Do Christians despise God?

[Mithrae]

A post from another thread which on reflection might be an interesting topic in its own right:

Other than things like attending Church, etc., again you would be correct [that "Christians live lives much like unbelievers do"]. So then, other than that, what would give you the impression that the lives of Christians would be any different, and how would this have anything at all to do with Christianity being true, or false?

You mean... what would give that impression, besides virtually all of the NT insisting that Christians should be starkly distinguished from the world? Indeed that the world would hate Jesus' followers just as it hated him?

• John 15:16 You did not choose me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in my name he may give to you. 17 This I command you, that you love one another. 18 If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent me.
  
  1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. . . . 16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

There is so much poverty and need in the world, while most people in countries like Australia and the US have more wealth than we reasonably know what to do with. How can any Christian claim that the love of God abides in them if they're spending money on houses, cars or a fancy sound system for the building they attend once or twice a week? Jesus not only told his followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor, he even emphasized this as a truly fundamental aspect of the kingdom of God; that retaining treasures on earth or working for money was akin to blinding yourself entirely:

• Luke 12:29 And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying. 30 For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things. 31 But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. 32 Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
  
  Matthew 6:19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. [You cannot work for God if you're working for money.] 25 For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

According to Jesus' standards, by dividing up their time and spending far more effort working for money than serving God, refusing to trust in him for their daily bread but instead retaining earthly treasures year by year, most Christians are showing that they despise God despite professing him as another master.

Does that have anything to do with Christianity being true or false? Why would anyone imagine it to be true, if even the folk professing to be followers of Christ ignore his teachings? Certainly that hypocrisy and the comfortable irrelevancy of churchianity was one of major reasons why I walked away from "the faith" altogether. Jesus preached a deeply compelling but incredibly difficult message. It may be that Christians' determined efforts to bury and ignore that message do not invalidate it; perhaps even that the ongoing availability of that message despite seventeen-plus centuries of church efforts to subvert and undermine it is a testament to its power. But at least superficially the fact that Christianity as widely practiced looks like little more than a social club, the fact that not even Christians follow Christ, is a constant advertisement implying that there's nothing much to see there.




So was Jesus wrong in his stark dichotomy? Is it possible to spend so much time working for money and retaining earthly treasures, and not actually hate God as Jesus said?

Or does the refusal of most Christians to follow Jesus' teachings in this area have exactly the effect that he said it would: "If your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" Do most Christians inwardly despise God, perhaps without even realizing the depth of that darkness?

[JehovahsWitness]

That would be all well and good, except that Jesus DID clearly tell his followers in general to sell their possessions and give to charity in Luke 12, as quoted in the OP.

QUESTION Did not Jesus tell his disciples to sell ALL (or 99.9%) of their possessions in Luke 12:33?

♦ANSWER No he did not.

LUKE 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. - Jesus Christ

One does not have to be particularly eagle eyed to see that Jesus made no mention of whether one should sell all or a part of one's possessions for donations in this passage. Unlike a donkey possessions are divisabe and Jesus was either being negligent or as most reasonable people conclude, providing a principle of charitable giving and deliberately leaving the amount (and the percentage) to good motives and common sense.



JW

[Goose]

Okay, so you're still insisting on this one. In Luke 6 Jesus appoints his 12 apostles, including Simon who he called Peter. In Luke 7 he visits the home of a Pharisee named Simon, who is portrayed as self-righteous and hypocritical - and you are trying to use this as a proof text that the apostle Peter owned a house as a faithful disciple.

The reference to Luke 7:44 in relation to Peter was my mistake. I got my cross references muddled. Good catch!

At least Mark 1 is actually about Peter. Jesus visits the home of Peter and Andrew and Peter's mother-in-law; rather than Peter's personal possession, this suggests the home of an extended family of which Peter may not even have been the patriarch.

How does “the house of Peter and Andrew� suggest the home of an extended family member? The text of Mark does not say this was “the home of Peter and Andrew and Peter's mother-in-law.� You’ve added the bit about “and Peter's mother-in-law.� It explicitly says it was the home of Simon and Andrew. Peter’s mother-in-law was there and sick. It says nothing about it being her home as well.

Further Matthew and Luke explicitly say this was Peter’s home.

“When Jesus came into Peter’s home...� – Matthew 8:14

� Then [Jesus] got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simon’s home.� – Luke 4:38

More to the point, in just the last post we were discussing the fact that Peter had left everything to follow Jesus (Mark 10:28). So is there any legitimacy whatsoever in pointing to an event from the first week of his acquaintance with Jesus?

The last point first. What makes you think this event occurred in the first week of meeting Jesus? And why is that significant? Are you arguing for some kind of progressional disbursement of assets over a period of time?

Secondly, in regards to Mark 10:28 Peter says to Jesus, “ἡμεῖς ἀφη�καμεν πα�ντα καὶ ἠκολουθη�σαμε�ν σοι.� or, “we left all and followed you.�

That word for “left� is ἀφίημι and it has the meaning of leave or go away from. It’s derived partly from ἀπό which means separated. Notice this doesn’t necessarily imply a liquidation of one’s possessions. It can imply merely leaving or a separation for a time.

If Jesus’ response to Peter in verses 29-30 are any indication of Peter’s intended meaning it would seem that what Peter meant was that he had shown great commitment by leaving and being separated from his family and home to follow Jesus. It makes sense given the context that Jesus includes family along with lands in his response to Peter. If we take it that Peter meant he had sold all his possessions to follow Jesus then Jesus is implying, in his response, that Peter likewise sold off his family and anyone who does the same will be rewarded. It’s easier to understand this as a separation from family and home which of course would be the case as Peter and the boys followed Jesus all over the country for a few years.

Moreover, there are numerous examples of Jesus enjoying the comfort of a house.

�They came to Capernaum; and when [Jesus] was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?�� – Mark 9:33

Who’s house was this? Was it Jesus’ house? Was it Peter’s? Was it another follower’s house? Was it some random house? And if it was, were they paying to use it?

Why do we find throughout the NT Jesus and his followers continually using houses to stay if there was the expectation from Jesus that a true follower would be homeless? That seems at the very least somewhat hypocritical don’t you think?

Peter travelled throughout Galillee for years with Jesus, lived in Jerusalem and later Antioch and Rome, perhaps other places in between. Even if we unjustifiably assumed that it had been Peter's private house, the bible explicitly says - and we had just explicitly discussed - the fact that he left everything behind to follow Jesus.

Well of course Peter left everything behind to follow Jesus. Peter was following Jesus all around the country for crying out loud. Peter couldn’t very well drag along his family and house with him, now could he?

I'm on my way to work at the moment so I'll have to leave it at that. But if this one reflected the general calibre of would-be counter-examples to Jesus' teachings, it might be reasonable to suppose that they demonstrate a (perfectly understandable) reluctance to take Jesus at his word and a powerful confirmation bias towards grasping at even the flimsiest straws in opposition.

Now you are just ranting.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 50 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm a bit confused by this post. Are you suggesting that the best way to follow Jesus is to determine the absolute least you can do to obey his commands?

Why give 100% when .09% will do?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 50 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm a bit confused by this post. Are you suggesting that the best way to follow Jesus is to determine the absolute least you can do to obey his commands?

Why give 100% when .09% will do?

No, I'm making no suggestion as to the best application at all (above and beyond that it is unreasonable to assume Jesus is speaking in absolute terms).

• As I see it the idea that Jesus said "all" but meant literally 99.9%. is attempting to have one's cake and eat it ( no pun intended). If Jesus said "all" but mentioned no percentage to suggest a figure is arbitrary and pharisitical. The only real consideration is was he speaking in the absolute or not. If Yes", then 99.9999% violates the command. If "no" then presumably each Christian is free to apply the principle as he or she sees fit. My critisim is of those that argue for the "absolute" and explain the application in the "relative".

To learn the difference between "absolute" and "relative" please see my post : Did Jesus want his followers to literally abandon everything that they had?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 929#953929




JW

[Tcg]

Since Jesus mentioned no percentage to impose a figure is arbitrary and pharisitical.

So what percentage do you impose?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 55 by Tcg]

Please see edit. I reconsidered the word "impose" since outside the most tyrannical church systems, few Christians have the power or the inclination to impose material sacrifice.

JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 56 by JehovahsWitness]

Then what percentage do you suggest, or whatever word you find acceptable. Without such a suggestion, or whatever word you find acceptable, you can't possible claim that 100% is incorrect.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... Without such a suggestion, or whatever word you find acceptable, you can't possible claim that 100% is incorrect.

I'm not saying it's incorrect and I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying 100% is implicit in an absolute reading, anything less would be a oxymoron. You cannot literally eat all of an apple while leaving 1% uneaten. If Jesus is not speaking literally and didn't give a percentage, than no human has the right to come up with a figure for anyone but himself.





JW

[Tcg]

.... Without such a suggestion, or whatever word you find acceptable, you can't possible claim that 100% is incorrect.

I'm not saying it's incorrect and I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying 100% is implicit in an absolute reading, anything less would be a oxymoron. You cannot literally eat all of an apple while leaving 1% uneaten. If Jesus is not speaking literally and didn't give a percentage, than no human has the right to come up with a figure for anyone but himself.

If you agree that you can't say 100% is incorrect, why are you arguing that 100% is incorrect?

[Mithrae]

I'm on my way to work at the moment so I'll have to leave it at that. But if this one reflected the general calibre of would-be counter-examples to Jesus' teachings, it might be reasonable to suppose that they demonstrate a (perfectly understandable) reluctance to take Jesus at his word and a powerful confirmation bias towards grasping at even the flimsiest straws in opposition.

Now you are just ranting.

I can see how it might be taken that way but no, I'm highlighting an important point. It is indeed a flimsy argument to point to a story in the first chapter of Mark - the first week or so after Peter met Jesus, well before even Levi had joined them - and not only assume that the home Peter and Andrew and perhaps Peter's mother-in-law lived in was under the private ownership of Peter (and Andrew...?), but also assume that it remained his private property despite his explicit claim to have left everything to follow Jesus and never returning to permanent residence in Capernaum again... all in the name of trying to prove that when Jesus said to forsake all, sell your possessions, don't lay up earthly treasures and so on he didn't really mean what he said!

Don't get me wrong, there is a bit of wriggle room there. I've seen some folk including at least one of my relatives convince themselves, apparently in all sincerity, that when Matthew wrote in his genealogy that "all the generations... from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations" (even though there were eighteen) what he 'meant' by "all the generations" was only that there were fourteen significant(?) generations or some such thing, that it's not actually a contradiction. Folk who are determined enough to do so can find or create or simply imagine cracks to wriggle through in even the most ironclad evidence, so this must surely be a cakewalk by comparison: After all there certainly is a chance that the house was Peter's personal property and a much slimmer, but still real possibility that by reminding Jesus "we have left all and followed You" he meant "we've got our property and wealth back home, but congratulate us for not currently residing there."

But you're trying to use this implausible guesswork as a basis for 'interpreting' other passages which on face value are pretty clear in their meaning. So I think it is worth recognizing and trying to bear in mind that you really don't want those passages of Jesus' teaching to mean what they seem to. I mean I'm kind of assuming there, but do you? Do you want to be faced with a choice between disobeying Jesus or leaving your job and home? Presumably not. So that must surely be a very powerful bias. Mustn't it? I don't see how it couldn't be. I specifically asked you to reconsider whether you were sure about items on your list being valid demonstrations that Jesus or his followers were not homeless mendicants... and you still came back with this dubious guesswork about Peter owning a house. Twice in your one reply, in fact.

And while it was an honest error, the fact that you so dramatically under-scrutinized the story of Simon the Pharisee could well be taken as further confirmation of this powerful confirmation bias at work! I'm not trying to poison the well here; I'm trying to respect the fact that for many Christians, presumably including you, the question of what Jesus taught is actually a very important one, perhaps eternally important. In fact you and PinSeeker have both suggested yourselves that humans are naturally inclined to reject God's will, even Christians. And if reconsidering that possible bias in thinking causes you or others to reconsider some of the assumptions or hermeneutic frameworks under which most Christians are raised from childhood and lets me 'win' the debate, so much the better I guess

Neither of your Pauline examples are particularly good; 'work' can mean preaching the gospel or chores within the church, and I'd invite you to re-read Acts 17 and 18 to see if they really provide the message you're implying.

The word Paul uses for “work� in 1 Thess 4:11-12 is ἐ�γα�ζομαι. It means to work, labour, do work. Paul further contextualizes the word by adding “with your hands.� If that’s not enough Paul finishes by saying he wants the Thessalonians to work so that they will “lack nothing.� If that’s not a reference to working so they will be self sufficient I don’t know what is.

As for Acts 18, is there is a counter argument to be made here?

In Acts 17 we read that at Athens, Paul "argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and also in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there." Then Paul went on to Corinth, apparently alone, or certainly without Silas and Timothy who were still catching up from Macedonia; he'd gone ahead of them to Athens and those who accompanied him on that leg had left to summon the others. At Corinth Paul met a couple he shared a lot in common with; diaspora Jews, recently arrived and tentmakers. He stayed with them, worked alongside them, and only on the Sabbaths went to the synagogue. But when Silas and Timothy arrived, Paul was "pressed in the spirit" (Textus Receptus, KJV/NKJV) or "began devoting himself completely" (Nestle-Alands, NASB) to the word, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. This resulted in their resistance and blasphemy, so Paul left the synagogue and apparently left Aquila's home too; he went to the house of Justus instead. He stayed in Corinth for eighteen months, and many people including some Jews became believers there.

So from this story, you're going to infer a general principle of discipleship? What it looks like is that Paul traveled more or less alone (certainly without his closest partners) and contrary to Jesus' pattern of sending disciples out in pairs, first to Athens and then to Corinth, where he found companionship with Aquila and Priscilla and settled into a comfortable niche for a while - in particular, without testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. It was only the arrival of Silas and Timothy which sparked that change in him. Coming from Rome, Aquila and Priscilla almost certainly had not heard the gospel yet and, while we see later that they became believers, there's no mention of their conversion in the early verses of the chapter; there's not actually enough information there to be certain that Paul left their home, but it is implied by him going to the house of Justus, and if so a rift from his sudden preaching of Christ and going back to full-time evangelism would explain it.

If anything, Luke seems to be presenting a case study here of what not to do. If Paul made tents or otherwise earned money to support himself in every town he visited there'd be no obvious reason to mention it here; but it makes sense as a life lesson, gently expressed in respect for his mentor, about how things can go awry when neglecting Jesus' model of working in a team. By implication therefore, Paul earning money for his upkeep would - if anything - be a part of that failure... but certainly not a proof-text as to what Christians should do!