Was Christ impractical?

[marco]

Christ told his followers to be perfect like God. Asked for advice on how best to lead a life satisfying to heaven a rich young man was told to give everything up. From Matthew the maker of tall tales we learn: "Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.�

Jesus didn't need money when he had miracles of course. This idiotic advice was followed by the adolescent Anthony of Egypt, made a saint for his silliness. Anthony inherited wealth from his parents and gave it all away to live in a cave, entrusting his poor sister to the care of some townswomen. Anthony, in completely ignoring the needs of his sister, followed Christ's advice.

According to Jesus it's easier to reach heaven from a cave than a castle. Monks who hide from the world and contribute nothing to humankind are following Jesus. If we all behaved like this we would be Neanderthals. Christ forgot that some people have to labour, some have to mark human progress and wealth is a requirement.

Was Jesus being impractical in his advice?

[JehovahsWitness]

Was Jesus being impractical in his advice?

There are no impracticalities in Jesus advice only impractical interpretations of Jesus advice. So my answer to the question is no. The whole matter was summed up nicely while discussing another topic...

I am happy to interpret and accept that my interpretation is just that - my idea.

Some interpretations are more practical than others.




JW

[marco]

[Replying to post 70 by Mithrae]


Though the words impractical and impracticable do share some common meaning, your use of "impracticable" as a replacement for "impractical" renders the OP question simplistic, even senseless. Could the rich man have given away his wealth. Yes. Who is contesting that?

I thought I had adequately corrected your misconception. Your examples of people like Gandhi indicate that some can profitably adopt an austere lifestyle. That was never the question.
Rich man: I follow all God's commandments. How do I find the best way to be good?
Answer: Continue to do what you are doing. Use your wealth wisely and help those in need. Make sure your family is provided for.

Impractical advice: Leave your home and family and give away all you possess.

The astute lawyer would ask: Cui bono? To whose advantage is this reliance on the vicissitudes of fate?

[marco]

Was Jesus being impractical in his advice?

There are no impracticalities in Jesus advice only impractical interpretations of Jesus advice. So my answer to the question is no.

That's a good declaration. Mine would be that Jesus was sometimes impractical. By "impractical interpretation" I suppose is meant "wrong interpretation" or "unrealistic
interpretation."

"Give away all you have and follow me."

Three clauses: one imperative principal clause, one subordinate adjectival clause and another principal in apposition. That's my analysis and I can't see any hardship in extracting a meaning:

Give away: everything : join me.

It may be that before answering Jesus had made a thorough survey of the man's family situation. We are not told this and it appears the man just walked up to the star and posed a question. Jesus replied with a breathtakingly extreme piece of advice which we might term "impractical." Have I missed something?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 73 by marco]

You are welcome to your interpretation, like opinions everyone has one. I dont agree with your take but I dont think my disagreement with your interpretation is much of a surprise to either of us. I find your interpretation not just impractical, I find your interpretation, if I may borrow your own words on another topic ...

.... nonsense masquerading as wisdom.

(Reasons see chart below)

Be well,

JW

CLAIM: Christians were commanded to give away or sell ALL (99.9%) of their material possession and to live on charitable donations; Christians were prohibited from a) for working for money b) owning any private property

COUNTERCLAIM: Christians were charged to engage in charitable giving, and refrain from making material wealth their main focus in life

[mrow]NO MONEY[mcol]H[mcol]MONEY [mrow] Jesus told his disciples in Luke 14:33 to "[i]give up"[/i] [u]ALL[/u] they had [mcol]#1 [mcol] Jesus wasnt speaking in [url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=953929#953929][color=blue][u]absolutes[/u][/color][/url] ; "all" logically did'nt mean absolutely everything they possessed (Jesus evidently hadn't given up his own quality coat) [mrow]"Forsaking all" means not owning anything [mcol]#2[mcol] [url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=953957#953957][color=blue][u]forsake "all"[/u][/color][/url] neither means selling nor renouncing all ownership; Forsaking all is a command to [url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=953930#953930][color=blue][u]be wholely dedicated [/u][/color][/url] to the Christian mission [mrow] In Luke 12:33 Jesus said "sell [u]ALL[/u] you possess and give to the poor" [mcol]#3[mcol] No he did not say [u]ALL[/u] ones possessions (including ones house), [url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=953956#953956][color=blue][u]Luke 12:33[/u][/color][/url] reads : "Sell your belongings and give gifts of mercy" the word "all" doesn't appear. He was encouraging charitable giving not living on charity. [mrow]Jesus told the rich young man to sell ALL his possessions [mcol]#4[mcol] This was specific to the individual and never imposed on the wider Christian community [mrow]Jesus commended Zacchaus for voicing his resolve to give only half of any I'll gained possession was in fact because he (Jesus ) looked into the future and knew Zacchaus would actually sell everything he ownwed and thereafter live on charity [mcol]#5[mcol] No basis for this in scripture for this conclusion. Jesus is never spoken of as condemning or commending present actions on the basis of unspoken future ones [mrow]Jesus said "stop working for money"[mcol]#6 [mcol]No, [u]he did not say those words[/u]. Jesus said "You cannot be slaves to God and to [u]riches[/u].� (Luke 16:9, 13), meaning one cannot idolize wealth One cannot (slave/worship) money and God. Jesus never said you cannot have paid employment [mrow]All ownership was prohibited [mcol]#7[mcol] Jesus disciples owned ... - money box/bag used to buy things (John 12:6, 13:29) - sufficient resources for the use of: an upper room (Acts 1:13), a fishing boat (John 21:1-4), the aquision of expensive perfumed oil [mrow]Peter sold his house[mcol]#8[mcol][url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=954040#954040][color=blue][u]A year[/u][/color][/url] after becoming a Christian, a house is still refered to as being [url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=953957#953957][color=blue][u]"his"[/u][/color][/url] (Mark 1:29-30) [mrow][u]None[/u] of the houses identified as "his" or "hers" in the gospels were actually owned by the individual in question [mcol]#9[mcol] When an item is referred to as "his" or "hers" it is commonly understood be under their ownnership (Acts 12:12) [mrow]Martha of Bethany was a beggar's sister that lived in communal housing supported by charity [mcol]#10[mcol] The house is spoken of as being "hers" [mrow]Martha's house must have been a commune because it was big enough to house 13 men[mcol]#11 [mcol]The bible doesn't say all 13 stayed with them and even if that were the case, doesn't negate private ownership. Communal ownership is still ownership. [mrow] Christians were prohibited from having a change of clothes[mcol]#12[mcol] Jesus gave a specific command to just 12 of his disciples for a specific preaching campaign ; for a later campaign he instructed them to take [u]money[/u] and a change of garments. [mrow]Jesus said not to worry about money and to rely on God[mcol]#13[mcol]One can own things without worrying about them. One can have paid employment and not worry about money

[marco]

Jesus told the rich young man to sell ALL his possessions

This was specific to the individual and never imposed on the wider Christian community

So Jesus was giving impractical advice just in this instance and not generally. I agree that we can take statements and transform them to make them say what we want. I think there's an art there. I particularly like the demotion that "all" undergoes in sentences such as "give up all you possess" to mean "give up some of what you possess."

I wonder if this works the other way: Some shouted "Crucify him" means "All the people shouted: "Crucify him." Isn't language fascinating! In the right hands it could make the Pope infallible and in others, the Antichrist. Depends where you sit really.

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by ]

marco: the end result is the same.

William: Was Christ Impractical = The End Result Is The Same.

Is that a practical equation marco.

That is the way you Tell Your Story, but Jesus said Love - Communicate Love. My story tells me that the question "Was Christ Impractical?" is an Unnecessary Tangent.

marco: But I can see that if one is seeking something ethereal then possessions might just be a distraction. Nonetheless, there is some joy to be found in using what we have to alleviate the lives of others instead of considering the world as revolving round ourselves.

William: I am not totally sure, but suspect the above is a tangent. It comes across that way to me.
Bringing the focus back to the rich man story - Jesus clearly is telling the man "there is some joy to be found in using what we have to alleviate the lives of others instead of considering the world as revolving round ourselves."

The Story Continues marco. Is All Choice an Act of Judgment on the part of the one choosing?
I appreciate that you *Criticise With Kindness, but also acknowledge that I see the tangents and seek to help in the correction. I suppose too that we all, for the most part, are likewise doing so. Like Musical Instruments tuning up and into one another, the orchestra sounds wonky to begin with.

I feel the potential of a symphony arising - the rumbles of its beginning note echoing outwards from my center. Seeing the existence of Galaxies only spurs this on... I digress - but at least the tangent is to acknowledge the Glorious rather than the petty.

The Galactic Garden is what I fondly refer to them as. They are like A Type of Significant Hint that The Creator is On-Board in this. With Us All The Way.

Other hints prevail, but like The Galaxies once were (and still are) are less obvious to those not looking for them. No less significant mind you.

Fear Has It's Part To Play, but how else is one to respond to it...at least ...initially...

One can transform fear into Awe, while maintaining the idea that there is a Creator 'behind' it.

*

The Love Is Within The Communion
The Creator Is With Us All The Way

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 68 by marco]

We were discussing your false generalisation that statements can be understood ONLY in context. I agree that many statements DO require context: I am not disputing this obvious fact.

I do not believe you have shown it was a false generalisation but nevertheless we are not speaking of simple statements so I will take it that we are agreed that statements need context.

Well apparently he was - so much so that "Jesus loved him" for it. Possessing wealth is not "doing the wrong things." You are composing stuff not in the context. Context, remember, is important.

Yes, you are correct that context is important. Part of the context here is the language in which this passage was written in. Greek has six words for love, each with different meanings.

Eros, or sexual passion. ...
Philia, or deep friendship. ...
Ludus, or playful love. ...
Agape, or love for everyone. ...
Pragma, or longstanding love. ...
Philautia, or love of the self.


The Greek word used here is "Agape".
Agape means: perhaps the most radical, was agape or selfless love. This was a love that you extended to all people, whether family members or distant strangers.

https://www.yesmagazine.org/health-happ ... your-life/

Like for example John 3:16 uses the same Greek word. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son."

If world in this verse refers to those that Jesus has predestined to salvation then Jesus was loved this man because He knew that this man was predestined for salvation.

I do have reasons for that interpretation but that would take us away from the topic at hand.

Great literature is filled with imagery. It is hard to study poetry without bumping against imagery, so the "oriental bible" has no monopoly on imagery. We have strayed a bit from the rich man.

I understand that some literature if filled with imagery. The greatness of Shakespeare is built on imagery.

This is the only person Jesus said to sell everything that they had and come and follow Him. It is obvious that Jesus knew that he would not do what He said. This comment was to show this man his sin.

[Tcg]

If his advice to the rich man was intended as a template for others, then it is not just impractical but silly. Wealth is maybe not needed in heaven, but on the way there it is.

If we are to believe the report in Acts 2, it was used as a template for all who followed Jesus in Christianity's infancy. It would be silly to give away one's wealth unless of course those doing the giving believed doing so would buy them a better afterlife:

• Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

As Jim Elliot, the murdered missionary to the Aucas, said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." If the mythology of an afterlife is true, he'd be right. We at times of course are also guaranteed that the check is in the mail.


Tcg

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 70 by Mithrae]

Though the words impractical and impracticable do share some common meaning, your use of "impracticable" as a replacement for "impractical" renders the OP question simplistic, even senseless. Could the rich man have given away his wealth. Yes. Who is contesting that?

Again you seem intent on excising the latter and arguably most important part of the sentence: Yes, he could have given away his wealth and lived as Jesus did.

I thought I had adequately corrected your misconception. Your examples of people like Gandhi indicate that some can profitably adopt an austere lifestyle. That was never the question.

No the question was one of 'practicality,' but you're trying to avoid explaining what definition you have come up with for that word; not any definition which I have found in a dictionary, that's for sure! Trying to pass off others' correct usage of a word as merely a misconception on their part is a fine act. We can readily accept that eating nothing but salt would be do-able but not practical lifestyle advice, leading to a rapid death, but when the life advice in question has proven to sustain long and existentially satisfying lives for a number of people from different times and cultures - and plays an important role of social criticism against tendencies which historically have caused incalculable suffering and currently are undermining the very foundations of human civilization itself - that certainly matches every relevant definition of the world 'practical' that I have seen.

Rich man: I follow all God's commandments. How do I find the best way to be good?
Answer: Continue to do what you are doing. Use your wealth wisely and help those in need. Make sure your family is provided for.

Impractical advice: Leave your home and family and give away all you possess.

Perpetually, you seem intent on excising the latter and arguably most important part of the sentence: The advice was not merely to give away his wealth but to join and live as Jesus lived. Including inviting others, such as his family, to join with them. Cherry-picking from amongst the gospels is one thing, but doing so even within the very story you have selected is surely a remarkable talent.

This rich chap, apparently malcontent with his wealth and standard religious ethics and observances, specifically sought out a poor itinerant preacher in the hopes of guidance towards some deeper spiritual certitude; "just keep doing what you're doing" would be about the most trite and pointless 'advice' I can imagine, and tossing a few extra coins to the poor would hardly make it any more profound. You may feel in your heart that there might have been some better advice that Jesus could have offered... but that doesn't make it impractical. You may find your own wealth very comforting and satisfying... but that doesn't make Jesus wrong.

The astute lawyer would ask: Cui bono? To whose advantage is this reliance on the vicissitudes of fate?

Perhaps this astute lawyer would first ask that the terms in question be clearly defined. Please tell us all your private definition of the word 'practical' and how it relates to some of the other examples such as artists, obscure academic experts and so on which I highlighted.

[Mithrae]

It would be silly to give away one's wealth unless of course those doing the giving believed doing so would buy them a better afterlife

Crates of Thebes would perhaps disagree with you. As would those described by Benjamin Franklin - both European and Native American - who'd had an opportunity to experience life free from the cares and artificial wants of complex civilization. Having put my back out hauling sofas up to my apartment the other day, I too am perhaps even more sympathetic than usual towards those who advocate freedom from all these ultimately unnecessary trappings

“The things you used to own, now they own you.�
― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club