Come on Lib, do you expect me to believe that there is a chance in Hell of you changing your mind? As for the “many rooms” passage, I’ve heard that applied to everything from the multiplicity of the world’s religions to life on other worlds. That’s the wonderful thing about the Bible, it is so vague and contradictory, it contains scriptures that can be used to support or attack any belief, which accounts for all the different flavors of Protestantism.
But back to the OP, why did Jesus repeatedly tell his disciples to give away all they owned, if not to obtain salvation? And what is the result if salvation is not obtained before death?
ACTS 4:35
And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
4:36
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
4:37
Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts, Chapter 5
5:1
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
5:2
And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
5:3
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5:5
And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
5:6
And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
5:7
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
5:8
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
5:9
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
5:10
Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
5:11
And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
Maybe thats just me, ut I read that as an indicator of shame and lies. These two swore before God they would give up their materialist goods, and then welched on it! When they were confronted with their most petty betrayal, they freaked and had heart attacks. Nowhere does it say God killed them for it directly. Theyy chose their rode. No one who did not want to come with Jesus was forced to.
Because in Marx there simply was no synthesis. Marx does not envision a new society and a new order forming from the conflict fo the powerful and the weak, but a wholesale replacement of the former. Marxists intened to eliminate the bourgois. Marx actually was not alone in his hatred of merchants in this respect - the upper-class of French society has been like this since the 18th century, at least. Marx was less an economist than a rable-rousing politician.
Maybe thats just me, but I read that as an indicator of their shame and lies. These two swore before God they would give up their materialist goods, and then welched on it! When they were confronted with their most petty betrayal, they freaked and had heart attacks. Nowhere does it say God killed them for it directly. Theyy chose their rode. No one who did not want to come with Jesus was forced to.
Because in Marx there simply was no synthesis. Marx does not envision a new society and a new order forming from the conflict fo the powerful and the weak, but a wholesale replacement of the former. Marxists intened to eliminate the bourgois. Marx actually was not alone in his hatred of merchants in this respect - the upper-class of French society has been like this since the 18th century, at least. Marx was less an economist than a rable-rousing politician.
Yes. I’ve changed my mind about numerous things right here on this board. Among them are: atheists cannot develop a right morality; Gaudere is in hell; point-nine-bar is not equal to one; deontic logic cannot be inferred directly from the modal axiom; materialism is not a religion; macroeconomists still engage in prognostication; Spititus Mundi is deliberately mean; homosexuality is a sin; and many more.
That may be, but whatever else it might refer to, it refers to the preparation of a place such that we will be where Jesus is. It seems reasonable to posit that He is in His kingdom.
The same reason He told them to pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands. If wealth or eyes or hands are obstacles between you and God, they are best eliminated.
So much for the OP. The body is temporal; the spirit is eternal.
So you’re saying Jesus didn’t really mean give everything you own to the poor? Is everything Jesus says always hidden in parable & metaphor? Can we take anything he says at face value, and if so, how do we tell the difference? Do we always need Lib to parse the words of Jesus so that we know what he really means? Please tell me what he really meant here:
Uh, Lib? I could sure use a couple o’ grand right now; I take PayPal.
I think it is wrong to say that Jesus was not concerned about politics. Not because of extensive Biblical knowledge but because I apparently have a wider definition than some. Polycarp wrote:
“Jesus’s focus was far more on man’s relationship to God and how man should behave towards his fellow man in general, including generosity and not laying up treasures on Earth, than it was on any political ends”
–(emphasis mine)–
It seems to me the general attitude towards fellow man and wordly possessions is the foundation of any political stance.
I too get the impression Jesus would be a sort of utopian socialist (as Ulterior said). As with most utopias He doesn’t get bogged down with the details.
I like you interpretation of the Bible, Lib; it seems we never have to do anything that is difficult or inconvenient. We can just rationalize it away as being just a metaphor that was more instructional that literal. Christianity is easier than I thought!
[sup]44[/sup]"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
[sup]45[/sup]"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
[sup]46[/sup]“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Utopian? No, if you mean the sort of dreamer who posits a wonderful outcome but refuses to get bogged down in the details, as your post suggests.
Jesus was intensely practical and seemed to care very much about the problems of the people He encountered, while at the same time calling for people to strive towards an ideal mode of existence (“the Kingdom” of His parables).
Hmm, “The only poster we have to fear is…”
Seriously, Fear Itself, it’s my impression that many people see the focus-on-love liberal Christian of the sort that CJ, Lib. and myself are good examples, as doing what you suggest.
I beg to differ. It’s relatively easy to keep a set of codified rules and do whatever you want as long as you don’t break those rules. I don’t care for pork, myself, and prefer 100% cotton to abomination fabric. And it’s not my worry what happens to the poor, so long as I give to the Temple.
But if you take seriously the commands to be perfect as God in Heaven is perfect, to love Him with everything in you, to love your neighbor as yourself, to show that love in your every action – that’s a real bitch!! IMHO, it has its rewards, in the sense of peace and contentment one feels from having done one’s best at it, coupled with the humbling realization that there is so much more one needs to do and inevitably falls short of accomplishing.
However, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ve found that in such discussions, nothing changes people’s minds about whether God expects moral, humane treatment of others or blind obedience to a literalized reading of a bunch of tribal laws.
The body is temporal; the spirit is eternal.
