story. It's opening sentences set the context for us. That, and the fact of theme centrality in the Bible make this pretty straightforward interpretation

Which is not to say there aren't more things to be drawn from the story - such as the Christian objective of shedding of false god's of whatever hue. It's just that in the Christians case, his eternal life doesn't depend on whether or not he shed's these false god's.

PDN

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is the most shameful casuistry I've seen on boards - if you're going to pull stories out of the air to feel good about ignoring the plainest words of the bible then at least try to find one that doesn't sicken the legacy of those people who've lived lives of misery due to their understanding that the words meant what they obviously mean.

Calm down dear.

Jesus told the young man what he had to do - it doesn't necessarily follow that the words apply to everybody else.

We find two kinds of instructions in the Bible:

a) Those that are general rules for all to follow. Eg, Love your neighbour.

b) Those that were directed to specific individuals. Eg, in John 21:6 Jesus told the disciples to cast their fishing nets out of the right side of the boat.

So, it is reasonable to ask whether Jesus, in a one-on-one conversation with a young man, was giving instructions to that young man, or to every Christian that would ever exist in the next 2000 years or more.

The context, in my opinion, favours the interpretation that His words were directed specifically at this young man. The fact that the young man 'went away sorrowful' indicates that Jesus had spotted the one area where he was unwilling to submit to God. His love of money was his weak spot.

Of course none of that alters the fact that there are many other passages that encourage Christians to live and give sacrificially. As with all biblical commands, some Christians are better at obeying these than others.

As someone who has been involved in a good bit of relief work in the developing world, I am often amazed at how Christians give sacrificially to help others and to spread the Gospel. For example, I was speaking in a church about a project to dig wells in villages in an impoverished region of Africa. One young single mother, who had been working extra shifts for two years to buy a car, gave all those savings so we could dig 5 more wells. And that IMHO is pretty consistent with what Jesus taught.

the legacy of those people who've lived lives of misery due to their understanding that the words meant what they obviously mean.

Actually, in my experience, the people who sacrifice the most for the Gospel tend to be the least miserable. For example, I have spent time with a number of Christians in China who have served long prison sentences and endured physical torture for their faith. They were the most joyous people I have ever met.

sponsoredwalk

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

People almost always (Catholics included) think the rich young man was not able to get to heaven. THat wasn't at stake.

To argue that the phrase "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" leaves open the possibility of a rich man, especially one who'd just walked away sad because he wanted to keep his riches, entering the kingdom of god is to call Jesus, who had just spoken the words "I tell you the truth", a liar pure & simple (unless camels actually pass through the eye of a needle on occasion).

antiskeptic wrote: »

- as opposed to one which relies on hauling a verse out of any context and insisting that 'plain reading' rules okay. The former approach is called exegesis, the latter eisegesis.

What's casuistry by the way?

Let us search for context:

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

A nine year old could tell you that the context begins and ends with the sentences

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

To somehow argue that the next sentence:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

is bound only to the rich man when it was said in most general terms to the disciples is just shameful.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's casuistry by the way?

Well:

Casuistry is reasoning used to resolve moral problems by applying theoretical rules to particular instances, and by extracting or extending theoretical rules from (novel) particular instances. The term is also commonly used as a pejorative to criticize the use of clever but unsound reasoning (alleging implicitly the inconsistent— or outright specious— misapplication of rule to instance), especially in relation to moral questions (see sophistry).
The agreed meaning of 'casuistry' is in flux. The term can be used either to describe a presumably acceptable form of reasoning or a form of reasoning that is inherently unsound and deceptive.

I'm using the term in the way Blaise Pascal used the term in Lettres Provinciales

Pascal denounced casuistry as the mere use of complex reasoning to justify moral laxity and all sorts of sins.
link

to chastise the Thomists & Jesuits moral laxity in their casuistic interpretation of the plainest words of the bible that conveniently suited their moral/political ends. If you're going to follow such a historically well-trodden route of perverting the meaning of clear words then you should be aware of those who'd perfected the art.

PDN wrote: »

Jesus told the young man what he had to do - it doesn't necessarily follow that the words apply to everybody else.

In what way does Jesus addressing his disciples in way that globally generalizes what he'd just locally told the rich man not apply to everyone? You conveniently focus on Jesus answering the rich man, not what he said right after to the disciples:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

PDN wrote: »

The context, in my opinion, favours the interpretation that His words were directed specifically at this young man. The fact that the young man 'went away sorrowful' indicates that Jesus had spotted the one area where he was unwilling to submit to God. His love of money was his weak spot.

How convenient... Focus on the specific case of the rich man & ignore his words to the disciples. The fact that you can persuade yourself to ignore moral dictates based on such flawed as cutting out sentences of the bible just reeks of:

Pascal gives a number of examples of Jesuit casuistry and of its "relaxed moral," citing abundant sources (a lot of whom came from Escobar). He illustrated casuistry by citing mostly Jesuitic texts allowing excuses to abstain from fasting (citing Vincenzo Filliucci's Moralium quaestionum de christianis officiis et casibus conscientiae... tomus, Lyon, 1622; often cited by Escobar); from giving to the poor (indirectly citing Gabriel Vasquez from Diana; for a monk temporarily defrocking himself to go to the brothel (citing an exact quote of Sanchez from Escobar, who was curving around Pius IV's Contra sollicitantes and Pius V's Contra clericos papal bulls, the latter directed against sodomite clergy[10])); in the Seventh Letter, propositions allowing homicides (even to the clergy) and duels as long as the intention is not directed for revenge; others permitting corruption of judges as long as it is not intended as corruption; others allowing usury or Mohatra contracts; casuistic propositions allowing robbery and stealing from one's master; others allowing lying through the use of rhetorical "mental reservation" (restrictio mentalis; for instance: saying, loudly "I swear that...", silently "I said that...", and loudly again the object of the pledge) and equivocations. A number of these scandalous propositions were later condemned by Pope Innocent XI.

PDN

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

To argue that the phrase "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" leaves open the possibility of a rich man, especially one who'd just walked away sad because he wanted to keep his riches, entering the kingdom of god is to call Jesus, who had just spoken the words "I tell you the truth", a liar pure & simple (unless camels actually pass through the eye of a needle on occasion).

Let us search for context:

A nine year old could tell you that the context begins and ends with the sentences

To somehow argue that the next sentence:

is bound only to the rich man when it was said in most general terms to the disciples is just shameful.

Hopefully the nine year-old would have a tiny shred of honesty and would therefore include the next sentence as well:

They were even more astonished and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?” Looking at them, Jesus said, “ With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:26,27)

In other words, Jesus said it is possible for a rich man to be saved - and anyone who tries to cite the Bible passage in question to claim otherwise is either abysmally ignorant or profoundly dishonest.

Either way, go to the bottom of the class.

sponsoredwalk

Shameful...

At the end of the day, it's not me you have to convince...

PDN

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Shameful...

At the end of the day, it's not me you have to convince...

No it isn't, which is why we're using logic and reason.

Christians are called to live a life of sacrifice, and rich people tend to love their money - making it harder for them to be saved. And, thank goodness, God is a God of mercy and grace.

But I fail to see why we should pay heed to your mock outrage, especially since you shamelessly do what you accuse others of by selectve quote mining.

sponsoredwalk

PDN wrote: »

No it isn't, which is why we're using logic and reason.

Christians are called to live a life of sacrifice, and rich people tend to love their money - making it harder for them to be saved. And, thank goodness, God is a God of mercy and grace.

Notice how you still completely ignore Jesus' message to his disciples, something spoken to people who actually gave up their earthly pleasures - not just paying lip service or casuistically explaining away their guilty consciences - to follow Jesus. He specifically said something & your casuistic rationale writes his words off completely justifying the rich keeping their money, something Jesus admonishes them for in other parts of the bible.

PDN wrote: »

But I fail to see why we should pay heed to your mock outrage,

What is that supposed to mean? How convenient it is for you to attribute "mock" outrage to me, belittle the way I feel & just slander the messenger. Again none of this answers the black & white words of the bible, you wont have to answer to me at the end of the day.

PDN wrote: »

especially since you shamelessly do what you accuse others of by selectve quote mining.

Again, what is that supposed to mean? Quoting Jesus' sayings & interpreting them so as to contradict Jesus' other sayings is tantamount to calling Jesus a liar - he prefaced his point to the disciples:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

in the most general terms, not just at the rich man

PDN wrote: »

His words were directed specifically at this young man.

as you'd deceive us/yourself into believing (but I'm selectively quoting...). I'm sorry but I can't stand dishonesty as that just illustrated, you've sidetracking the clear as day point I'm making analogous to the priests mentioned in the apologetics link below. Furthermore this is not the only comment of this sort that Jesus made:

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]'Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.'
http://www.ukapologetics.net/biggerbarns.html
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

& just judging by these two quotes alone (I will provide more if you need, though you probably know the verse numbers yourself already) you can't ignore the bland, basic, message he is conveying without likening yourself to all the Jesuit's throughout history following similar casuistic paths. The sentence "I tell you the truth... it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" on it's own though is as clear as day, to anyone willing "to get past the resistance" as the first link argues.

If you try to insult me again or use rhetorical games to diffuse my argument I'm out.

PDN

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you try to insult me again or use rhetorical games to diffuse my argument I'm out.

You reap what you sow. You came into this thread being extremely scathing of others, yet you commit schoolboy howlers and do the same of that which you accuse others. Now you want me to tip-toe round you?

Play nice or put your big boy pants on.

sponsoredwalk

PDN wrote: »

You reap what you sow. You came into this thread being extremely scathing of others, yet you commit schoolboy howlers and do the same of that which you accuse others. Now you want me to tip-toe round you?

Play nice or put your big boy pants on.

I've given evidence & links to justify the claim of casuistry & misinterpretation - when the memory & motivations of people who've seriously sacrificed in this life based on the most basic & obvious interpretation of the bible is just whitewashed away en masse in a manner so common, so well-illustrated historically, then I think it's fair to make a good argument - none of it is scathing yet, to which it would turn if I stayed here & tried to answer & embrace irrelevant insults (I'd rather leave if it goes to that).

All you have done is insinuate I am indulging in "mock" outrage, accused me of quote mining, ignored what I've said & offered quotes to contradict Jesus' other sayings as some form of justification - I really wish you'd stop tip-toeing around me & offer a serious & credible argument that addresses the basic morality of what Jesus is saying, not attacking my credibility or focusing on irrelevancies. These are tough issues, possibly unanswerable (though I post here to be proven otherwise), so I think the least one can do is point out when someone offers false answers as some form of psychological justification, it amounts to nothing more than self-deceit & just some of those links illustrate I'm not alone in thinking this.

antiskeptic

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Let us search for context:

A nine year old could tell you that the context begins and ends with the sentences

A nine year old I could forgive. An adult ignoring conversation that took place before your snippet would get off less lightly.

To somehow argue that the next sentence:

is bound only to the rich man when it was said in most general terms to the disciples is just shameful.

Could you quote where I've argued that?

your wikisnippet wrote:

..The term can be used either to describe a presumably acceptable form of reasoning...

I take it you didn't mean this aspect...



Maybe you could trim back on the mock horror and the (rather 00's internet) habit of casting accustations of fallacious argumentation in - as if by doing so you're case is better made.

So far you're rooted to a snipped out a section of the story which, if supposing yourself to have identified the context of the story, is problematic.

philologos

sponsoredwalk: I'm wondering are you interested in listening to what we have to say, or if you're going to tell us about what we believe.

Also, I'm wondering if you've read the post I linked to earlier in this thread. I'd like to hear your perspective on it.

But let's talk.

sponsoredwalk

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you quote where I've argued that?

Here is where you argued it:

antiskeptic wrote: »

The lesson here was to demonstrate that every man who seeks to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail. Because we all have things we cannot give up for the Kingdom of God.

By trying to insinuate that Jesus was specifically invoking that very vice which the man could not give up as a means to "demonstrate that every man who seeks to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail", is a shameful write off of the situation as being nothing but a moral lesson to the reader with historical parallels. Why?

Jesus clearly stated "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" & to assign some trickery* on the part of Jesus is to ignore, for instance, Luke 14:33 - "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple". He clearly offered the man the same opportunity to "come, follow me" as that which the disciples accepted "See, we have left everything and followed you”. Assigning some fantasy interpretation that Jesus was picking the vice he knew he couldn't give up to demonstrate principle X is to argue either that Jesus should have no disciples because he would have similarly tested them by asking them to give up the very thing they couldn't give up [because after all according to you they were just as bad as the man in trying to work their way into heaven] or that he is picking & choosing who follows him, contradicting every claim about choice you care to mention & the only way you can make this claim is by ignoring Jesus' actual words, words he similarly applied to family just as easily as he applied them to money "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life".

In other words, arguing that this story is localized to the rich man, that it's meant as a means to "demonstrate that every man who seeks to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail" in illustrating how the man willing "to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail" by Jesus picking the one thing he knew the man wouldn't give up functions as nothing but a casuistic means of ignoring both the basic morality of what Jesus was saying to the man & what he says in the next sentence - which perfectly generalize to you, I & every reader here the exact same principle he'd just applied locally to the man - "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

*The trickery of picking that very vice he knew the man wouldn't give up*

antiskeptic wrote: »

I take it you didn't mean this aspect...

I'm using the term in the way Blaise Pascal used the term in Lettres Provinciales

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maybe you could trim back on the mock horror and the (rather 00's internet) habit of casting accustations of fallacious argumentation in - as if by doing so you're case is better made.

This is the second person on this forum to caricature my feelings on this topic while simultaneously insinuating flaws in my argument though not bothering to offer a bland, basic & direct rebuttal. If this was an honest debate about the basic questions, the way I feel or the manner in which I express myself would be irrelevant & furthermore if this wasn't on the internet you wouldn't throw out these superficial insinuations. If we stoop below the level of a basic conversation again I'm out.

philologos wrote: »

sponsoredwalk: I'm wondering are you interested in listening to what we have to say, or if you're going to tell us about what we believe.

I don't know how to take a question like this. I've not only read the thread & the arguments put forth but offered arguments for why I think there are serious issues with them. In other words I've not only listened to but thought through the claims. What do you actually mean by this?

philologos wrote: »

Also, I'm wondering if you've read the post I linked to earlier in this thread. I'd like to hear your perspective on it.

But let's talk.

Yes I did read it, if you read the beginning of this response you'll see I was careful to make sure it applied more or less to your interpretation & should be quotable without much modification.

philologos

sponsoredwalk: You've ignored the contents of that post. Particularly where I compare how Jesus treats Zacchaeus in comparison to the rich young ruler. You're actually ignoring the broader passage where the disciples reply in astonishment "then who can be saved?". Jesus says nobody can be saved other than through the power of God. Consistent with the rest of his teachings. Zacchaeus despite only giving half of his wealth away still shows Jesus that He regards Him as Lord over everything. The rich young ruler who Jesus knew loved money, was not able to show Jesus that He was Lord, and as a result walked away.

The question is about priorities. That's why reading the whole New Testament, and particularly looking to what Jesus actually says about the rich young ruler to the disciples, and how Jesus deals with Zacchaeus is really important.

chozometroid

Here is my take on the conversation (some paraphrase, and my statements in parentheses):

Rich Man: “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life ?”

(immediately reveals his belief that HE can DO good things to get eternal life)

Jesus: “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

(Jesus corrects him by saying that no man is good, but if he wants eternal life, he must keep the commandments of God. In other words, he must be without fault against God's Law, which we know is only possible through the redemptive work of Christ sacrifice.)

Rich man: Which ones?

Jesus: Do not murder, do not steal, etc...

Rich man: I keep all of these, what am I lacking?

(Foolish question....the young man assumes 1. that he is actually keeping all of the commandments, and 2. that by doing works, he is lacking nothing else.)

Jesus: “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

(No man can be perfect, so Jesus was not giving actual advice on how to be perfect. He was bringing out the main point of weakness in this particular man to demonstrate that he was indeed not perfect. He was showing the rich man the most obvious thing that the rich man couldn't see IN himself, because he was looking at his own OUTWARD good deeds. Jesus was saying what this man would have to do to demonstrate that he truly loved God more than money. He was obviously not willing to give up what he loved the most to follow Christ. You could replace the money with anything. Anything that you worship before God is an idol.)

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

(Jesus was pointing out how hard it is for someone is rich to enter the kingdom of God, but not that it is impossible. Anyone can overcome their worldly lusts with God's help.)


I John 2:15-16
“Love not the world, nor the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world."

James 4:4
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

1 John
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

antiskeptic

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

By trying to insinuate that Jesus was specifically invoking that very vice which the man could not give up as a means to "demonstrate that every man who seeks to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail", is a shameful write off of the situation as being nothing but a moral lesson to the reader with historical parallels. Why?

Why? Because of what I said earlier about my viewpoint:

It's a story assembled from considering what the Bible as a whole has to say regarding an interpretation of Jesus here - as opposed to one which relies on hauling a verse out of any context and insisting that 'plain reading' rules okay. The former approach is called exegesis, the latter eisegesis.

In other words, if I had this encounter and this encounter alone to go on then I wouldn't suppose Jesus was delivering a broader message. But because he typically is delivering broader messages and because of the thrust of the bible on the issue of working for your salvation, I take the view I do here.

Jesus clearly stated "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" & to assign some trickery* on the part of Jesus

I would suppose omniscience over trickery.

.. is to ignore, for instance, Luke 14:33 - "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple". He clearly offered the man the same opportunity to "come, follow me" as that which the disciples accepted "See, we have left everything and followed you”.

Given our context being obtaining of eternal life, the giving up of everything is now the dealmaker.


Which opens up the interesting question about what 'everything' is (where we're talking about the specific everything that obtains eternal life). The disciples understanding on what 'everything' is isn't of interest to us here since they aren't the one's to define it for us. We know, for instance, that Judas was amongst those who had left everything and was following Jesus..

Assigning some fantasy interpretation that Jesus was picking the vice he knew he couldn't give up to demonstrate principle X is to argue either that Jesus should have no disciples because he would have similarly tested them by asking them to give up the very thing they couldn't give up [because after all according to you they were just as bad as the man in trying to work their way into heaven]

If a true disciple is made/eternal life obtained by means other than work then there would be no need to challenge a person on that front. The challenge need only be issued to one who is bent on working for their salvation - in order to deflect them from that route.

So:

If our rich young ruler isn't yet saved and doesn't yet fulfill God's criterion for saving him then all that need happen here is that he be deflected from his erroneous supposition

If one or more of our disciples has fulfilled God's criterion for salvation then it doesn't matter whether they still think salvation is obtained by working for it.

The only one's urgently needing correction by a God who want's to save, are those who aren't yet saved and who are barking up the wrong tree in their pursuit of salvation.

or that he is picking & choosing who follows him, contradicting every claim about choice you care to mention & the only way you can make this claim is by ignoring Jesus' actual words, words he similarly applied to family just as easily as he applied them to money "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life".

Judas was one of 'we who have left everything' How do you square this with this statement?

How do you square it with the rest of the Bible

In other words, arguing that this story is localized to the rich man, that it's meant as a means to "demonstrate that every man who seeks to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail" in illustrating how the man willing "to work his way into the Kingdom of God will fail" by Jesus picking the one thing he knew the man wouldn't give up functions as nothing but a casuistic means of ignoring both the basic morality of what Jesus was saying to the man & what he says in the next sentence - which perfectly generalize to you, I & every reader here the exact same principle he'd just applied locally to the man - "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Hard? All you have to do is buy a few fields and leave them for Jesus and you're done. Say's your method of interpreting Jesus at any rate

sponsoredwalk

I'm really sorry - for a second there I'd forgotten what an absolute waste of time debating this nonsense is.

Fanny Cradock

Well with an attitude like that I would imagine it would be a was of time. And not just for you.