Owning a business and operating it responsibly is not unchristian. Somebody has to take that responsibility, and all the better if it is a responsible man or woman. It’s not so different from being a king or other political leader, only on a smaller scale.
Owning a house much larger than your family needs while other people are homeless is wrong.
Overeating while other people starve is wrong.
Wasting money on “ice”, drugs and hookers when you could give to charity is wrong.
In other words, living a rich man’s lifestyle - a life of waste and laziness, hording luxury goods - is wrong. Simply having economic power is not, though it can be if you misuse it. Keeping your money invested in responsible companies that provide useful goods or services isn’t so different from giving to the poor - they too will benefit.
Do they? I mean it would seem a major point of the Gospels is that we shouldn’t worry much about how things go on Earth aside from how they might affect our heavenly reward. I don’t think Jesus seemed that concerned if someone was doing a good job manning the Hardware Stores, etc.
I think it is different. The point of giving to the poor in the Gospels doesn’t seem to be so much about helping them out as it is about helping yourself out by getting rid of your material goods. The emphisis in the “eye of the needle” story for example, isn’t how much the mans wealth would help the lepers and such if he gave it away as how much not having the wealth would help the rich man enter heaven.
Obviously if you’re managing your investments and giving the profits to charity, then your not decreasing your own wealth, and as far as Jesus is concerned, the exercise is pointless.
I really don’t see how people can reinterpret Jesus’ plain words in the context of other incidents and passages.
When Jesus was talking he was talking to the people in front of him. Not Bible owners. Not philosophers. Not people who weren’t going to make judgements until he’s said everything he’s going to say so you can then fit together meaning like a jigsaw puzzle.
Badchat’s ‘they mean what they plainly say at the point he said them’ seems the only reasonable and honest approach. Everything else looks like wriggling on the hook to avoid confronting the fact you aren’t really following Jesus’ will, just parsing the Bible to feel okay about doing what you want to do anyway.
And I have to say that in many ways I admire religious literalists of the Bible and the Koran. At least they accept the plain word, no matter how stupid or counterproductive.
If Occam’s Razor is good enough for other problems it’s good enough here and the simplest explanation is that Jesus’s words mean what they plainly say, not what they might be made to read in the light of other passages.
Of course you think your interpretation is the correct one. Sp do I and so does Bibleman. I think it’s fairly obvious that Jesus spoke about making God the priority. The specific details of that are a little less obvious. We don’t agree and we’ve exhausted the discussion.
I’ve always admitted that I am interpreting through my own unique lens. You’re the one that said you don’t…much. In any biblical discussion quoting verses means we will pull them out of context. We can also examine the context of the surrounding verses and verses in other books. We’ve both tried to do that and still don’t agree. When you say things like “When they disagree with me they are disagreeing with Jesus” it indicates you don’t recognize that your opinion and your interpretation are only that.
I mean really,be honest, doesn’t that sound just like something BIbleman would say?
Then allow me to be more concise.
Luke 17:21
nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.
Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Clear enough?
Perhaps in some other thread we’ll discuss the “or else”
The term serves the purpose of describing the connection between all people and the source, especially in discussions with Christians. So, Yes.
I certainly will, as long as I still believe it to be true.
The point that has been made to you repeatedly and is supported by scripture that Jesus clearly says put God first. He also acknowledges that the accumulation of material wealth is a great temptation and very difficult to overcome. He also recognized that giving up all your possesions was a level of discipleship that not all were ready for or called to. Those not called to it were not condemed.
You seem to be arguing from the position of the disciples when they questioned the woman for pouring precious ointment on Jesus head. They thought she should have sold it and given it to the poor. What do you make of Jesus response to them in MAtt 26?
Sigh!! It’s not about a rule describing how much we should give. It’s about the heart and intent, and priorities of the individual. The only reason I selected this passage was because it says use your wealth wisely and you will have an eternal reward. You can’t really use your wealth wisely unless you actually have wealth can you?
Uh huh! You noticed he went away sad didn’t you?
It’s cool you can judge me that way while knowing so little about me. What handy gift that must be. It certainly helps you avoid considering you might be mistaken.
I think we both agree that Jesus taught to put god first. However, he also taught us not to store up treasures on earth. He also taught his followers to give away their belongings to the poor. You just want to ignore or conveniently interpret the parts you don’t like.
On certain (and few) matters Jesus was pretty clear. It seems you are arguing that even on those few matters we can not know what Jesus meant. That’s really not an argument in favor of him. On owning riches the multiple quotes I have given do indicate that Jesus was down on the rich.
I don’t know maybe. But just because he says it, does not make it incorrect for me to say it.
That’s much better. Your other verses were a bunch of unrelated nonsense. But even here you have problems. The bible says a lot about the “kingdom of god” or the “kingdom of heaven.”
What makes you think that your Matthew verse is referring to the kingdom “within” and what makes you think that Jesus didn’t just get caught with his pants down in front of the Pharisees, like he did with his ability to show signs and wonders?
Bring it on.
So given the eternal risks and rewards, do you think Christians should even play it safe by giving up their riches?
How do you know who’s called to it?
I think that Jesus was an arrogant condescending prick and there was pretty much nothing his disciples could say or do without him deriding them for it.
If by wealth Jesus means riches, rather than just a subsistence level of money, then I think Jesus says the wisest use of it is to give it too the poor and/or loan it out willy nilly without expecting full or any repayment, just as he taught in the parable you mention and in the Sermon on the Mount.
Also you know what I just noticed about your Luke 16:9 quote? You quoted it out of context, and left off the verse 16:1 where it said Jesus was talking to his disciples. That’s so sneaky sneaky of you. Considering it was only a few post ago (post #31) you derided me, at length, for doing such a grave and dishonest thing (which I in fact didn’t do), I don’t think we should really be trusting you that much.
of course we couldn’t accuse you of doing something like that because you don’t interpret. I know I am influenced in my interpretation by my own concepts. My interpretation is sincere. If you can’t accept that I’ll just have to soldier on somehow. It’s also unfortunate that you are unwilling to accept the same is obviously true about you.
Yes, I know that’s your interpretation. I agree that Jesus had no patience for those who wanted make excuses for what amounted to loving their possessions more than God.
You’re right. That’s not what makes it incorrect.
Not to me. They’re all part of this same teaching.
Good link. Thanks. Too long for me to study in detail now. Did you read it? There’s a whole bunch in there about the kingdom within and it being a spiritual teaching.
I think it’s man that confused what Jesus was saying into the Kingdom being some place for a future reward if we follow certain rules. Reading his words with the concept that the Kingdom is within and part of the inner spiritual journey brings them into a new light.
So , I think the verse in Mat refers to the kingdom within because that’s the only real kingdom and the one Jesus stressed throughout his teaching.
Okay, but first I’ll have to stop shaking with fear
I think they should always strive to put God first as Jesus taught. If they do that sincerely I think they will use their wealth, time, talents, and energies to help others just as the example I used. Do I think lots of religious people fail at this? Absolutely! That only bears out what Jesus taught about the temptations of wealth. We choose and bear the consequences of our choices. It comes down to the prime motive and what we value most that determined our choice.
It’s up to the individual to follow their own inner voice.
I think the story about the rich young man asking Jesus about eternal life is pretty interesting. He told the man just follow the commandments until pressed again and then said “If you want to be perfect” I think there’s a lot of food for thought there.
If this is your honest opinion I have to wonder why you seem to focus on and participate in these discussions.
Right. Be generous with what you have whether it’s a little or a lot. Jesus talks about this in verses
Yes, I was tired and too cocky. I thought I had a real “gotcha” which I didn’t have. I’ve already admitted that. I was wrong wrong wrong about that particular verse. I even regret my use of the word dishonest, in describing your posts, not because I’m sure it’s incorrect, but because I think disingenuous might be more accurate and there is a subtle difference.
Are you willing to admit it was a mistake rather than an intentional lie, and that your use of liar was also incorrect?
There is mention of your lone verse describing the kingdom of god being within. If that’s what you want to call a “whole bunch,” ok then. As for “spiritual” I suppose that could take place anywhere.
What makes you think it wasn’t Jesus that was confused or that man wasn’t confused when it described once that the kingdom was within, rather than a place of future reward?
Wouldn’t a kingdom within, be kind of an imaginary kingdom, and thereby be a lot different than a real kingdom?
Do you fail to do this?
Well it seems in the case of this rich man that his inner voice was in conflict with Jesus’ outer voice.
Also I think you give too much credit to the Matthew story “if thou will be perfect.” And too little to Mark and Luke.
*"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Luke 18:18-22
“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” Mark 7: 17-21*
Right, give what you have away, whether it be a little or a lot.
I think you are missing the point. While it is true that I did not selectively quote as you say I did, we are past that. However that still leaves us with the fact that you think, or at least thought, that Jesus’ teachings directed towards his disciples are not directly attributable us normal folks. While I disagree with this, it is the implication you made when you falsely accused me of selective quoting. However, when you quote your lone verse from a parable of “The Dishonest Steward” on wealth (Luke 16:9) you ignore that this parable was directed by Jesus unto his disciples. It’s things like that which put your argument in an unhealthy light, by your own reasoning, not just mine.
I don’t see it.
I think it was Napoleon that said one should not assume malice when incompetence will suffice, but given the tone your “error” I don’t think I should admit any such thing.
You must have skimmed. It’s all over the place. That lone verse is mentioned twice in that article and becomes the main theme of two separate sections.
from Present aspect
Well, as I’ve already said, looking at Jesus teachings as a whole he focused on the internal spiritual transformation rather than simply obeying the rules. Read your own link again. It spells it out fairly well.
Of course you are free to think so but that’s not what Jesus taught.
That is not the discussion at hand.
Um…excuse me oh ye of great biblical knowledge. I think you might mean Mark chapter ten 10 rather than 7. Unless that just a lie? Probably not. It would stupid to think you would purposely lie about that wouldn’t it?
Those passages do present the incident in a slightly different light. Did the young man ask what he lacked or did Jesus volunteer it? Either way it seems the incident and it’s meaning is up for interpretation
really. That’s funny because in an earlier post you said
Are you now contradicting yourself?
Thats funny to. This actually contradicts your argument not mine. You are the one insisting that his commandments to his disciples applied to all. If this was directed only at his disciples it still doesn’t void my argument, but it certainly damages yours.
In reality there is a difference between this a parable preparing the disciples to go and teach Jesus lessons to others and a command applying directly to their personal conduct. So, the reason I missed the point is because you have none.
You can say that again.
You should be careful about slinging words like incompetent around to quickly. You might make some bonehead mistake yourself like quoting the wrong chapter and then your “incompetence” might come back to haunt you.
I didn’t skim. Your lone verse is mentioned twice, if you want to call that “all over the place” be my guest. What you are ignoring is that there are other concepts Jesus referred to when he spoke of the kingdom of god. One being the concept of heaven where god’s worshipers end up, the other will be god’s future reign on earth. Using just that, it seems that when Jesus said seek yee first the kingdom of god, and you claim that he was referring to the kingdom within (mentioned in another book) you have only a one in three chance of being correct.
I will admit that Jesus did talk his way out of obeying some of the rules that he (as god) was supposed to have come up with, and he (as Jesus) said would never pass away. Also Jesus did come up with some of his own rules and sometimes broke them too. I don’t know that this constitutes focusing on a spiritual transformation or not, but Jesus definitely had issues. I don’t see why you are apologizing for him so much as you have said Jesus was no more a god than I am.
It is now. I see you vacillating on whether you think you should follow Jesus as some kind of demigod or wise person. If you claim that wealth is not bad and does not prevent you from putting god first, it’s not unfair of me to ask if you are one of the many that you admit fall into serving mammon over god.
So when you said…
…I’ll ask again, do you fail at this. Your hesitation to answer the first time really makes me think the answer is yes.
Yes, Mark chapter 10.
How you think the light is different?
Perhaps. I think it becomes a reasonable question as to whether only somewhat poor or middle class people can get into heaven and if they should give all their stuff away or just what would constitute a surplus of their absolute necessities. It’s a fair question to ask, what is rich? I could argue it either way, with an advantage given in favor of abject poverty being preferred state recommended by Jesus. I don’t think I could reasonably argue that rich is at all ok.
It would contradict my argument slightly, but since my argument is based on a multiple bible verses it does no material damage. I would just fall back on Jesus’ teachings on the sermon on the mount in which he said not to store up treasures on earth and I could and would still mention stories of it being harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle, or notice where Jesus praised toe poor woman for giving all she had, his overall praise for poor people, etc. You on the contrary would be left with nothing, not that I don’t already think your verse says much to your benefit when taken in the context of the rest of the parable.
Regardless you’re the one caught trying to use your argument both ways effectively saying; this statement, that you want to be true, that Jesus said to the disciples, is ok and grossly applicable to all, while at the same time maintaining that my statement is not applicable to all simply because it was taught only to the disciples.
Which do you propose is which, and in which do you think Christians are to take their lessons on how they are expected to behave?
Mentioned twice and the main theme of the two separate sections it is mentioned in on that one page. I’m not ignoring anything. I’ve already acknowledged there are other interpretations. I’ve chosen the one that that rings true for me. I’m not insisting my take on it is the only valid one. That’s your angle.
I follow Jesus as a brother, teacher, and fellow spiritual being.
Think what you like. The discussion was about certain teachings not me personally. The degree to which I succeed or fail in living my beliefs is not up for your judgement.
Was that a lie when you said chapter 7?
Taken by themselves they could support an argument that Jesus wanted his followers to give away all there possessions and follow him. When trying to discern the teachings of Christ as a whole they cannot be taken by themselves.
Then don’t. I don’t think your take on those passages is unreasonable. I’m saying there are enough passages making references to priorities and the intent of the heart being what matters to put the matter in question and up for personal interpretation. You obviously don’t agree and that’s fine. There doesn’t seem much point in going around in circles.
Sure you can pick out select verses that support your argument and ignore the rest or declare them as unclear. Be my guest. The verse you keep quoting incompletely over and over in it’s complete form is
as you know.
IMHO when you read the complete sentence, and Jesus says store up treasures in heaven, he’s talking about priorities. Verse 21 bears that out.
I might also point out regarding the eye of the needle verse that Jesus goes on to tell his disciples it is not impossible.
One more time. Everybody that reads the Bible and attempts to discern it’s meaning, such as asking, “what did Jesus teach?” is using their own interpretation. There’s no other possibility. You are welcome to yours. I don’t dismiss all others or claim that I have it all figured out. For you to claim you don’t interpret is just silly. For you or **Bibleman ** to claim that those who disagree with you are disagreeing with Jesus is more silliness in the form of arrogance.
I don’t see this as a valid argument.
Jesus called his disciples to go and teach others what he taught them didn’t he? In the verse I quoted he telling them a story in order to teach them. In the other verse he is giving them specific instructions on their behavior and one of the disciples asks “Is this for just us or for everybody?” This would be a perfect opportunity for Jesus to say “Yes it’s for all who follow me” which would support your argument. He doesn’t say that. He says “To he whom more is given more is required” The meaning may not be clear to you and you evidently have no interest in figuring it out. It seems to me he was trying to get them to think in different ways other than just a set of rules to follow. His comment applies what we are given spiritually. It’s spoken of again in James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.
I’ve already answered this question several times. It unfortunate if you missed it.
We’ve exhausted this debate. Thanks for some interesting links and for prompting me to reexamine the scriptures. I’m done.
As much as I hate to address the OP in the middle of such a successful hijack, ISTM that churches have an interest in people making as much money as possible, since the church stands to gain 10% of whatever they make. In that context, it wouldn’t make much sense for a church to encourage people to earn less, would it?
This thread reminds me of something I saw on the 700 Club one time. Pat “Hurricane” Robertson was talking about his theory of “anticipatory tithing.” The idea is that whatever salary you want to earn, you give Pat 10% of that amount (as opposed to giving him 10% of what you actually earn.) If you do this, god will step up to the plate and get you that raise. Pat said that if you want to earn a hundred grand a year, all you need to do is send him ten grand, and you’ll magically get a raise to a hundred grand. If you want to make a million dollars, send Pat a hundred grand. He actually said those numbers.
Hmm, maybe this is where he got the idea he could leg press 2000 pounds. He leg pressed 200, and figured god would take care of the rest.
I’m sure that’s one reason why certain churches promote wealth-and-prosperity theology. It is despicable, to say the least.
Thankfully, there are many churches out there that denounce materialism and this whole wealth-and-prosperity gospel… and rightfully so, for it is indeed anthetical to Christ’s message.
So are you now admitting that when you said Jesus taught to put the inner journey first, and that this message is throughout the New Testament, that your interpretation really hangs on one verse and your stressing of its importance has only a 1/3 chance of being correct?
Do you think Jesus, like other people, was prone to err?
Your silence on this matter sounds to me like an admission that you lackest what Jesus’ rich wanna-be disciple lackest.
Thou sayest.
But taken with the multiple other verses I have cited we could pretty much conclude that Jesus did want his followers to give away their possessions.
In relation to wealth, I don’t recall you citing any verses that specifically mentioned “priorities,” and what “intent of the heart” has to do with this, I’m not sure. What I do recall were specific instructions to give possessions away and not to store up treasures, to which you interpolated that this only spoke of priorities, etc.
Verse 21 does not help you. It does not in anyway say, “really it’s ok to have treasures on earth just keep your heart on heaven.” If anything it just furthers emphasizes that if you have earthly treasures it will prevent your heart from being on heavenly ones.
I think so. And he taught his disciples to give away all their possessions, didn’t he?
While I have my doubts that you could quit even if you wanted to, you’re welcome.
(I didn’t read the whole discussion here, so apologies if this has already been brought up.)
There was a story where one person hid his money, while the other invested it and earned more. And he didn’t give it away. And Jesus liked that person the most.
You’re talking about the Parable of the Talents. (In this context, a “talent” is a unit of currency.")
This has nothing to do with accumulating wealth, though; rather, it’s about stewardship. The person in question invested his master’s money, rather than his own. In other words, Jesus didn’t commend the man because he managed to accumulate wealth; rather, he commended him because he put his master’s resources to good use, instead of letting them go to waste.
Also, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, the person in question merely obtained a return on his investment. As any astute reader would note, this is not the same as becoming prosperous or wealthy. Not without reading a whole lot into the text, that is.
