No, it doesn’t; only that the disciples needed that at that moment in order to understand. It makes no claims that that is the only way for it to be possible.
Jesus statement still holds, if your heart is to help the least of my brothers then it’s 100%, but if your heart is not into that you are unable to give 100% in that format.
Her heart was to deliver this Gift to Jesus, which she did, thus 100%, she in this instance had no gift to give of the heart to the least of my brother, so it is still 100%.
“what is truth?”
Without God you are not going to know.
Right. So he’s wrong, because Jesus doesn’t qualify his statement in any such way. It isn’t “whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, so long as your heart is truly in it, you do for me”. If we’re able to add clauses like that so readily into Jesus’ words, then I have a whole list of things I feel like adding.
Correct. Except that if she had given it to someone else, it would* not *have been 100%. You’re hung up on what she actually did and ignoring that if she had done something else she would have made Jesus’ words untrue.
I mean, if you want an actual example of this happening, I think I can provide one; I think that** kanicbird** is a nice name that rolls off the tongue. Except that I don’t think that; I think that’s true of Jesus. My kind words towards you are not a gift that is heartfelt. Thus, what I have done to you, my fellow human, is not done equally as it would be to Jesus - if “heartfelt” is a quality with value.
That’s not what your cite says.
If I tell you that nearby where I live there is a large, redbrick church, does that mean that God could not tell you that? I would presume not. Likewise, that Jesus “opens their eyes” so that they can understand does not mean that that is the *only *way they could understand.
I had 7 children and they never had to ask me to feed, cloth or care for them, and an all knowing Being would surely not need for any of his children to ask or beg for anything. I would never give my child anything that would cause him /her to harm themselves or others nor would I keep anything from them that I knew was for their own good. I would expect a supreme being who loved it’s children to be a better parent than me.
Were I like Hitler’s mother and knew the harm my child would do to others I would go to some remote island and make sure I would never conceive such a monster, and that goes for Satan, the other bad angles, and people. This being who is said to punish the first human’s because they disobeyed him when he knew ahead of time it would happen was not as I see it a good or loving being.
I would make certain My child knew I was their parent not just expect to have some other being tell me who my parent was.
Well what was she doing? She was giving Jesus a gift of her heart.
If she sold it and gave the money for the poor, but her heart was not in it, what is she doing, sort of going through the motions but not really into it, and that is what she is giving here - indifference. She is giving indifference to the poor, and yes in the she is giving 100% indifference to the poor, and irrespective of the monitory value, it is indifference that the poor receive. Again spiritual =/= physical - this is nothing new, God looks at the heart, not the physical actions. This particular gift of the heart could only be given heartfelt for this purpose.
So they never cried as a infant? Or asked you to buy them food or some clothes?
It’s the relationship, have you children every asked for something. Have you ever waited for them to ask for when they feel ready?
We are part of the family.
So you agree then; Jesus is wrong. The woman in question giving to others would not be as when she gave it to Jesus. It would be missing the heartfelt component. “Whatsoever you give the least of my brothers, you give something completely different than if you gave it to me.”
The gift would be different, not the accuracy of the statement. She would be giving different gifts, so different outcomes.
Nope, that doesn’t work. Jesus is quite clear; whatsoever you give you also give to him. Give love to others, give love to Jesus. Give indifference to others, give indifference to Jesus. But that’s not what you’re claiming happens.
Then I’m not understanding you or you not me. Her choices are (and we are doing a oversimplification here)
A: Give Love to Jesus = Love gets to Jesus
B: Give indifference to the poor brother which gives indifference to Jesus.
Right. So Jesus’ assertation that what is given to the others goes to him isn’t accurate, because if she gave the perfume to Jesus she’d be giving love, and if she gave it to others she’d be giving indifference.
If we are to parse the gift purely in terms of the intention and not anything to do with the physical nature of the gift, then we can perform human sacrifice to Jesus with the pure intent of honouring him, and that intent is the only thing that matters. And, beyond that, you still have the problem that Jesus does not mention the physical/spiritual divide in his reasoning defending the woman. And, since I’d almost forgotten, it makes your original “storage is trusting in something other than God” point inaccurate; if storage is not done in the spirit of worshipping another then it’s no problem at all.
I think we are more in agreement in this then disagreement. The only gift is spiritual, it is all that matters and it manifests itself in the physical in different forms.
As for sacrificing, people make mistakes but our Father will correct them, that is part of the deal.
And Yes storage is not bad in itself, it is the intent of it, is it a ‘god’ (is it what you turn to and depend on) or is it to serve God. Joesph had Egypt store up food for the famine, Noah stored also. Again physical =/= spiritual and the act of storage alone does not equate to ‘bad’ or ‘good’ is it the intent.
What’s the mistake? What matters is the spiritual, not the physical, so human sacrifice, if done with the intent to honour, honours God. In fact, since you’re extending the concept of what you think about what you’re doing to Jesus’ words, what we can actually say is that human sacrifice for any cause, so long as it is intended well, goes to Jesus.
No, you’re forgetting - what is meant is what goes to God. So if you turn to and depend on storage, then you are turning to and depending on God. No problem is possible. In fact, idolatry isn’t possible.
This is as far as I can go on your post. We are all God’s children, all worthy of love and for who we are. If one of God’s children were to murder another, even out of what they believe is Love, they do need to learn more and the Father will be happy to teach that child and justify the other. Somewhat like the story of Cain and Able.
It is trust in God, that so few are really willing to do, that answers your question. God is sufficient to handle it.
Kanicbird, how do you reconcile Joseph and his advice to the Pharoah to save grain with your idea that you should just depend on God and not save stuff?
I also think that you do save stuff in your everyday life. You have food in your cupboards and don’t have empty cupboards till you go out shopping. And you have a pension and investment in social security systems that pays out later (not everyone does, but from your past postings I know that you do). Perhaps you accept that as one of your sins or something.
I think you’ve been very reasonable in this thread, btw, in case my questions come across as hostile. I find your take on Christianity interesting. Not as in “make me want to convert” but just that you’ve clearly have your own well-thought out views.
They probably did, but if they’d never cried or asked for food and clothes once they were able to speak, he would still have supported his children. They didn’t have to ask - the support would have been given without any requests. They might have asked for specific meals but being fed was a given, as long as the parents could give it.
A child should not have to ask for basic support from its parents as long as it’s still a child. Adults have the right to request help from their parents but won’t necessarily get it unless they follow certain rules laid down by their parents. So maybe we’re all born adults, from God’s perspective. I guess that could make sense, unless you’re a baby dying of starvation. No crying for food then, after a while.
I did mention this specifically along with Noah. It goes back to spiritual =/= physical. You can not judge by physical standards but the intent of the heart. What was Joesph’s heart in the savings? God allowed him to know about the upcoming and long lasting drought because he know that Joesph could do something to help others, or another aspect of this, God helped others through Joesph, which God desired to do. It is my take, that Satan had the right, due to man choosing to sin, to cause the drought, but God was able to compensate for it so the people could survive. Also to restore Joesph for the years of hardship and particularly, and most harshly being removed from family.
For me personally, if you followed my through the years you would have seen a transformation from harsh right wing dittohead to christian to spiritualist who believes in a loving God and we are all His and Her very loved children. This was God working on my heart, and I do see him and her as my parent and do have that closeness with God.
In the early days of Dittoheadness I did store away and still have them. But as part of what God was doing in my life I have not had that ability, it was taken from me, yet I was never in need. Much like how Jesus sent out the disciples and told them to take nothing with them, or the Israelite depending on God for their daily food and could not store them. The taking away the ability to store was simply done. So I will have to answer that after it is restored.
I do appreciate the interchange when the intent is the same. I am not looking to convert anyone, but to grow my own faith by hearing other well meaning aspects of people’s faith (and I do consider Atheism a faith), as long as it’s based in good will.
As I see it we are all God’s children forever. We are all children forever, yet we will grow and evolve. But we are not just children, but children gods. And we must learn to be gods but still always enjoy eternal childhood - the greatest gift of the Father.
Jesus said I and the Father are one, I believe we are all one with the Father (and Mother). This oneness is shown in Jesus’ statement that he can only do what he sees the Father doing, because Jesus’ actions is the Father doing the same thing. We also have this connection, our actions is the Father acting. The act of asking IS the act of the Father providing, it is the same.
You state that God knows what you need and should provide it. That goes into your understanding of God and your relationship with God and the tools God has given you for your path, so I would say your opinion is just as valid as mine, but as you state, although i do find what you state reasonable, don’t expect to convert me. 
Wasn’t there a pretty heavy dose of “worshipped by your community” involved?
I mean, I’m not exactly sure how a devout Jewish or Christian wood-carver is going to get himself in hot water with the Almighty if he’s commissioned to make a bad-ass murti for some Hindus to use in worship.
He’s literally carving an idol, but neither he nor his community is worshipping said idol- as far as they’re concerned, it’s just some Indian artwork.
MY point is that I am not all knowing so I do not know everything that is good or bad for my child, but an all knowing supreme being does(according to the scripture writers). But the things I do, and did know I give to them and when I knew they were ill etc. I would do what was necessary for their good.
As babies I did all in my power to meet their needs, as they grew older because I wasn’t sure, I did the best I could. Had I known for sure as a Supreme being is supposed to, I just trust that things will work out.