The Central Problem with Christianity

[Diogenes]

Jesus (and Paul) thought the world was going to end soon. This is why Jesus told people to give away their possessions, and Paul taught people should not marry. Jesus spoke very specifically about the world ending in the lifetime of those he preached to. [I won't go into the verses, because it will spawn the usual verbal gymnastics about how he did not mean what he said]

Christians, for the most part, ignore the idea of not attaining wealth. They also ignore the admonition not to marry. They ignore these basic Christian teachings because they don't like them. Instead, they claim Jesus didn't really mean what he said about the end coming soon. This provides cover for getting married and accumulating wealth.

The question for debate is, "Why do most Christians marry and try to accumulate wealth despite the very clear New Testament admonitions to do the opposite?

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

__ Matthew 6:19-20

[POI]

As the OP suggests, this thread is about why the church does not practice poverty and instead preaches the 'prosperity gospel' in conjunction with the failed apocalyptic prophesies in the synoptic gospels.

I now extend post #151 to all Christians, who have seen and/or responded in this thread. Meaning, if Jesus deems your <material possessions / wealth> as 'bad', because it distracts from numbero uno (Jesus/God), why not get rid of them?

[Eloi]

As the OP suggests, this thread is about why the church does not practice poverty and instead preaches the 'prosperity gospel' in conjunction with the failed apocalyptic prophesies in the synoptic gospels.

I now extend post #151 to all Christians, who have seen and/or responded in this thread. Meaning, if Jesus deems your <material possessions / wealth> as 'bad', because it distracts from numbero uno (Jesus/God), why not get rid of them?

Where did "Jesus deems your <material possessions / wealth> as 'bad' "?

[POI]

As the OP suggests, this thread is about why the church does not practice poverty and instead preaches the 'prosperity gospel' in conjunction with the failed apocalyptic prophesies in the synoptic gospels.

I now extend post #151 to all Christians, who have seen and/or responded in this thread. Meaning, if Jesus deems your <material possessions / wealth> as 'bad', because it distracts from numbero uno (Jesus/God), why not get rid of them?

Where did "Jesus deems your <material possessions / wealth> as 'bad' "?

Luke 14:33, as answered to "JW".

Ah, you are still lurking about.... Great, this means you are still reading along.... I see you made no effort to answer post 151, which contradicts your prior statement that you 'have no time'.

I will now give you an answer. But I am starting to loose faith that you will earnestly do the same...

(My answer)....

When Jesus was alive, He believed this, yes. He was essentially a homeless preacher, completely disinterested in material possessions. If He really existed, and also made all the statements He was said to have made, (ala from Scripture), then yes, I would be deemed NOT to be one of His disciples. But guess what, neither would you.

So here's the fundamental/core difference between you and I, in regards to this topic.... I no longer believe a postmortem Jesus exists. I think He is dead, like the rest of us some day will be. As having read Scripture, much like reading the Rig Veda or any other claimed godly text, I can take a step back and ask these questions of the ones who actually believe in them.

You, on the other hand, believe there exists some postmortem Jesus/other watching/judging.

So, are you going to give away your possessions, (just short of necessary survival), or not? Assuming you continue not to, I can only ask... Does 'Jesus" approve? Probably not. Hence, He would likely not consider you having enough faith. As they say, words are cheap. Action speaks louder than words.

The ball is now in your court.

[Eloi]

(...)

Nothing to do with my question.
Can someone control these automata responsers? Thanks.

[POI]

(...)

Nothing to do with my question.
Can someone control these automata responsers? Thanks.

I answered your question. I responded, in full, to JW in post #61.

Jesus tells would-be disciples to give up everything they have. This would included your possessions, right?

So, are you going to give up your possessions to demonstrate you are a follower, or not?

[Eloi]

Jesus required his direct followers to leave their riches behind...otherwise they would be a hindrance to his campaigns. It was advice to those who went with him, and it showed the balanced view a Christian must have about riches. Jesus was not opposed to honest possessions.

[POI]

Jesus required his direct followers to leave their riches behind...otherwise they would be a hindrance to his campaigns. It was advice to those who went with him, and it showed the balanced view a Christian must have about riches. Jesus was not opposed to honest possessions.

This would mean Jesus changes His "moral standards". Is this what you are saying? Wouldn't it be rational to think that owning 'possessions' are deemed a hindrance to Him all the time?

Further, The title of this section reads "The Cost of Being a Disciple", NOT "The Cost of Being a Direct Disciple"

[Eloi]

Jesus required his direct followers to leave their riches behind...otherwise they would be a hindrance to his campaigns. It was advice to those who went with him, and it showed the balanced view a Christian must have about riches. Jesus was not opposed to honest possessions.

This would mean Jesus changes His "moral standards". Is this what you are saying?

Further, The title of this section reads "The Cost of Being a Disciple", NOT "The Cost of Being a Direct Disciple"

It doesn't matter what you think, you don't really mind ... Even so: Jesus was a real person, talking to real persons, besides all we, modern Christians, can read in his words.

What he said to the Pharisees was different from what he said to the common Jews, and from what he said to his disciples. Does that mean "he changes his moral standards"? It's a ridiculous conclusion, but it's normal for people who are looking to debate for the sake of debate, and they end up losing their common sense.

This is my final answer to you. I do not have your same motivation when I enter here to analyze biblical matters.

Have an excellent day.

PD: 1) leaving the riches behind has nothing to do with "moral standards".
2) We, Jehovah's Witnesses, don't preach any "prosperity gospel".

[Diogenes]

My take from scripture is not that material wealth itself is bad, but that the quest for it is. "For where your treasure is, there also will be your heart." I see two issues:
1. The 1st Century followers of Jesus thought the world would end soon, during their lives, so NOTHING was important except getting ready for the apocalypse, proselytizing and being spiritually correct dwarfed all; family and wealth and everything else was only a hindrance.
Obviously this was not sustainable when it turned out, century after century the prophesy was wrong, so being human the followers became Christians and sought wealth, power, family dynasty like most folks.

2. The general problem with focusing on wealth vs. the spiritual that goes beyond the urgency of the failed apocalypse and to the heart of what it means to seek the Kingdom of God.

Joel Osteen is just one example of how this Biblical admonition has been turned on its head; it's his millions of followers and wannabees that exemplify how far Christianity has fallen from following Jesus.

[Eloi]

Confidence in riches instead of in God himself is not an issue intrinsically related to the end of the human system of government. It has much more to do with the time you spend getting and keeping them, rather than more important matters in life, especially for God's servants.