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]

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?

1. Maybe it is best if readers think for themselves what is the meaning, instead of me defining it. But, by what Jesus says, I think it is not wrong to own things. They just should not be more important than God.
2. I don't think I am good enough to answer on Jesus behalf in this. I don't consider my self wealthy. But, it is interesting idea, how that should be understood. In a way, if I have God, wisdom and love, I think I am very rich.
3. Why do you think I seek wealth?
4. I am not against that people are wealthy. And I don't think Jesus is either. And in a way, i think, if everyone would live by God's rules, everyone would be wealthy, if that means, having a place to live, clothes and food. I don't think getting rid of everything ensures good graces.

But, this leads to interesting question, in my opinion: Which is better, giving up everything I own for 10 people to have food one month, of not giving up that and using it so that 100 people could get food all year?

1. This circles us right back to what I stated prior. I trust we would agree there is a huge difference between owning things, and being wealthy? Seems Jesus wants you to give up as many possessions as possible, to assure you do not take your focus off of Him. Case/point; Luke 14:33 "those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.". Seems pretty clear as to what Jesus wants. He wants you to give up any/all possessions which would possibly act as a distractor.
2. Seems Jesus would consider you wealthy, being you have many possessions which are not required for survival (i.e.) a bank account/savings, electronics, keepsakes, knick-knacks, etc etc etc...
3. Because you have not closed your bank account(s)/savings... You also have not given away any/all possessions which would distract from your sole focus on Him. The more 'possessions' you own, the less you can place your focus upon Him. "You cannot serve 2 masters".
4. The objective is that you give up all, which is not absolutely required for survival. Why won't you do that????

[TRANSPONDER]

Wasn't that already answered? No. On paper there is no indication that doctrine or policy of the JW advocates cover - up or concealment of any crime from the legal bodies of any country. That is not the point. The point is that the crimes happen and are covered up nonetheless.

Question answered. Now, perhaps you should answer the ones put to you. Evasions and refusals to answer (though your right) will be noted. The effort at evasion and misdirection will already have been noted.

[JehovahsWitness]

On paper there is no indication that doctrine or policy of the JW advocates cover - up or concealment of any crime from the legal bodies of any country. That is not the point. The point is that the crimes happen ....

I do believe that point has already been addressed.

Do Jehovahs Witnesses claim their organisation is entirely free of child sexual abuse?
viewtopic.php?p=1077405#p1077405

The point is that the crimes ... are covered up nonetheless.

Have any legal entities established that the Jehovah's Witnesses systematically seek to "cover up" child sexual abuse cases amongst their membership?
viewtopic.php?p=914050#p914050

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

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

[JehovahsWitness]

Question answered.

I am still waiting on the responses to all the questions in the post below.

..."strict confidentiality must be maintained to avoid unnecessary entanglement with secular authorities [who may be conducting a criminal investigation of the matter]"

• Are you suggesting that the above sentence amounts to instruction that knowledge of a crime or suspicion of a crime should not be reported to secular authorities?

• Or is it that the elders (who are not law enforcement agents) should not interfere or do anything that might undermine an ongoing investigation?

• From whom is strict confidentiality to be maintained?

• Does the original document specify that parents, for example should not be informed of a crime against a minor?
  
  
  Please provide a reference for the original source of said quotation so a proper understanding of the text can be assertained

[TRANSPONDER]

Answered above. Now it's your turn. Now, I haven't been following the argument but I'd gather that you explanations, refutations or denials (linked by you) are being questioned. And your attempt to evade answering by referring to one you asked (answered, twice, or pretending you already answered), is being called.

I'm handing back to the questioner as I do Bible -evidence (valid or not) rather than dirty stuff religious bods get up to, but we can check back if necessary.

[TRANSPONDER]

Tcg's #126 "That they do what you claim they don't." and (as I had to rebut) aside from your strawmanning on this into an accusation that this was JW doctrine or policy. That's not (as I said above) the point and your persistent attempts at evasion does your case no good at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

Answered above.

The questions below were not even close to being answered. Granted, nobody is obliged to post if they do not wish to but there is certainly no doubt that the above questions (reposted below for clarity) , which are very clear and specific, have not answered in this thread by anyone. No original source material has been provided.

..."strict confidentiality must be maintained to avoid unnecessary entanglement with secular authorities [who may be conducting a criminal investigation of the matter]"

• Are you suggesting that the above sentence amounts to instruction that knowledge of a crime or suspicion of a crime should not be reported to secular authorities?

• Or is it that the elders (who are not law enforcement agents) should not interfere or do anything that might undermine an ongoing investigation?

• From whom is strict confidentiality to be maintained?

• Does the original document specify that parents, for example should not be informed of a crime against a minor?
  
  
  Please provide a reference for the original source of said quotation so a proper understanding of the text can be assertained

[TRANSPONDER]

Answered above.

The questions below were not even close to being answered. Granted, nobody is obliged to post if they do not wish to but there is certainly no doubt that the above questions (reposted below for clarity) , which are very clear and specific, have not answered in this thread by anyone. No original source material has been provided.

..."strict confidentiality must be maintained to avoid unnecessary entanglement with secular authorities [who may be conducting a criminal investigation of the matter]"

• Are you suggesting that the above sentence amounts to instruction that knowledge of a crime or suspicion of a crime should not be reported to secular authorities?

• Or is it that the elders (who are not law enforcement agents) should not interfere or do anything that might undermine an ongoing investigation?

• From whom is strict confidentiality to be maintained?

• Does the original document specify that parents, for example should not be informed of a crime against a minor?
  
  
  Please provide a reference for the original source of said quotation so a proper understanding of the text can be assertained

So far as I can see, the questions were answered. Several times. No; nobody is saying that this is JW Dogma or policy. It looks to me like that was merely a strawman misdirection on your part, in order to avoid being put on the spot. The question is whether you deny that these things happened in spite of that. Ball back in your court.

[JehovahsWitness]

Answered above.

The questions below were not even close to being answered. Granted, nobody is obliged to post if they do not wish to but there is certainly no doubt that the above questions (reposted below for clarity) , which are very clear and specific, have not answered in this thread by anyone. No original source material has been provided.

..."strict confidentiality must be maintained to avoid unnecessary entanglement with secular authorities [who may be conducting a criminal investigation of the matter]"

• Are you suggesting that the above sentence amounts to instruction that knowledge of a crime or suspicion of a crime should not be reported to secular authorities?

• Or is it that the elders (who are not law enforcement agents) should not interfere or do anything that might undermine an ongoing investigation?

• From whom is strict confidentiality to be maintained?

• Does the original document specify that parents, for example should not be informed of a crime against a minor?
  
  
  Please provide a reference for the original source of said quotation so a proper understanding of the text can be assertained

So far as I can see, the questions were answered. ...

So far as I can see, they have not ...

Have a nice day,


JW

[1213]

1. This circles us right back to what I stated prior. I trust we would agree there is a huge difference between owning things, and being wealthy? Seems Jesus wants you to give up as many possessions as possible, to assure you do not take your focus off of Him. Case/point; Luke 14:33 "those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.". Seems pretty clear as to what Jesus wants. He wants you to give up any/all possessions which would possibly act as a distractor.

Why do you continue to ignore Mark 10:29-30?

"Jesus said, "Most assuredly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my sake, and for the gospels sake, but he will receive one hundred times more now in this time, houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and land, with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life."
Mark 10:29-30

But, because you demand me to give up everything I have, I would like to know, to whom I should give it all? Please tell, who are the people that you think need it?