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 names 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 worlds 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?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 20 by PinSeeker]

What is your opinion on a Christian who insists that the dietary laws must be kept by believers. I'm not even a believer and I think that Paul definitely taught that they were put aside. But it seems that my mind doesn't comprehend spiritual truths.

Maybe your mind is still to compromised as well?

[Jagella]

Perhaps, but it seems very illogical to believe in a god who is very poor in his ability to inspire people to do what he wants them to do.

Why would it be illogical to believe in such a god? That might make him a poor motivational speaker but that doesnt disprove the god.

I guess it depends on what god we are talking about. The Bible god is believed to be able to do anything, and that would include being able to inspire people to act according to his will. Consider Matthew 19:26:

But Jesus looked at them and said, For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.

So if you conclude that the Christian god cannot inspire people, then you are contradicting the Bible by limiting the Bible god.

Besides in the case of Christianity I would argue its us Christians who have a very poor ability to heed the inspiration or instructions from God. The fault, then, lies with us, not God

Well, I suppose it is the fault of both the god you believe in as well as his followers if those followers don't act as he commands. If a general loses a battle, then he is at fault as well as his soldiers.

God may very well have good reason to not force us to act in accordance with his commandments.

Inspiration doesn't involve force, so there is no violation of the will of people if they are inspired to act in some way. Inspiration involves getting people to act in some way according to their own wills.

So the god you believe in cannot inspire people this way?

Well in order to prove the consequent all you need to do is prove the antecedent - Christianity is the invention of people.

I'm assuming that Christianity is the invention of people to see what logically follows. Since many people fail to inspire other people, then the failure of Christianity to inspire might well be attributed to people who created it. Since people are far more likely than a god to fail this way, then it's likely that Christianity is a human invention.

If you are trying to prove the antecedent - Christianity as the invention of people - by way of proving the consequent - Christianity fails miserably to make people good - then you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I'm not really trying to prove that Christianity is the invention of people. I think it is far more probable that people invented it rather than that a god inspired it. Christianity has all the hallmarks of human ignorance, superstition, and failure to prove its claims.

[Mithrae]

I don't think there's any reason to believe that.

The Word of God is very clear that we inherited Adam's sinful state -- that it was imputed to us -- at the time of the Fall. He, as the federal head of the human race, became dead in his sin and, in the exact words of Genesis 3, at enmity with -- the state of being actively opposed, hostile, and antagonistic toward and possessing bitterness, resentment, ill will, loathing, destestation, abhorrence, malice, spitefulness, venom, malevolence... and hatred... for -- God. So the reason for my believing that is God's Word. And you're debate on that, while I respect your right to engage in it, is really with God, and not with me.

Uhhh... did you read the story before posting this? It speaks of enmity only between the serpent's and the woman's seeds. Since most Christians regard the serpent as a representation of Satan, if I didn't know that this was just a simple misquote it would look like you're declaring an equivalency between Satan and God - quite ironic in a thread asking if Christians despise God

It's obvious that most Christians ignore Jesus' command to stop working for money and give up their possessions...

Never did He command or teach such a thing. He merely -- (chuckles... "merely") -- commanded not to love money or possessions more than or even nearly as much as God/Himself. And to acknowledge that all that we have (whether plentiful or not) is because of God, and His is the glory because of it.

The question is whether Jesus was correct in saying that by trying to serve two masters - trying to work for God while still working for money - they are going to hate and despise one of them?

See above.

obviously Jesus viewed working for money as a serious problem for all of us...

Not so in the least. Not working, per se, but working for the wrong thing instead of the Right Thing, Who is the ultimate Provider. As a pastor-friend of mine liked to say, the main thing is to keep The Main Thing the main thing.

Unfortunately pastors, priests and reverends more than anyone else are among those most blatantly disobeying the gospels, and with the most vested interest in maintaining their flocks' ignorance. According to Matthew 23 Jesus emphatically told his followers "Do not be called Rabbi... do not be called father... do not be called teacher..." So why on earth should anyone who wants to follow Jesus go asking the opinion of someone who takes on the title and mantle of a teacher in flagrant violation of Jesus' word? It boggles the mind, it really does!

In John 14 the words attributed to Jesus say of the Holy Spirit that "He will teach you all things," and John himself wrote even more plainly in his epistle that "the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him." This was undoubtedly based on Jeremiah's description of the new covenant, saying that "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them" (Jer. 31:31-34). Pastors who make their living from that job, or intend to later in their career - which of course is most of them - not only directly violate the teachings of these passages and Jesus himself, but have a vested interest in avoiding those teachings like the plague; how can they possibly admit that Jesus taught against working for money, when they are actually making money off the name of Jesus himself!

(Yes, I know the verses by which church hierarchies and salaries are 'justified,' but a few ambiguous phrases from mostly pseudo-Pauline epistles is a pretty poor defense against the much clearer teachings of Jeremiah, John and Jesus himself.)

As to whether or not Jesus did teach against working for money, my reply to Goose in post #15 covers that with a little detail; or from last year, when I was unemployed and considering whether to follow that teaching myself, there's four pages of discussion on the subject mostly with BJS, Elijah John and Jehovah's Witness. It really is very clear - both from the example which Jesus and his followers set, and the teaching repeated again and again by different authors from different angles - that Jesus taught his followers to leave their jobs and forsake all they owned, to work for the kingdom of God instead of for money, to have faith in His provision for their daily bread. Meanwhile some of the arguments and excuses against it are quite poor or even rather perverse.

To be honest I don't particularly mind rehashing them all... or maybe you've got a new one up your sleeve? But perhaps you should first ask yourself how you will react if all the excuses fail? If it turns out that even seventeen-plus centuries of subversionary dogma and dubious reinterpretation from the church are unable to cover up Jesus' example and teachings of forsaking all, will you end up explicitly rejecting Jesus in favour of your job and home? At least for most Christians they get by without really thinking about it, mere implicit rejection. Perhaps a detailed discussion of Jesus' actual example and teachings will really answer the OP question, though not necessarily in the best manner For me, at this point, it's largely an intellectual exercise of understanding how the man and his earliest followers thought and lived, and therefore an interesting debate topic locking Christians on the horns of a tricky dilemma; but I'll try to bear in mind that this could be digging into the core of folks' faith and livelihoods, and not treat it too flippantly.

[Mithrae]

Jesus appears to have found his fan-base with the poor and downtrodden outcasts/outlaws. This means that the stories would have been crafted specifically toward their receptors.

They identified with a lot of that data Jesus apparently conveyed.

Zoom out to the greater human populace and one can see that not all rich people act out as it were. Many are generous. Things are never that cut and dry absolute.

From a purely politic perspective, the poor are many and potentially very dangerous (predictably in that way) and thus manufacturing a myth which would appeal to them as a way in which to subvert the more natural inclination to rebel, the gospel keeps the poor under relative control.

I don't agree with this. Why would Jesus want to keep the poor "under control"? He wasn't rich and certainly wasn't a ruler. He might have wanted to avoid revolution and bloody warfare, but that's certainly not the same thing as wanting to uphold the existing social order and keep the poor in their place! He repeatedly described his movement, his 'kingdom of God' as one in which the last will the first and the first last; if anything he wanted to dramatically upset the existing social order!

One verse which Christians love to half-quote is the one which begins with "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar." Trying to trap him in his words, the Pharisees and Herodians asked whether they should pay taxes to Rome, knowing that either a 'yes' or a 'no' would be a dangerous answer: But instead they were condemned by Jesus for rendering unto God mere tithes of their wealth when everything belongs to God, everything should be devoted to his work! Jesus had little regard for Caesar's coins. If everyone followed his teaching to forsake all possessions, who would there be to tax? It's got nothing to do with controlling the poor, quite the opposite; while he knew his message was hard to accept, for those who did he probably viewed it as liberating the poor (and even the rich) from servitude to money and dependence on the whimsy of landowners and kings. "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:29-30).

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by Mithrae]

I don't agree with this. Why would Jesus want to keep the poor "under control"?

I didn't say that. I said that politically this would be the case in regard to the evolution of Christianity. which cannot be denied as being politically motivated.

However, now that you mention it, the words attributed to Jesus might indeed be interpreted as a means in which the poor could integrate self control in relation to political manipulation.

Apart from that, I don't really understand your protest in relation to what I wrote.

[Goose]

I guess it depends on what god we are talking about. The Bible god is believed to be able to do anything, and that would include being able to inspire people to act according to his will. Consider Matthew 19:26:

But Jesus looked at them and said, For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.

So if you conclude that the Christian god cannot inspire people, then you are contradicting the Bible by limiting the Bible god.

But Im not concluding God cannot inspire people. Whether people choose to obey that inspiration/instruction is another story.

Well, I suppose it is the fault of both the god you believe in as well as his followers if those followers don't act as he commands. If a general loses a battle, then he is at fault as well as his soldiers.

If a General loses a battle because the soldiers refuse to obey orders its the soldiers fault. Not the Generals.

Inspiration doesn't involve force, so there is no violation of the will of people if they are inspired to act in some way. Inspiration involves getting people to act in some way according to their own wills.

So the god you believe in cannot inspire people this way?

If theres no violation of free will then we have the choice to obey or not.

I'm assuming that Christianity is the invention of people to see what logically follows. Since many people fail to inspire other people, then the failure of Christianity to inspire might well be attributed to people who created it.

Thats affirming the consequent bro. And thats a fallacy.

I'm not really trying to prove that Christianity is the invention of people. I think it is far more probable that people invented it rather than that a god inspired it. Christianity has all the hallmarks of human ignorance, superstition, and failure to prove its claims.

Well since you arent trying to prove your premise, thanks for sharing.

[PinSeeker]

Uhhh... did you read the story before posting this? It speaks of enmity only between the serpent's and the woman's seeds.

Ah. Now, I don't mean any offense with this remark; please don't take any: that understanding, although quite common, is only very shallow. You're making the very same mistake in understanding as Eve made (which you may choose not to see, but is there nevertheless); she thought Cain was God's fulfillment of what He had said, which we see in Genesis 4:1 ("and she said, 'I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.'). Genesis 3:15 is the first note of Gods redemptive intention following the Fall in the garden of Eden. This verse establishes a cosmic explanation for the disorder of the world: Satan is at work. In this one verse, God reveals His covenant of grace to Adam and Eve by promising a Savior, one who will restore His kingdom to its former state. Gods method of grace is costly: the heel of the Savior will be bruised. In short, Biblically speaking, all human beings from that point forward (Eve is referred to in Genesis 3:20 as the mother of all the living) -- except for Jesus, of course -- are included in the "your seed," or the seed of Satan. By "seed of the woman," God is making a distinction, of course, but obviously referring to Jesus, who is God made flesh (John 1)... obvious because "He" and "him" in the very next sentence is singular and one who is able to pay the price for all sin. So, laugh if you want, but it rings very hollow (again, not to be disparaging to you in any way, but it is what it is).

Unfortunately pastors, priests and reverends more than anyone else are among those most blatantly disobeying the gospels, and with the most vested interest in maintaining their flocks' ignorance. According to Matthew 23 Jesus emphatically told his followers "Do not be called Rabbi... do not be called father... do not be called teacher..." So why on earth should anyone who wants to follow Jesus go asking the opinion of someone who takes on the title and mantle of a teacher in flagrant violation of Jesus' word? It boggles the mind, it really does!

Well, pastors, priests, and reverends are sinners just like all other people. They are just as guilty -- not more than or less than -- as anyone else. In Matthew 23, Jesus is not prohibiting teachers (or pastors, priests, or reverends). His point is merely (chuckles... again, "merely") to forbid putting them in the place of God (and Himself) as their God/Lord. There, He's talking about the Pharisees in particular, who <i>had</> exalted some men, even themselves, above others, and using them as an example of what not to do. And this is for us today, too, as we can fall into the same temptation.

In John 14 the words attributed to Jesus say of the Holy Spirit that "He" will teach you all things,"

Right, but again, you apparently only have a shallow understanding of this. The Spirit teaches, for sure, but He can use all sorts if different means to do that, including other people. And in keeping with what I just said, if it is other people that teach, we must acknowledge Who the true Source of that teaching is, and that's God, by His Spirit.

...John himself wrote even more plainly in his epistle that "the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him."

Right, in 1 John 2. Same as above. Context is the key here (as always). In verse 26 John says that he is writing these things "about those who are trying to deceive you." It is in contrast to these deceivers that Joh writes verse 27. His point, then, is that they already have what they need. So we (believers) have the Spirit and we have the Gospel... we don't need new stuff. But this does not in any sense mean we don't need teachers. Teaching is a gift of the Spirit, who was sent by Christ, as we see in Ephesians 4:11 -- "He (God/Christ) gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ." Christ surely did not gift the church with teachers that we do not need. But again, it is the Spirit Who ultimately teaches us through pastors/teachers/etc. The exhortation here is to trust in the Spirit, not in other human beings, as He is the true Teacher. This is not a prohibition from being taught in the temporal sense by other people but rather a prohibition from regarding them as, or at least confusing them with, the Source of the truth.

Pastors who make their living from that job, or intend to later in their career - which of course is most of them - not only directly violate the teachings of these passages and Jesus himself, but have a vested interest in avoiding those teachings like the plague; how can they possibly admit that Jesus taught against working for money, when they are actually making money off the name of Jesus himself!

They don't have to, because He didn't.

Yes, I know the verses by which church hierarchies and salaries are 'justified,' but a few ambiguous phrases from mostly pseudo-Pauline epistles is a pretty poor defense against the much clearer teachings of Jeremiah, John and Jesus himself.

Ah, well, it's all the Word of God, and it's all absolutely consistent, even though -- I agree -- some parts are easier to understand than others. But God is His own arbiter. In other words, Scripture interprets Scripture. In other words -- <smile> -- what may be difficult to some degree to understand in one (or more) passage of the Bible can be understood better in or because of another passage (other passages) of the Bible.

As to whether or not Jesus did teach against working for money... It really is very clear - both from the example which Jesus and his followers set, and the teaching repeated again and again by different authors from different angles - that Jesus taught his followers to leave their jobs and forsake all they owned, to work for the kingdom of God instead of for money, to have faith in His provision for their daily bread.

No, He taught His followers (and us) not to put our ultimate trust in jobs, or money, or anything else they owned, for their salvation or even their well-being.

...will you end up explicitly rejecting Jesus in favour of your job and home?

Never would I do such. Rather, I thank Jesus for my job and my home and everything else -- my daily bread. For providing for me in those ways. Indeed, this is the Lord's Prayer, or part of it, anyway.

For me, at this point, it's largely an intellectual exercise of understanding...

Ah. Or in Biblical terms, being wise in your own eyes. Not that I'm actually accusing you of such, but that seems to be exactly what you are saying. But -- and I don't mean this in any disparaging sense but rather a complimentary one -- I will appeal to your impressive intellect:

I think you would have to admit that what I'm saying here with regard to every subject we're discussing (jobs, money, possessions, teachers, etc.) has one clear, succinct, common, very consistent theme: God doesn't prohibit any of these things but rather endorses all these things, because He is the real, ultimate Source, Provider, and Teacher. He works through ordinary, earthly means to provide for His people. And this fits perfectly with Jesus's command in Matthew 6:33 to "seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..." -- in other words, not to seek nothing else (or necessarily to physically abandon anything), but to seek Him first and above all else -- "and all these things will be added to you" -- that He will provide all that you need in every physical and spiritual aspect via His Spirit by using various earthly means.

...I'll try to bear in mind that this could be digging into the core of folks' faith and livelihoods, and not treat it too flippantly.

No need to worry about that with me.

[showme]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

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?

I would suggest that if you want to become "perfect", that you sell your possessions, give the proceeds to the poor and follow me.

Abraham left his family, farm, and nation to walk with the LORD, and yet he apparently became a rich sheep herder by letting the sheep do all the breeding, eating, and producing, and was richer for leaving all behind. Was Abraham 10 times richer than before, or a hundred times richer than before? He certainly was a wealthy man, who gave his tithes to God's chosen high priest. (Matthew 19:29)

[Tcg]

Abraham left his family, farm, and nation to walk with the LORD, and yet he apparently became a rich sheep herder by letting the sheep do all the breeding, eating, and producing, and was richer for leaving all behind.

Abraham didn't leave all behind. He took his wife, his nephew, ALL THEIR POSSESIONS, and all their slaves:

Genesis12:4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Harran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.

It's not hard to become rich when you own slaves.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 27 by PinSeeker]

Thanks for the effort put into your post, PinSeeker I'll only address some of it, because parts of our exchange are more or less tangential to the thread topic (eg. interpretation of Genesis), but let me know if you feel I've overlooked anything important.

Yes, I know the verses by which church hierarchies and salaries are 'justified,' but a few ambiguous phrases from mostly pseudo-Pauline epistles is a pretty poor defense against the much clearer teachings of Jeremiah, John and Jesus himself.

Ah, well, it's all the Word of God, and it's all absolutely consistent, even though -- I agree -- some parts are easier to understand than others. But God is His own arbiter. In other words, Scripture interprets Scripture. In other words -- <smile> -- what may be difficult to some degree to understand in one (or more) passage of the Bible can be understood better in or because of another passage (other passages) of the Bible.

For me, at this point, it's largely an intellectual exercise of understanding...

Ah. Or in Biblical terms, being wise in your own eyes. Not that I'm actually accusing you of such, but that seems to be exactly what you are saying.

I'll accept that; I think it's fair to say that I have learned some things and gained some wisdom at my ripe old age. And while most of it is due to my genetics, family, education and other circumstances beyond my control, it has become my wisdom, such as it is, with whatever vanity but also all the biases, ignorance and fallibility that implies.

By contrast, you seem to be implying that your opinions are for all intents and purposes the opinions of God himself: Purely because a selected anthology of Hebrew and early Christian letters, biographical sketches, historical narratives, mystical revelation, legends, mythology, poetry and ritual legislation, chosen and canonised by largely anonymous groups of rabbis and priests, happens to contain some sentences which might - arguably - be used to support your opinions (and to ignore/creatively reinterpret any other verses which you don't like). I wonder which is the greater sin, in biblical terms? Owning my opinions as my own, knowledge and ignorance, insights and errors alike; or in false humility disavowing one's own wisdom and instead supposing that one's opinions are in fact God's opinions?

According to both John the apostle and John of Patmos, the Word of God is Jesus, not some collection of paper and ink. As I quoted above, Jeremiah explicitly said that the new covenant would not be like the old - that in the new, God's law would be written on his people's hearts and minds. Alluding to that passage in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is even more explicit, describing "a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Claiming that Paul's letters are the 'Word of God' - even though he himself never made any such claim, and clearly believed quite the opposite, and other passages explicitly identify Jesus as the Word of God - is quite literally the sin of false prophecy which under Deuteronomic law would be punishable by death.

But this is what seventeen-plus centuries of church subversion and dogma have done. In all those centuries when the masses were overwhelmingly illiterate, claiming that God's will must be known through a written book turned God into a pawn of the powerful. It's an historical fact that the biblical anthology has never really guided or clarified much at all; since the advent of the printing press, the Reformation, availability of the bible in vernacular languages and the increase of literacy, Christian denominations have multiplied exponentially with every would-be teacher claiming the authority of God himself for whatever novel interpretation or selective emphases they'd come up with. For the most part, they keep insisting that the bible is the Word of God because it continues to give them influence over anyone foolish enough to believe them.

Personally I recognized that blasphemy long, long ago: I decided to not to make such exalted claims for my own 'wisdom,' instead praying and trusting in God to guide me as he chose and as I remained honest in pursuit of truth. I've never stopped honestly seeking, nor ever asked him to stop guiding me (indeed I've renewed that prayer more than once over the years)... so perhaps, if it matters, I may have a better claim to the Spirit's guidance than anyone trying to find divine truth in the false prophecy of the written word Or perhaps we're all just folk with no particularly unique or special insight into the mind of god at all.

As to whether or not Jesus did teach against working for money... It really is very clear - both from the example which Jesus and his followers set, and the teaching repeated again and again by different authors from different angles - that Jesus taught his followers to leave their jobs and forsake all they owned, to work for the kingdom of God instead of for money, to have faith in His provision for their daily bread.

No, He taught His followers (and us) not to put our ultimate trust in jobs, or money, or anything else they owned, for their salvation or even their well-being.

Well you're certainly welcome to try to show how all the gospel passages I've highlighted don't really mean what they say, although I think I might see a problem looming on the horizon (which is why I wrote all of the above): It's possible that like many Christians you may try to use Paul to cancel out Jesus, or even try to use Abraham or anything under the 'old covenant' as Showme seems to be doing - use any and every other page from a fake 'Word of God' to nullify commands of the real Word of God in Johannine theology.

I think you would have to admit that what I'm saying here with regard to every subject we're discussing (jobs, money, possessions, teachers, etc.) has one clear, succinct, common, very consistent theme: God doesn't prohibit any of these things but rather endorses all these things, because He is the real, ultimate Source, Provider, and Teacher. He works through ordinary, earthly means to provide for His people. And this fits perfectly with Jesus's command in Matthew 6:33 to "seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..." -- in other words, not to seek nothing else (or necessarily to physically abandon anything), but to seek Him first and above all else -- "and all these things will be added to you" -- that He will provide all that you need in every physical and spiritual aspect via His Spirit by using various earthly means.

Yes, there's some consistency there and that's a nice message - thank God for your blessings - and certainly one which Jesus endorsed, but it clearly is not the substance of what he taught. It's a message which leaves Christians basically indistinguishable from the rest of the world, even though John's Jesus said there would be a clear distinction such that the world would even hate his followers. Each variety of Christianity which does not involve forsaking all attracts millions of followers, even though Jesus said his way was narrow and wondered whether there'd be anyone of faith left when he returned.

It's actually quite remarkable, almost a litmus test of sorts: If you call something Christian, no matter how far-fetched (eg. Mormonism), no matter how obviously man-made and false (eg. Jehovah's Witnesses), no matter how weird and seemingly crazy (eg. Pentecostalism) and no matter how diametrically opposed to Jesus' teachings (eg. prosperity gospel), it seems you are all but guaranteed to attract millions of followers. But forsaking all, as Jesus plainly taught? Well, there's some believers who do that; at least a few dozen from the world's wealthier countries, perhaps even a few hundred. If you're looking for the narrow way, it's certainly not going to be anything you hear from a well-dressed preacher in a comfortable church building!

"All these things will be added to you" in Matthew 6:33 covers food and clothing; that's it. That's all he's talking about in the paragraph. He told his followers to pray for their daily bread, not a two bedroom mansion and fancy second-hand car. Jesus was homeless, he said so himself; they sheltered with people willing to accommodate them. The example he set, and his followers set, was forsaking everything; eventually even their own lives, most of them. The words he taught are clear enough in themselves... their example, even clearer.