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?

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by Goose]

Argumentum ad populum

Your reply does not address Jagella's own argument other than that.

It seems strange that Jagella's argument implies that Argumentum ad populum is okay when used his way, but fallacy is still fallacy.

My own answer to the argument is that if we take altogether something that all humans cannot help but be impressed with, then that will be GOD.

Since not all humans are impressed with ideas of GOD which give the logical impression that the ideas themselves are a very human invention, then it can be questioned under that premise.

Humans can and do despise themselves and each other. That is a given. Therefore their ideas of GODs are going to reflect that, and when they write these ideas down and present them as "The Truth" things naturally enough become wobbly-wheeled.

Christianity is build upon foundations of doctrines which do indeed despise.

As such, it naturally attracts support from individuals who also despise. That this is popular is evidence that human beings naturally despise one another, in the spirit of competition apparently.

Well if you think what I worte there is an argumentum ad populum then clearly you don't know what an argumentum ad populum is. Nowhere did I argue the truth of a premise based on many people believing its true.

Well Christians do indeed argue that very thing, so my bad if I confused you as being one.

[Mithrae]

I wholly disagree here with the premise that: �Jesus and his followers all set an example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money…�

• 1. Jesus owned clothing and footwear. So he didn’t give up all his possessions.
  
  2. Jesus had a trade, he was a carpenter (Mark 6:3).
  
  3. Before Jesus performs his miracle with the loaves of bread and fish, there is a presumption that the disciples are to buy food for the five thousand (Matthew 6:37, John 6:5-7).
  
  4. The disciples had a money box/bag kept by Judas which the disciples and Jesus used to buy things (John 12:6, 13:29).
  
  5. The disciples went back to their trade of fishing after Jesus’ death (John 21:1-4).
  
  6. The disciples had the resources to stay in the upper room (Acts 1:13).
  
  7. Peter had a home (Mark 1:29-30).
  
  8. Paul worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:1-3).
  
  9. Paul instructed the Thessalonians to work so they will not be in need (1Thess 4:11-12).

There are many more such examples. It just doesn’t seem that the disciples set a very good example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money. Either that or Jesus was one big fat hypocrite. Or Jesus never meant that his followers should sell all they have, quite their jobs, and become unemployed paupers.

I only have time for a few general comments here. Firstly... what's with that first point? If Jesus said you must forsake all to be his disciple - which he did, in those very words - do you really think that coming back with "well, he had the clothes on his back" proves that it's okay to own a house? I've discussed this several times with Christians, and it's quite amazing how Jesus' robe or sandals keep coming up in response. Does that actually seem like legitimate exegesis to you, or is it... something else? People who are determinedly arguing that the command to forsake all is an implausibly vast hyperbole seem then to flick a switch in their brains that it must mean absolutely everything all at once, or else nothing at all. I mean granted, presumably the thinking behind it is so they can say "Hah! You believe it's hyperbole too," but there's really nothing honest about that. Using 'forsake all' as shorthand for 'forsake 99.99%' is not hyperbole, it's just using round numbers; but perhaps more to the point, using it as shorthand for 'forsake 99.99% now, and twice as much again later on' is not even round numbers, it's an understatement!

Following on from that, I'm glad - though a little surprised - that you mentioned those stories from John. Not only does the story of feeding five thousand have as its unavoidable moral that material needs would be provided by God rather than our own efforts, but John specifically says that Jesus was testing his disciples by asking "Where shall we buy bread." It's later in that chapter that he says "Do not work for the food that perishes" - what do you think that could possibly mean, following on the heels of that story of God's provision? Similarly, why did John take pains to note that Jesus left their money bag in the care of Judas the thief? What does that tell you about their attitude towards this, their most valuable communal possession? Yes, after the twelve had left everything to follow Jesus, they did receive more; Jesus even said they would receive 'a hundredfold' (Mk. 10:30). But elsewhere he also said that those who are faithful in little will be faithful in much. Was Jesus telling his followers that they should pretend to forsake all, temporarily give up their possessions in order to become really rich? No... they forsook all and received more again in order to give it up again. They handed out two hundred denarii worth of food to the crowd, the better part of a year's wages. Some folk nowadays who have been following this teaching for decades claim that they've sometimes found themselves getting so much money they're worried about how to responsibly dispose of it all. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's not hard to see how it could be; some people inspired or impressed or conscience-stung by their lives but unwilling to actually join them might open their wallets wide to 'help out' and ease their minds a little. (Of course even more folk are likely to react negatively.)

Thirdly, can we agree (from a Christian standpoint) that if Jesus taught and exemplified one thing but someone like Paul taught and behaved differently, that does not mean that Jesus was wrong or that Jesus' words should be forced into conformity with Paul's; it would mean that Paul was wrong? Or at best, if one were determined to preserve consistency, that Paul's teaching and actions should be forced into conformity with Jesus', not vice versa. I'm not actually sure that such a conflict exists - or at least no really major conflict in the genuine Pauline material - but presumably we can agree that if there were such a discrepancy, it is Jesus that comes first? 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. Ironically the best authentic Pauline example, from Philemon, really doesn't get raised by Christians that I've seen: Philemon certainly did have personal ownership of possessions, but I guess it's a little off-putting that one of those possessions was a human, Christian slave who Paul sent back to servitude. But we don't know what Paul said in other letters or in person; Philemon might have been only on the first steps of the path to discipleship.

And fourthly, I'm almost surprised that you didn't mention Acts 2 and 4, which don't really seem to fit the idea of believers being homeless mendicants. In theory the same principle would apply to Peter and the others as to Paul - if their teachings or actions conflict with Jesus', it's them that are wrong - but in this case there's the difference that everything we know about Jesus came (at best) through the twelve, so we can reasonably assume that Jesus material and any genuine apostolic material should be broadly consistent. Hence Acts might arguably provide a softer model than we would otherwise infer from the gospels. But on the other hand I am glad that you didn't mention it, because obviously Christians don't even measure up to that standard of forsaking personal possessions and living frugally in community. It would be rather perverse to point to a lower standard which still isn't met as if it were some kind of justification for rejecting Jesus' seemingly harsher teachings!



So without directly addressing most of your points, are there actually any which you still think provide a valid reason for rejecting the plain meaning of Jesus' teaching to forsake all (Luke 14), sell your possessions for charity (Luke 12) and stop working for worldly treasures (Matthew 6, John 6) but instead trust in God's provision while spreading the good news and serving one another in love?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 42 by Mithrae]

LUKE 14: 33

In the same way, you may be sure that not one of you who does not say good-bye to* all his belongings can be my disciple - NWT .

QUESTION Did Jesus want his followers to literally abandon everything that they had?

♦ANSWER: No, Jesus was not speaking in the absolute.

To , "forsake all" in the absolute (which would include absolutely all you have ownership of including clothes and sandals) or "forsake all" not in the absolute which imposes a line to be drawn at some point. There is no third option it is one or the other.

To deny this linguistic dichotomy is to ignore a basic principle of all language and communication. It is not debatable, it is not a matter of opinion, it cannot be circumvented, it is a basic fact of language ALL speech can be categorised as being in the absolute or not (ie being relative).

In my experience most people I have spoken to on this subject simply do not understand what "relative " or "absolute" mean in this context, but those with a command of English and the intellectual capacity to grasp the fundamental principles involved, know that this particular dichotomy has to be addressed.

In short, if someone says "Yes, Jesus said you must "forsake all things" but obviously he meant "Well you can keep your underwear at least until someone give you some more" they have drawn a line and in doing so have by definition accepted that Jesus was not speaking in the absolute (ie there would be exceptions, notably your Y-fronts ). The acceptance of relativity is self imposed in ALL explanations outside of nakedness. The question of to what shuold be let go and under what circumstances is a matter of interpretation.




RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus not tell his disciples to give away everything the owned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 161#908161





Continued below...

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 43 by JehovahsWitness]


In a discussion about the cost of Christian discipleship, Jesus emphasised that his followers should be aware that sacrifices will be involved. After giving several examples and illustrating that being a Christian would not be easy and was not an course that shoild be undertaken lightly, he concluded with the following words:

LUKE 14: 33

In the same way, you may be sure that not one of you who does not say good-bye to* all his belongings can be my disciple - NWT .

*give up



QUESTION How are we to understand Jesus call that his disciples "give up/forsake all"?

♦ANSWER: Jesus meant that one shuold "forsake them" in one's heart meaning to no longer count them as a priority in life being ready to let material things (and even friends and family) go if such they ever become an obstacle to worshipping God acceptably.

Jesus was not imposing a prohibition on private ownership, rather an examination of Jesus other words and actions as well as the laws and principles in scripture leads reasonable people to conclude that he was speaking in relative terms of prioritizing the spiritual over the material.

JW



RELATED POSTS


Can a Christian justify not working for money to support his family because his life is dedicated to God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 689#908689

Was Jesus preaching an "interim ethic" at Luke 14:33?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 254#908254

Do Christians hate the poor?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 553#940553




NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[JehovahsWitness]

[b]QUESTION Why did Jesus love a family that was in ownership of a house?[/b]

The bible reports that Jesus had a very close relationship with Lazarus and his two sisters, indeed Lazaus is spoken of as being particularly loved by Jesus. However, the Bible speaks of Martha as welcoming Jesus into "her home" implying that that house itself was under family ownership.

[quote]
[color=green]
LUKE 10:38

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. [/color][/quote]

This poses a particular problem for proponents of the idea that Jesus wanted his followers to literally abandon their families, houses , all possessions and thereafter live off of the charity of others.

If the bible chronology is followed it seems that the family had the house in their possession at least from October 32 when Jesus was recieved during the aautumn festivals to the spring of the following year when Jesus arrived in the region for the Passover. That's a bare minimum of six months (we can reasonably assume that the house and the land it was built in was family land and it was in fact part of their inheritance, ie that they had lived there for many years). While we do not know when they became disciples it seems that for at least that period they were believers in possession of a house and considerable funds as Mary is reported to have spent a large amount of [i]her own money [/i](he equivalent of a about 6 months wages) to buy perfumed oil for Jesus.

While Jesus did associate with "sinners" prostitutes and tax collectors, he told told them " ... to go and sin no more". He did not, it seems chose to incude among his intimate aquaintences unrepentant sinners who openly defied his counsel.

[quote]
CONCLUSION While some people conclude that Jesus words at Luke 14:33 prohibited all private ownership, a more reasonable reading is that like Martha and her siblings, Christians should avoid making their material possessions their priority and use whatever they do posses in a balanced and godly way..[/quote]




RELATED POSTS


[b]Do Jehovah's Witnesses take part in "social justice" movements?[/b]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 693#934693

[Goose]

I wholly disagree here with the premise that: �Jesus and his followers all set an example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money…�

• 1. Jesus owned clothing and footwear. So he didn’t give up all his possessions.
  
  2. Jesus had a trade, he was a carpenter (Mark 6:3).
  
  3. Before Jesus performs his miracle with the loaves of bread and fish, there is a presumption that the disciples are to buy food for the five thousand (Matthew 6:37, John 6:5-7).
  
  4. The disciples had a money box/bag kept by Judas which the disciples and Jesus used to buy things (John 12:6, 13:29).
  
  5. The disciples went back to their trade of fishing after Jesus’ death (John 21:1-4).
  
  6. The disciples had the resources to stay in the upper room (Acts 1:13).
  
  7. Peter had a home (Mark 1:29-30).
  
  8. Paul worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:1-3).
  
  9. Paul instructed the Thessalonians to work so they will not be in need (1Thess 4:11-12).

There are many more such examples. It just doesn’t seem that the disciples set a very good example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money. Either that or Jesus was one big fat hypocrite. Or Jesus never meant that his followers should sell all they have, quite their jobs, and become unemployed paupers.

I only have time for a few general comments here. Firstly... what's with that first point? If Jesus said you must forsake all to be his disciple - which he did, in those very words - do you really think that coming back with "well, he had the clothes on his back" proves that it's okay to own a house?

No, I didn’t argue that. So I think we can set aside this strawman. We have other evidence from Peter having a home that suggests it’s okay to own a house. What the first point does is move us off this idea that Jesus gave up all his possessions. It brings some intuitional context. Obviously all doesn’t literally mean everything. Otherwise Jesus would have wandered around Judea naked.

I've discussed this several times with Christians, and it's quite amazing how Jesus' robe or sandals keep coming up in response. Does that actually seem like legitimate exegesis to you, or is it... something else?

It’s a logically valid objection to the idea that Jesus gave up all he owned.

People who are determinedly arguing that the command to forsake all is an implausibly vast hyperbole seem then to flick a switch in their brains that it must mean absolutely everything all at once, or else nothing at all.

Well what else does it mean? You are the one arguing that Jesus gave up all he had.

I mean granted, presumably the thinking behind it is so they can say "Hah! You believe it's hyperbole too," but there's really nothing honest about that. Using 'forsake all' as shorthand for 'forsake 99.99%' is not hyperbole, it's just using round numbers; but perhaps more to the point, using it as shorthand for 'forsake 99.99% now, and twice as much again later on' is not even round numbers, it's an understatement!

Not really sure what you mean here.

Following on from that, I'm glad - though a little surprised - that you mentioned those stories from John. Not only does the story of feeding five thousand have as its unavoidable moral that material needs would be provided by God rather than our own efforts, but John specifically says that Jesus was testing his disciples by asking "Where shall we buy bread." It's later in that chapter that he says "Do not work for the food that perishes" - what do you think that could possibly mean, following on the heels of that story of God's provision? Similarly, why did John take pains to note that Jesus left their money bag in the care of Judas the thief? What does that tell you about their attitude towards this, their most valuable communal possession? Yes, after the twelve had left everything to follow Jesus, they did receive more; Jesus even said they would receive 'a hundredfold' (Mk. 10:30). But elsewhere he also said that those who are faithful in little will be faithful in much. Was Jesus telling his followers that they should pretend to forsake all, temporarily give up their possessions in order to become really rich? No... they forsook all and received more again in order to give it up again. They handed out two hundred denarii worth of food to the crowd, the better part of a year's wages. Some folk nowadays who have been following this teaching for decades claim that they've sometimes found themselves getting so much money they're worried about how to responsibly dispose of it all. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's not hard to see how it could be; some people inspired or impressed or conscience-stung by their lives but unwilling to actually join them might open their wallets wide to 'help out' and ease their minds a little. (Of course even more folk are likely to react negatively.)

Oh I absolutely agree that the story of the feeding of the five thousand demonstrates God’s provision. But this does not overturn the salient point that the disciples had money to buy food – that was the default assumption, that they were to buy food. Enough money, apparently, to buy food for five thousand people! As for Judas being in charge of the money bag, what difference does that really make? The point remains that Jesus and his disciples had money which they used to buy provisions like food. They didn’t wander around begging for their next meal. The rest here is interesting but doesn’t address the arguments I’ve made.

Thirdly, can we agree (from a Christian standpoint) that if Jesus taught and exemplified one thing but someone like Paul taught and behaved differently, that does not mean that Jesus was wrong or that Jesus' words should be forced into conformity with Paul's; it would mean that Paul was wrong?

Fair enough. But you bear the burden to demonstrate Paul’s words are wrong, if that is in fact what you are arguing. And it seems to me you are at least implying the possibility. The simple fact you are making this argument regarding the priority of Jesus is, I think, tacit admission that Paul’s words work against your argument.

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?

Ironically the best authentic Pauline example, from Philemon, really doesn't get raised by Christians that I've seen: Philemon certainly did have personal ownership of possessions, but I guess it's a little off-putting that one of those possessions was a human, Christian slave who Paul sent back to servitude. But we don't know what Paul said in other letters or in person; Philemon might have been only on the first steps of the path to discipleship.

Well since this isn’t an argument I’ve made I don’t feel I need to defend it.

And fourthly, I'm almost surprised that you didn't mention Acts 2 and 4, which don't really seem to fit the idea of believers being homeless mendicants.

Like I said, there are many more such examples than the few I listed.

In theory the same principle would apply to Peter and the others as to Paul - if their teachings or actions conflict with Jesus', it's them that are wrong - but in this case there's the difference that everything we know about Jesus came (at best) through the twelve, so we can reasonably assume that Jesus material and any genuine apostolic material should be broadly consistent.

But Peter still had a home after he had been called by Jesus. Jesus visited Peter’s home on at least two occasions (Mark 1:29-30, Luke 7:44).

Hence Acts might arguably provide a softer model than we would otherwise infer from the gospels. But on the other hand I am glad that you didn't mention it, because obviously Christians don't even measure up to that standard of forsaking personal possessions and living frugally in community. It would be rather perverse to point to a lower standard which still isn't met as if it were some kind of justification for rejecting Jesus' seemingly harsher teachings!

I think you are painting with an awfully broad brush here. It’s been my experience that Christians can be very generous toward not only the believers among them, but also toward non-believers. I've seen Christians literally give away a car to another who was in need of a vehicle.

So without directly addressing most of your points, are there actually any which you still think provide a valid reason for rejecting the plain meaning of Jesus' teaching to forsake all (Luke 14), sell your possessions for charity (Luke 12) and stop working for worldly treasures (Matthew 6, John 6) but instead trust in God's provision while spreading the good news and serving one another in love?

I still think the points I’ve raised counter the notion that: �Jesus and his followers all set an example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money…�

[Mithrae]

In theory the same principle would apply to Peter and the others as to Paul - if their teachings or actions conflict with Jesus', it's them that are wrong - but in this case there's the difference that everything we know about Jesus came (at best) through the twelve, so we can reasonably assume that Jesus material and any genuine apostolic material should be broadly consistent.

But Peter still had a home after he had been called by Jesus. Jesus visited Peter’s home on at least two occasions (Mark 1:29-30, Luke 7:44).

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.

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. 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? 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.



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.

[2ndRateMind]

Bravo!

I take the following approach: If all the wealth in the world were divided amongst all the people, we would all have a net worth around $36,000.

Interesting approach. Now, does that number take into account global debt? Usually net worth implies debt has been taken into account. But I'm wondering if that $36,000 number does reflect debt adjustment against assets.

Hmmm. The figures are not mine, but those of Credit Suisse, and the Swiss are known for being careful with money. I am not privy to their calculations, but I would be very surprised indeed to discover they had made such an elementary mistake as to disregard debt in their deliberations.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 10 by Mithrae]

All I can say here is we have a completely different understanding of who Jesus was talking to, and also what he may have meant. The question would be, which of us if either, is reading correctly.

When we arrive to Matthew 6, we are reading a very long discourse given by Jesus, which began in chapter 5. At the very beginning of chapter 5, Matthew reports.

When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,

Who was it that came to Jesus? It was his disciples. And it goes on to say, "He opened His mouth and began to teach THEM." Who? Those "who came to him."

Clearly, Jesus is teaching his disciples, who would later become Apostles, and it would be a fact that they later on would be on a mission that Jesus had for them, and he was explaining to them that they should not worry about such things.

The "crowds" WERE his disciples. At the end of the sermon it says When he had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching (Mt. 7.28). Disciple simply means follower or pupil; Acts 11 says that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.

So now, we would have to go back, read carefully, and determine those things that may apply to us, as opposed to those that would not, and we have just established, that everything command in the Bible, could not possibly apply to us. This would go for the passage you refer to, concerning the "rich young ruler."

In this passage we are dealing with, a man who had taken care of his earthly existence, and he had more than enough to last him the rest of his life. So then, since this life was taken care of, he now turns his attention to, the next life.

He must have perceived Jesus as some sort of prophet, and so he asks, "what must I, (emphasis on the I) do to obtain eternal life?"

So then, what Jesus is saying is, "well if it is up to you, you know the law, keep it." Of course the man is deceived into believing that he has kept the law, and asks, "what more do I lack."

Well instead of arguing over the situation, Jesus tells him to "sell all he has, and give to the poor." You see, this man had been very successful in being in control, and he was not willing to give up that control, and allow someone else to be in control.

In other words, this was a command to a particular person, in order to demonstrate a point to that particular person, and would not be a command to all Christians to "sell all they had, and give to the poor."

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. Mark 10 is simply a more specific example (from yet another gospel, which is important in terms of confirmation of veracity and intent) showing that merely living a good life is not enough,by Jesus' standards.

Matthew adds to the story "if you want to be perfect"; strangely, some Christians seem to think that this provides a license to say 'Oh, I don't want to be perfect, I just want to cruise by anf assume that it'll all be cool.'

[JehovahsWitness]

Using 'forsake all' as shorthand for 'forsake 99.99%' is not hyperbole, it's just using round numbers; but perhaps more to the point, using it as shorthand for 'forsake 99.99% now, and twice as much again later on' is not even round numbers, it's an understatement!

LUKE 14: 33

In the same way, you may be sure that not one of you who does not say good-bye to* all his belongings can be my disciple - NWT .

* give up

Vincent's Word Studies : Forsaketh (ἀποτα�σσεται) Bids good-by to. Rev., renounceth. See on Luke 9:61.

Bengel's Gnomen renounce or detach himself from [bid farewell to])

MODERN 1 % PHARISEES

People that argue Jesus was in fact a commanding a 99 (or a 99.9) percent sacrifice are much like the Pharisees of Jesus day, imposing a law and numbers were none existed.

• The fact is Jesus meant "everything" to mean" literally 100% (underwear included) or he did not. If he did not and made no rule about what percentage or which items one could hold on to, only the modern-day "Pharisees" seek to "improve on Jesus words by adding their own arbitrary percentage". The reality is if he wasn't speaking in the absolute
• and imposed no rule or percentage, then he was leaving his disciples to discern the principle behind his words and having faith in their good sense as to how to apply it.
• For a further explanation of the meaning of speaking in absolute terms see post above
  Did Jesus want his followers to literally abandon everything that they had?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 929#953929

The bottom line is 100% needs no explanation (except to the mathematically challenged that don't know that 99 is not 100). Less than 100 demands discernment. Christians were called to freedom, freedom from the rule makers of Jesus day, and freedom from the forum Phariesse and extremists today.

MATTHEW 24:15

Let the reader use discernment - Jesus Christ