That’s because Steven Spielberg announced, very publically, that all money earned from that film would be donated to Holocaust education causes.
Ed
For man it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, quite, so we could conclude that it isn’t impossible for a rich God to enter the kingdom of heaven, or that the whole camel/needle statement was pointless because god can just overrule… hmmm 
What I was really trying to get at was whether John Mace’s post was one of those where we simply redefine ‘impossible’ so that it has no real-world application.
Getting back to the OP, it doesn’t bother me that the movie was made and that it’s apparently going to make an empty grave full of money, it’s the amount of officially liscensed merchadise that’s beinf offerred along wth it..
There’s a point where it’s witnessing and there’s a point where it becomes a money making scheme, no matter how well intentioned it may be.
thumbs up
I should have said to read on in the passages.
It works for me now. I didn’t realize it was a Sunday school story.
I guess we could argue about the operational difference between “extremely unlikely” and “impossible”. I just thought you were being unnecessarily absolutist in the area of religion where God can pertty much do anything He damn well wants to do. In the end, I have no dog in this fight. Cleary Jesus was anti-wealthy, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Did Andy Rooney ask the same question about other movies? Then why this one? Just because of the subject matter he gets to be rude?
Personally, I hope Mel makes a nice return on his investment and his work (as he has every right to).
Point taken. Then substitute “slavery” and “Amistad”, “Pol Pot” and “Killing Fields”, or “AIDS” and “Philadelphia”, and so on.
Regards,
Shodan
Diogenes are we going to get into a biblical interpretation argument? Great! While there certainly is some authority for your proposition, there is also another school of thought that interprets Jesus dictates a little differently. First of all you should read more carefully because Jesus never said rich people cannot go to heaven. Rather, Jesus said it is easier to get a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich person to enter heaven. Interpretation, it is difficult for rich people to make it into heaven and some undoubtedly do and some do not but not because of their wealth. Rather it is because of their love for their money that precludes them from entering heaven. Hence, they cannot depart with it because they love it so much and Jesus said this immediately after the rich man could not abandon his riches out of a deeper love for them as opposed to Jesus. So with all due respect don’t kid yourself because Jesus never said rich people cannot enter heaven. They most certainly can but it is very difficult and few actually do.
He had nothing good to say about lawyers but does this mean every lawyer today, although they are a christian, are somehow wrong? No because it is not the “status” Jesus was rejecting but the behavior of the individual. The individual’s “wealth” was not the reason why Jesus denounced them but their refusal to help those in need with their wealth, their love for greed and money was the basis of his repudiation. Jesus did not denounce lawyers for the sake of them being a “lawyer” but denounced them for their behavior, i.e. their intentional oppression of the people by their interpretation of the law and the malicious prosecution of violators. Jesus was not rejecting the “status” but the behavior of the individual.
This is a great exposition in reasoning and would be an even stronger argument if you had defined “non-believer”. What is a non-believer? Is it (1) Someone who has never heard of Jesus Christ and as a result of this lack of exposure to the knowledge of Jesus, therefore does not believe? If so, then your argument is terribly weak because the many multitudes of current Christians had to begin at one time as a “non-believer” by virtue of the fact they had never heard of Jesus before conversion and their conversion took place after being exposed to the information regarding Jesus. But surely this could not possibly be what you meant by “non-believer” so could the word mean, (2) An individual who once knew and served Jesus Christ as a Christian but has since backslidden and no longer serves? Say, for example, a christian turned agnostic or atheist? If so, then your argument is, once again, terribly weak because the conversion of backslidden atheists and agnostics has happend before. My father is a great example of a serving Christian, backslidden and completely rejecting the bible and supplementing in its place Evolution, and then re-dedicating his life to Almighty God of Jacob. Of course, no new information about Jesus or God was presented but he re-dedicated his life under the same information as before. So I reject your hidden and unsupported assumption that new information is necessary for the conversion of non-believers. This gross over-generalization sweeps to broadly as it certainly is applicable to some but not to all “non-believers” depending of course on how you define the word. But this cannot possibly be what you meant by non-believer so could the word have meant (3) Someone who has knowledge of the story, just as one has knowledge of Mohammad and Allah, or Buddha? If so, once again, your argument is weak. There are plenty of examples where people have knowledge of Jesus and what he did but do not convert, for some reason or another, until a later point in their life. In fact it is rather difficult to grow up in American society without being exposed to Jesus and the events surrounding his life. Undoubtedly there are some from this category who will convert later in life and to no surprise be presented with the same information they had before but will still convert. There are certainly instances where children are raised in a christian home and exposed to christian values and beliefs but yet do not convert to christianity until later in life. Of course, when they do convert they are presented with the same information as before but despite this some do convert.
I think I have exhausted the possible definitions of “non-believer”. Certainly some from each category are going to see the movie and not convert and for this group your argument holds some water. However, your broad and highly generalized conclusion, so generalized it is inclusive of “none would convert,” is simply contradicted by the fact people have converted to Christianity after being presented with the same information as they had heard before, been exposed to before, and had prior knowledge of before. This type of conversion happens all the time.
So I do not find your argument particularly strong or highly persuasive for the simple reasons that: (1) Your conclusion is such a broad generalization, sweeping with such broad strokes, that you might as well used the words “No non-believer,” will be converted. In fact your argument admits as much when you said the following: Non-Christians will go out of curiosity, and they may even enjoy it as entertainment but it’s not going to contain any more persuasive information than they’ve already heard so it isn’t going to turn them into Christians. (2) Your failure to define “Non-Christian/non-believer” is fatal to your argument. The term(s) undoubtedly at this point cover anyone who has not heard of the news of Jesus and as a result is a “Non-Christian/non-believer”. However, converting people who have never heard of Jesus before has happened before and happens frequently if not daily as evidence by foreign missionaries. So in this instance your argument is built upon more sand than anything else. The term(s) also plausibly cover the two other meanings I provided and in each conversion occurs perhaps on a regular basis and in this respect your argument is built upon some more sand.
So while your argument is certainly true some “Non-Christians/Non-believers” will not be converted I do not think your conclusion necessarily follows as some “Non-Christians/Non-believers” have been converted with such information whether it is novel to them or repetitious.
What? No Caiaphas action figure? You would at least think McDonalds would come out with a Passion of the Christ Happy Meal.
I really don’t understand this - how can the camel and needle thing be interpreted as anything short of impossible?
Simple because Jesus said himself I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. New Living Translation. He does not say it is “impossible” but very hard. Finally, while it may seem “impossible” for a camel to go through the eye of a needle but in the biblical context it is possible for with God all things are possible.
I think it will be amusing to watch a lawyer argue the imprecision of this passage before the Almighty on Judgment Day. For thousands of years, the rich have been trying to find some wiggle room in this passage, some way that will justify their wealth in this world, yet preserve their place in Paradise. The words of Jesus are consistant, over and over; to get to Heaven, you must give away all that you own. Consider this parable:
The rich have had their reward on earth, they will find no comfort in the Beyond.
What passage is that from? I don’t see it in my Bible. It’s definitely not an accurate translation of the “camel” passage.
Jesus preached poverty and non-attachment, dude. He wasn’t giving anyone permission to be rich, he was saying that if care about money you can’t care about God. If you did care about God, you would give everything to the needy.
The book of Acts states that early Christian communities lived communally and had no private wealth or ownership of property. Jesus was a communist, dude.
New Living Translation, I even referenced it after I made the post. Furthermore, are you qualified to state specifically what is or is not an accurate translation of the “camel passage” or any passage in the bible? Yes I am certain you will cite the fact you have been to Seminary school or some college similar to it but that does not necessarily make you a qualified expert on proper translation of the bible now does it but more specifically it would not make you qualified to state one interpretation is “correct” as opposed to another. At any rate I am quite certain those who wrote the New Living Translation are worth their salt. Additionally, I reject your assumption that “detachment” means poverty. Detachment means being willing to part with it if necessary for the work of the Kingdom. Detachment means not loving it more than God or Jesus. David had wealth, Job had wealth given to him by God, Soloman had wealth. Jesus was not denouncing the status of “wealth” anymore than he was the status of “lawyer”. It is the behavior Jesus was rejecting and not the status.
Fear Itself I am afraid you and I interpret the parable differently. The wealthy man’s problem in the parable was his persistent refusal to aid Lazarus. Lack of compassion, pity, and aid to Lazarus was his crime and not his wealth.
Assuming this is true, so what! Jesus was also a carpenter but does this mean all those who are not also a carpenter are burning in hell when they die? I seriously doubt it.
Funny, I don’t see any reference to any persistent refusal to aid Lazarus. The only description of the rich man was that he “was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.” No where does it say whether he aided or failed to aid Lazarus; maybe that part is only in the New Living Translation. Or maybe it is just your own inferrence in an attempt to justify your wealth and assuage a nagging fear of burning in Hell for eternity. What is clear is the words of Abraham:
No mention of any indifference to Lazarus, just a simple dichotomy: the poor will be rewarded, and the rich will be punished. Any other interpretation is wishful thinking. Wish on, rich man.
First of all I am by no means rich, I am a poor law school student. Nice try.
Second of all, it is important to look at what the rich man did not do. He did not take Lazarus into his home. He did not give money to Lazarus so Lazarus could pay for the medical attention he needed. He did not abundantly feed Lazarus. He gave little to no aid to Lazarus. He simply left Lazarus to fend for himself at his doorstep. It is this lack of compassion, pity, and aid to the poor Jesus consistently condemned.
Furthermore, I do not have any fear of burning in hell nor would I if I happened to be rich. Neither yourself no DGTC have demonstrated to me a verse in the bible that explicitly or implicitly states wealthy people will go to hell by their virture of solely being “wealthy”. Rather, I see Jesus condmening what they do or fail to do and not solely their status.
I was asking for chapter and verse, dude, since it obviously wasn’t a translation of the “Camel” passage, i figured it must have been for somewhere else.
Yes.
I would prefer to cite my training in Classical languages and my ability to read and translate New Testament Greek. Is that good enough for you?
You assume incorrectly if your cited passage is any indication. The NLT is a highly biased, non-literal and rather dumbed-down translation of the Bible.
Jesus saw wealth as “behavior.” That is, the retention of wealth in the face of the need of others was unacceptable in the eyes of God.
As long as any person is rich while another person is in need, then the rich person is showing a lack of compassion. That was the point of the parable.
What is wealthy?
All the “anti-wealth” people here can sit on their butts & play on the computer.
You’re all comparatively wealthy when contrasted with much of humanity.
Buncha hell-bound sinners! L
Jesus told one seeker to “sell all and give to the poor and follow me” to qualify as his disciple. Jesus never tells Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus & sisters or vast throngs of people such a thing. He tells everyone- Love God, love others as yourself, follow Him.