You’ve created a false dichotomy. There is an area in between your two extremes (God hates the wealthy, God doesn’t care how much money you have) that says money can be a corrupting influence if you put it above God. Just like any of the 7 deadly sins it is possible to be corrupted from the right path. All humans sin, there are temptations all around us. The key is to dedicate yourself to God and work to better yourself and the lives of those around you. The various bible quotes in this thread seem to support that very well.
Again, I’m not Christian so I don’t study this stuff very much, but even to me it seems clear that your interpretation is focusing on a single line without looking at context. There are several lines before and after yours that bring more to the table, there are other lines of scripture that take a very contrary stance, and there is 2000 years of religious thought that you don’t seem to consider.
:rolleyes: People do that sort of thing all the time. The Bible is full of prohibitions and commands that people ignore on a regular basis. You’ve set up a standard for being Christian that means that there are few if any Christians in the entire world.
And you keep trying to say that the choices are binary, between “Christian as defined by Sal Ammoniac” or “atheist”. They aren’t; there are a great many Christians that disagree, including millions who have no problem with wealth, or regard gaining wealth as outright holy. And there a great many religions besides Christianity, for that matter; if you think he’s lying about being Christian, why assume he’s atheist ?
I guess I basically disagree. The Bible is much more categorical than that, particularly the verse in Luke that I cited a number of times. Jesus clearly feels wealth is corrupting. No man can serve two masters, and all that.
Yup. And my basic feeling is, why are people pretending? I read in the New Yorker last night that a survey conducted by the Barna Group showed that only four out of ten people who call themselves Christian could correctly identify the Sermon on the Mount as having been preached by Jesus. That’s inarguably pathetic. Am I to believe that people genuinely feel their immortal souls are hanging in the balance, when they can’t even crack the book? The Gospels take, what, an hour to read? I’m completely not buying it. These people are unbelievers, there are no two ways about it. They don’t really feel their souls are in jeopardy, or they’d do something – anything – about it.
:rolleyes: They probably just pray. Or beat a gay to death with a lead pipe. Or vote Republican. Or give to charity. People simply don’t think the way you beleive they are supposed to think.
And why your constant insistance on “atheism” and “unbelievers” ? These people are expecting the way I expect Christians to behave, the way they have always behaved. Say one thing, do another, pat yourself on the back for being holy.
How do you know Romney–or Bush or any of the others–is pretending? How do you know that they’re not the 40% who actually do know the Sermon on the Mount?
Well, where is your actual proof that Romney (you know, the dude you “outed” as an atheist in the OP) is serving the weatlh instead of following his church’s interpretation of their scriptures–including, of course, the one you’re pretending your interpretation is the the only possible correct interpretation? Where is your proof that Bush or any of the other candidates are serving wealth instead of deity?
I see a bunch of people who are trying to do some good as they see it. I see them using their wealth for that purpose. And I see a couple of them as politicians with whom I disagree but I don’t see any reason to call them atheists.
People smoke despite copious evidence that they’re much more likely to develop lung cancer or emphysema. Ask them if they know that. Some might deny it, but most will admit that they know it.
Yet they continue to smoke. Do they not believe that smoking can cause cancer? I’m certain that they do believe it, in most cases. There’s just a disconnect between their beliefs and their action. This is well-documented human behavior.
You can believe something and not act on it – well, maybe you can’t, but most people can. We put off dealing with things, figuring there will be a time for it in the future. Sometimes we’re right. Sometimes we’re wrong.
Is it a risk for a professed Christian to disobey God’s will as expressed in the scriptures? Yes, certainly. Does that change the underlying beliefs? I don’t think so. (Be sure to note that I am not agreeing that the amassing of wealth is necessarily disobedience.)
You obviously disagree. We will likely have to leave it at that.
You should certainly make your own judgments about who you vote for, and evaluating them against the measuring stick of their own professed beliefs is valid. Just be honest with yourself – and others – that the judgments you are making are subjective, and not objective. They are your judgments based on your own viewpoint.
Of course, though most of the things we’re talking about are pretty picayune. For example, I know that my hard drive is likely to crash at some point – since in human years it’s like 120 years old – but have I backed up my photos? Well, I’ve been meaning to, anyway. But between my hard drive and the immortal soul, there can be no real comparison, surely. Hence my cognitive dissonance at people apparently taking the matter so lightly.
Certainly my judgments are subjective, but they proceed from a certain set of facts. And strangely enough, through all this long thread, I have seen very little support for the idea that Jesus doesn’t consider wealth in and of itself an impediment to salvation. People speak vaguely of “context,” but I read the New Testament and don’t see anything like that context. I see instead constant exhortations from Jesus to renounce material things. There are people out there who seem to interpret Matthew 19:26 as unsaying Matthew 19:24, but how can that be?
The best people can manage, it seems, is to argue from precedent, namely that because most Christians don’t interpret Jesus’ message as uncompromisingly as I do, that my interpretation is therefore flawed. To me this seems like exactly the wrong way to consider the text. But YMMV, of course.
I think I’m going to have to go out on a limb and agree with Sal on this one point. Mainly because I have an enormous problem taking Matthew 19 as anything other than an indictment of wealth itself.
Why would Jesus, while addressing the multitudes, take time to specifically mention wealth? What was he getting at? It seems obvious to me that if he wasn’t saying it was flat-out impossible (I’m not enough of a historical scholar to be able to agree with absolute certainty that he was just using it as hyperbole), he was saying at the very least, that it was much, much harder. Why? What makes it less likely that you’ll get into heaven if you’re rich?
At first, I thought maybe there was wiggle room; that the implication could be that the wealthy are more likely to be something…possibly shrewd or suspicious or less likely to give up control and thereby less likely to accept him as savior and his father as God. But Jesus didn’t say “it is easier for a narwhal to drink neatly from a goblet than for a deeply intellectual man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” He didn’t say “it is easier for an Orang-u-tan to rebuild the walls of Jericho than for a skeptic or a scholar to enter the kingdom of heaven.” It was “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 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.” He said it, and then said it again.
Jesus specifically mentioned the wealthy – people grouped solely on the basis of having a lot of money. Why? Because something about centering the control of vast sums of money in the possession of one individual makes it harder for that individual to be saved. Something about gathering money, multiplying money – perhaps the act of withholding money from the sick, the starving, the homeless while while using it to become wealthy – is antithetical to the way Christ asked his followers to live. According to Matthew 19:21, he had just finished telling a “Rich young man” that “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Right. Your hypothetical scenario proves that it isn’t ownership of money, but stewardship. I agree. What I don’t agree with is the leap you’ve made from sudden stewardship of vast sums of money to the somewhat slower accumulation of wealth of what I imagine constitutes the majority of wealthy “Christians.” The very act of letting people starve while the money multiplies is inherently un-Christlike. Driving Cadillacs or watching 50 inch flatscreen TVs while people live on the streets and trying to find scriptural justification for it is tantamount to heresy. You can’t talk about the stewardship of a fortune without talking about the stewardship of smaller amounts.
Did your opinion change between your first post and this post? In your first post, you specifically said that it was about the control of a vast sum, and that Jesus specifically singled out people who have lots of money. You didn’t mention how long they took to accumulate it. In any case, I’m glad you either clarified your opinion, or changed it between your first post and this one.
You’re right. But again, we find ourselves at a point of making a subjective judgment about someone’s actions. Let’s say I start saving up money to feed the starving multitudes in Lower Slobovia. Within a month, due to a small lottery win, I’m able to put aside a thousand dollars. I spend $800 to buy some bags of rice, and use the other $200 to ship it to those starving people. Ten families are fed.
But what if I were to invest the thousand dollars, and at the end of two years, I now have $20,000 instead of $1000. (What can I say, I’m a shrewd investor.) Now I use $15,000 to build a tiny factory in Lower Slobovia that can run for ten years producing food for those people. A hundred families are fed. With the other $5000, I buy myself a four-wheeler, just for the heck of it.
So, in which case was I the better steward? You can say that accumulating wealth is unChristian, but you are making a subjective judgment - and it’s not something that is clearcut. At least acknowledge that.
And, just in case you think I’ve completely abandoned biblical principle to make that argument, the parable of the talents that I referenced earlier was a parable about (among other meanings) making use of the resources you have in order to generate even more resources. Read Matthew 25:14-30.
You’re the one making a leap now. Jesus did say it was hard for a rich man to enter into heaven. He even indicated that it was impossible. But He didn’t say it was harder for the rich than for anyone else. If that’s the point He was making, why didn’t He say that it was harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a beggar to enter?
And in fact, the disciples, in their response, seem to have taken it to mean that it was impossible for just about anyone to enter heaven – possibly including themselves. There’s evidence that the disciples hadn’t sold all their possessions when they left to follow Jesus – Peter went back to his boat after the crucifixion.
So Jesus’ response to their astonishment was this: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The question as to why Jesus addressed wealth is somewhat valid, but you can’t come to a conclusion (as you seem to have done) without addressing why Jesus followed it up with the impossible/possible statement. You have not addressed that point, and Sal Ammoniac made some interpretation of it that is (in my opinion) out of left field considering the flow of the scripture – because it fit his thesis better that way.
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh…”
…
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.”
My opinion didn’t change in the slightest, though the focus of my argument did. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that Jesus was specifically calling out the rich. I also can’t argue with the logic of your hypothetical situation. At face value, yes it’s about the stewardship. That doesn’t mean that I find its practical application at all helpful. I don’t think that the scenario is A) likely to happen or B) represents a close enough majority of cases to count for anything other than a smart piece of wordplay.
Are you serious? I mean, do you actually believe that? I mean, if I’m going to take the time to formulate and type out a response , I want to know that you’ve thought this all out.
Do I actually believe what? That Jesus said what He said for a specific reason and in a specific way? Yes, I do believe that. In this situation, Jesus wasn’t addressing the difference between the rich and the poor. He was specifically addressing the situation of a rich man with an unwillingness to place a higher priority on following Christ than on his wealth.
One of my major points in this argument has been to get people to acknowledge that a lot of this is open to interpretation – neither my interpretation nor yours is the only possible one - nor even necessarily the most likely one. Will you admit that?
And when you’re formulating your response, I ask again for you to address Jesus’ followup statement that “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” For me, that is the scriptural equivalent of a Shyamalan-esque twist ending. Jesus’ point wound up being that we all must make ourselves dependent on God’s sustenance, and not our own wealth and resources. Working with our own resources, heaven is an unobtainable goal. With the resources of God, it becomes possible. The rich young ruler’s unwillingness to even contemplate giving up what he had when called to do so by Jesus revealed his priorities. I admit, that’s my reading of it, but it’s one that I find in other commentators, as well.
Here again, a plausible piece of logic wasted on an impractical piece of reality. If the wealthy Christians of the country pooled the hypothetical money that they are hypothetically saving for the good of the poor, there wouldn’t be a problem by now. If we are arguing about the largely hitherto ineffective percentage, consider the following:
Let me give you this hypothetical – This brilliant investor drives his just for the heck of it 4-wheeler by Jesus Christ and any starving 3 year-old, girl. Jesus A) says “well done, I see you’ve read my parable of the talents” B) quietly says "hey, when you bought that, one of the least among you still didn’t have enough to eat or C) goes moneylender ape-shit on the guy who’s riding the by on the physical manifestation of his arrogant self-righteousness?
I would think that people who believe that the Bible serves as their travel brochure for deciding between eternal favor with their creator and the perpetual hellfires of unending damnation would think twice about erring on the side of either laziness or selfishness. Especially since parables loom large in the Bible and the entire story of Christ seems to be one of self-sacrifice in the face of worldly temptations.
I for one will admit it. But a couple of things: first of all, your more generous interpretation does not mean that a given rich person – John Edwards, let’s say, in our revised example – is out of the woods. The mere existence of his $30 million fortune could well indicate he’s in significant danger of being sent away sad like the rich young man in Matthew. And then we’re back to a point I made earlier about his taking a gamble on a particular interpretation. If Jesus meant literally that a rich man had no chance of going to heaven – an interpretation you reject, though I think you admit that the text could be read that way – then he’s screwed, no? By far the safer course would be to give his fortune to the poor. It couldn’t make his odds worse, anyway.