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]

There isno record of Jesus ever commanding his disciples to give away all their material possessions.

This statement is false:

Matt. 19:21 "Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

No, it is entirely accurate. I said his "disciples' (plural ) not someone that refused to become a disciple when invited.

Any questions?
JW

Oh, you meant plural. Okay, no problem. Then your statement is still false.

Luke 14:33 "In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples."

Does 'everything you have' exclude 'material possessions'?

[Tcg]

Molestation is a bad act. I do believe this point has been addressed.

It's a shame the JWs don't agree with your conclusion:

'There was no reprimand, nothing changed': Survivors criticise Jehovah's Witness elders for failing to act over child sexual abuse claims


The Jehovah's Witnesses church says its elders "endeavour to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse" - but survivors say that does not necessarily translate to helping the authorities.

"I don't like the way he touches me."

That is how Emily described her abuse to elders at the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall she attended in Loughborough.

Emily (not her real name) was eight-years-old and the man she accused was a ministerial servant in his 60s.

What followed was a series of failings that allowed him to continue abusing children for years to come.
Sky News has spoken to several abuse victims who claim there is a culture within the Jehovah's Witnesses that fails those looking for help and puts others at risk.

Problems include a failure to report allegations to the police, and a system that requires high levels of proof from the victim, but also allows a repentant abuser to remain within the congregation - at times without other members being told what they have done.

Emily was sexually abused from the age of four - but when she reported the crime to elders in 1990, they did not call the police and told her she had made it all up.

https://news.sky.com/story/there-was-no ... s-12396672

Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Molestation is a bad act.

It's a shame the [Jehovah's Witnesses] don't agree with your conclusion:

That is a false and slanderous statement. There is nothing in the Jehovah's Witness teachings or religious culture that presents molestation as anything but abhorrent and as one of Jehovah's Witnesses I resent the implication I hold beliefs that supports the harming of children or victimization of the innocent.

JEHOVAH GOD hates all forms of wickedness. (Read Psalm 5:4-6.) How he must hate child sexual abusean especially repugnant wicked deed! In imitation of Jehovah, we as his Witnesses abhor child abuse and do not tolerate it in the Christian congregation - Watchtower May 2019 p.8

A retraction would be appreciated although not expected,

JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , CHILD ABUSE and ...SEXUAL IMMORALITY,

[TRANSPONDER]

You decline to refute the case I put forward, other than to twist the point.

How is stating a verifiable FACT "twisting the point"?

Jesus at no time is recorded as telling /instructing/commanding anyone but the rich young ruler to give away their belongings. Make of that what you wish but to say stating a fact somehow distorts your point suggest your point is rather weak, failing to accomodate all the relevant information. Instead of lamenting the fact that the wider context seems to undermine your point, would it not be better to attempt to make a stronger case by address it?





JW

It was not a 'verifiable fact' I was talking about but you saying that you didn't care about my opinion. That implies that your case is weak and you refuse to answer. The rest was evasive, explaining why people with wealth may be distracted from their religion. That wasn't the point, which was (and is) whether the exhortation to the rich man to give away his wealth and follow Jesus was relevant to everyone who wants eternal life. After al, if it isn't a teaching for all, why have it in the Gospels at all? I can't quite recall how we got here but I suppose it is talking about how Bible - believers don't in fact follow what Jesus says and thus they know it isn't a good source of lifestyle advice.

We could look back but I see yet again Christian apologetics going off at a tangent (like posting about JW policy on molestation, when the point was about Jesus going beyond the Law on divorce to making oggling a lady a thought -crime. I don't know whether Bible apologists do not focus on the actual argument but prefer to throw out random responses, or whether it's deliberate red -herring tactics. I think the former, but either way as they say it's like playing chess with a pigeon.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. the point ... was (and is) whether the exhortation to the rich man to give away his wealth and follow Jesus was relevant to everyone who wants eternal life. After al, if it isn't a teaching for all, why have it in the Gospels at all?

It is indeed reasonable to conclude the account is relevant , the question is, does its relevance lie in all Christians being obliged to give up *ALL* their material possessions ? Or, more reasonably (since Jesus is recorded as explicitly stating not only that God knows his people need material possessions but his condemnation of the pharisaical practice of dedicating material possessions to God to the neglect of one's immediate dependants) was he trying to teach about priorizing ?

[TRANSPONDER]

.. the point ... was (and is) whether the exhortation to the rich man to give away his wealth and follow Jesus was relevant to everyone who wants eternal life. After al, if it isn't a teaching for all, why have it in the Gospels at all?

It is indeed reasonable to conclude the account is relevant , the question is, does its relevance lie in all Christians being obliged to give up *ALL* their material possessions ? Or, more reasonably (since Jesus is recorded as explicitly stating not only that God knows his people need material possessions but his condemnation of the pharisaical practice of dedicating material possessions to God to the neglect of one's immediate dependants) was he trying to teach about priorizing ?

That's the question isn't it? But on the face of it is says give up everything and follow Jesus (Matth 20 27, and others). Doesn't Peter tell Jesus that they have given up everything for him to gain eternal life? The question for the everyday Christian is whether they go with what Jesus apparently says or they amend what Jesus wants so as to suit themselves.

Fair enough, but there they are using human reason, convention and morals to just what the Bible actually says and they decide that human conventions are better. I believe that is the point I was probably trying to make.

[1213]

...give all of it to the poor?

Please tell, who are the poor?

[TRANSPONDER]

...give all of it to the poor?

Please tell, who are the poor?

Well that's another question, isn't it?

On the face of it, anyone without money. or with less than yourself. And I'll leave that one Right There.

But what I feel is intended by the Gospel -writers and endorsed by the churches thereafter is 'Give us your money and obedience and we'll see to the poor'. And I'll leave that one right there, too.

But what I think is meant are the Ebionites. The "Meek" The "Poor", the 'Saints' in Jerusalem for whom Paul collected during the Famine 0f 45 AD. Effectively, giving all you had to the poor meant putting all your cash into the common purse and joining the cult. I'll say this much for Conservative Christianity, it values the family unit more than the Christian cult originally did.

[POI]

...give all of it to the poor?

Please tell, who are the poor?

Well, I'll let "Transponder's" answer stand thus far; to your follow up question...

But I notice you have, again, avoided answering key questions pertaining to this topic.

1. What does Jesus classify as 'wealth'?
2. Does Jesus consider you 'wealthy', being you likely possess many wants/possessions -- (including electronics, a bank account, etc etc etc)?
3. Why do you continue to seek 'wealth', in spite of Jesus's teachings?
4. Regardless of how much 'wealth' you feel is acceptable to obtain, why not get rid of all your 'wealth' to assure you are in Jesus's good graces?

[Diogenes]

You decline to refute the case I put forward, other than to twist the point.

How is stating a verifiable FACT "twisting the point"?

Jesus at no time is recorded as telling /instructing/commanding anyone but the rich young ruler to give away their belongings.

You're not just 'twisting' the point, you are changing it AND attempting to change scripture. The OP gives an example where Jesus is preaching to many, not just the 'rich young ruler':

"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"

There are many other examples of this theme of Jesus, starting even before his ministry when John the Baptist comes to prepare the way. From Luke, chapter 3:

And the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?" And he answered them, "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise."

Obviously Jesus is not literally telling even the rich young ruler to walk around naked and to starve which would be the result of giving away everything he owned.
Jesus' theme is poverty is better than possessions because spirituality is more important than focusing on making treasure. And this call to poverty is even more urgent in the 'last days.'