He's basically an atheist

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
If the theology of the LDS church conflicts with that of the Bible, that’s a subject for another thread, I’m afraid.
[/quote]

I don’t see why. You called him a hypocrite. But he is a Mormon, and the Mormons officially do not consider his lifestyle to be hypocritical.

Based on YOUR made up definition of what a Christian is and must be,

As has been pointed out to you many many times, this is simply irrelevant. Not all believers are literalists, and not all interpret those things like you do. Since the subject of the attack is whether or not THEY really believe, your complaints about not finding this exegesis correct are completely irrelevant.

82

[QUOTE=Monty]
Question for you: Why are you singling out Romney here? It appears to me there are other Christians declaring their candidacy for President and they’re not exactly poor either.
[/QUOTE]

I singled out Romney because people have heard of him, he’s running for President, and because he’s loaded with the world’s goods. I’m using him by way of example, not picking on him particularly. And the fact that he’s a Mormon in addition to a Christian is something of a confounding factor here, which, as I’ve said before, I’d rather not go into in this thread. People should feel free to substitute George Bush, or anyone who fits the bill, for Romney.

83

[QUOTE=Apos]
Not all believers are literalists, and not all interpret those things like you do. Since the subject of the attack is whether or not THEY really believe, your complaints about not finding this exegesis correct are completely irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]

So give me an “unliteral” rendering of the “eye of a needle” verse. Seems to me you’re forced to say that either Jesus didn’t say it, or that he didn’t mean it, or that all of his teachings are basically just suggestions. To which I would reply, cite, cite, and cite.

84

See, normally i’d agree with Sal Ammoniac. Problem is, he’s a hypocrite, because he’s basing his opinion on someone he’s never met.

85

By “never met,” do you mean Romney or do you mean Jesus? Not that it’s the less true for the one than the other, though I’ve at least been in the same city as Romney.

86

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
So give me an “unliteral” rendering of the “eye of a needle” verse. Seems to me you’re forced to say that either Jesus didn’t say it, or that he didn’t mean it, or that all of his teachings are basically just suggestions. To which I would reply, cite, cite, and cite.
[/QUOTE]

You haven’t listened to anything I’ve said, and you aren’t arguing in good faith. Enough.

87

Apos, I went back and read your posts, and honestly have no idea what you’re talking about with your last.

88

Okay, so you’ve explained why you’re picking on Romney. Now, can you explain why you’re ignoring everything your’e told?

89

Disagreeing is not ignoring.

90

You’ve taken a rigid and severe interpretation of the Bible, declared it to be the correct one, and flatly stated that anyone who doesn’t adhere to it is not a Christian even if they claim to be. You’re the world’s first atheistic fundamentalist!

Okay, I’ll go you one better. Jesus said:

Mark 16:17-18. This is clear and unambigous. If you’re a Christian, you’re a snake handler. If you claim to be a Christian and you’re not a snake handler, you’re an atheist. Right?

He’s saying that there’s a counterargument to your basic proposition that Jesus flatly stated that it’s a sin in and of itself to be wealthy, and backed up that argument with scripture. You don’t have to agree, but the counterargument is there. You won’t even acknowledge the counterargument to state why you don’t agree with it or why that scripture doesn’t apply, and instead keep repeating your basic claim as though it’s the only logical conclusion. That can be frustrating.

91

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
If you ask me, there’s not a lot of room for ambiguity in Jesus’, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19)
[/QUOTE]

Well, no, there’d be no ambiguity if that verse stood alone. But it doesn’t. You stopped reading too soon.

Matthew 19
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Jesus basically said that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a “rich man” to enter heaven – and note the disciples reaction. They were astonished – and they took it to mean that almost no one could enter heaven, since so very few sold all their possessions for purposes of following Christ and giving to the poor.

And Jesus’ response was that pretty much that it IS impossible – on our own. But through God, even the impossible is possible.

The point of this scripture isn’t the man’s wealth; it’s the man’s priorities. Is he willing to put his relationship with God above his wealth? Apparently not – he walked away.

Where are Mitt’s priorities? Answer THAT and you may have a debate. Personally, I don’t know the man, so I can’t answer for his priorities.

92

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Here’s where things get awkward. In the New Testament, Jesus is not that big on condemning – he says nothing about homosexuality, for example – but on the subject of wealth, he’s absolutely categorical: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” he says.
[/QUOTE]

If you read the next few verses, you will see that Jesus actually says the exact opposite of what you’re claiming he says here. After the apostles are shocked by his proclamation, he says, “With God, all things are possible.” In other words, rich people could not enter God’s Kingdom without God’s Grace, but they can with God’s Grace.

I’m not going to divert this thread into yet another discussion of Biblical validity, but I will say this. Strange as it may seem, the Bible was written for people with decently long attention spans. Hence to understand it you have to read it, not just read a couple verses here and a few more there. If you want to know what the Book of Matthew says, read the Book of Matthew. Better yet, read all the Gospels. Better yet, read the entire thing.

93

[QUOTE=pravnik]
He’s saying that there’s a counterargument to your basic proposition that Jesus flatly stated that it’s a sin in and of itself to be wealthy, and backed up that argument with scripture.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, there’s been remarkably little argument from Scripture (if we ignore references to Deuteronomy and the LDS Scriptures). That’s part of what I’m complaining about here when I talk about exegesis. I see something from Telemark about 1 Timothy, but the passage is ambiguous, and it’s St. Paul speaking, not Jesus.

You cited a passage that says, in part,

“Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

You bolded the last sentence, but I’m not sure what relevance it has to the staggering wealth of one such as Romney. It seems to me to refer to the basic necessities of life. In fact, if anything, to me it confirms what I’m saying about Jesus’ fundamental point.

You’re right that I’m taking Jesus’ words in a literal sense – a fundamentalist sense, if you like – but I continue to ask what an unliteral interpretation of the “eye of the needle” passage would looks like. It seems to me that all I’ve seen in this thread is the negation of it.

And I’ll give you the snake handlers if you like, but that doesn’t read to me like a moral teaching. In other words, nowhere does Jesus say your chances of getting to heaven are poor if you don’t handle snakes.

94

[QUOTE=SetApart]
Jesus basically said that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a “rich man” to enter heaven – and note the disciples reaction. They were astonished – and they took it to mean that almost no one could enter heaven, since so very few sold all their possessions for purposes of following Christ and giving to the poor.

And Jesus’ response was that pretty much that it IS impossible – on our own. But through God, even the impossible is possible.
[/QUOTE]

I interpret this to mean that with God, it’s possible to just say no to riches, not that God will suddenly give you a pass for being rich. In Luke, Jesus is more emphatic still: “But woe to you that are rich: for you have your consolation.” And as I mentioned before, this notion of abjuring riches is consistent with that half of the Sermon on the Mount that goes “Love your neighbor as yourself.” What rich man can be said to have done that?

I really don’t see the ambiguity here. What I see people are looking for ambiguity and finding it.

95

Why would you ignore references to LDS scriptures when you’re asking about an LDS member?

96

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Actually, there’s been remarkably little argument from Scripture (if we ignore references to Deuteronomy and the LDS Scriptures). That’s part of what I’m complaining about here when I talk about exegesis. I see something from Telemark about 1 Timothy, but the passage is ambiguous, and it’s St. Paul speaking, not Jesus.
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter to you. To a Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible (or at least the overall holiness if not inerrancy of the Bible), it’s not just Paul’s opinion, it’s the Word of God. You can’t read one and discard the other.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
You bolded the last sentence, but I’m not sure what relevance it has to the staggering wealth of one such as Romney. It seems to me to refer to the basic necessities of life. In fact, if anything, to me it confirms what I’m saying about Jesus’ fundamental point.

You’re right that I’m taking Jesus’ words in a literal sense – a fundamentalist sense, if you like – but I continue to ask what an unliteral interpretation of the “eye of the needle” passage would looks like. It seems to me that all I’ve seen in this thread is the negation of it.
[/quote]
I quoted that part because that’s the continutaion of the verse that you quoted that began with “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” You stated that this was one of Jesus’ many pronouncements that the wealthy are invariably hellbound, but as you say, the remainder of the verse seems to speak to the basic necessities, not to wealth. He’s saying that whether a little or a lot, money and material things should be secondary concerns, and that the relationship with God should be paramount. More money, more danger. As far as the “eye of the needle” story, ITR Champion and SetApart both gave you what you’re asking for.

Doesn’t say you may take up serpents, does he? He says you shall take up serpents. It’s a direct command from the King of Kings. So, snake handler or atheist.

97

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
I interpret this to mean …
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
It seems to me to…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
but that doesn’t read to me like…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
…but the passage is ambiguous…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
If you ask me, there’s not a lot of room for ambiguity…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
To me the obvious conclusion is…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
I can only interpret Romney’s actions…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
These are the people whose behavior says (to me, at least)…
[/QUOTE]

Do you see the common thread here? I’ll spell it out, just in case it isn’t clear – all of those things are your own interpretations and views. Even if you won’t admit it, you DO understand that this is all a matter of interpretation – both the scriptural aspects, and how those scriptures are applied to those who profess to follow them. I admit that while I make every attempt to be open-minded, I AM biased because of my personal faith journey. You seem unwilling to admit that your interpretations are based on your own faith journey (even a journey that makes an extended – or permanent – stop at professing faith in nothing is a faith journey).

So if your question is “Why should I not condemn people for not living up to what I perceive to be the requirements of their religion?”, then the answer is “Knock yourself out. Condemn them all you want.”

If, however, as it has increasingly seemed to be, your question is “Why won’t everyone else agree with my condemnation of religious people?”, then the answer is “Because we don’t have to – we have different interpretations of those actions.” So what is your question exactly?

For someone who accuses others of looking for ambiguity, you seem to be the one who finds it.

98

The OP’s also ingoring the simple fact that LDS are not literalists/inerrantists. I think I already know the real answer to my question posed in post #95: “It just doesn’t support the OP’s thesis.”

99

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
I believe that if you say you believe something, your actions should be consistent with what you say you believe.
[/QUOTE]

What you seem to be saying is “your actions should be consistent with what Sal Ammoniac thinks you believe based on his/her interpretation of one scripture verse in a vacuum.”

100

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
And where in the Bible does Jesus say his teachings are negotiable, or mere suggestions? The idea that you can be a Christian and not follow the teachings is absurd. It’s like being a vegan who feels free to eat meat.
[/QUOTE]

If you’ve ever read much of the bible, you’re probably familiar with the idea of God forgiving sins. If it was true that any disobedience whatsoever towards the instructions of Christ = atheist and thus not believing in God, then why is there forgiveness for sins? The Bible and Christ explicitly recognize no one is perfect and that no human can perfectly follow the teachings. That’s why forgiveness is part of the religion.

Someone who doesn’t follow Christ’s teachings is being a bad Christian, a sinner. Most Christians believe everyone is a sinner, sinner doesn’t equate to atheist.

I also find it incredibly dishonest of you to state that being rich instantly means “atheist.” The passage you quoted even said it is “hard” for a rich man to get into heaven, if it was impossible, it would say impossible. If it’s possible for a rich man to get into heaven, then it means some rich men can be Christians, another tenet of most Christian denominations is only Christians get into heaven.