|
I don't think "tool of ridicule" is a fair term. What it does is allow christians to see their beliefs without the context of history and culture. You've been told about god since you were a baby, the ideas have been circling our cultures for hundred of years. Saying "Jesus is the son of God, while being God at the same time" etc makes sense because you've heard it for so long. However, if I say something ridiculous like "Jesus is the son of a space squid but he's quite a squid himself", you don't have that history and culture to rely on, and it sounds ridiculous. The point of FPS is to exemplify that. Sure, tons of people use FSP to ridicule christians, but it wasn't the intention from the start.
I would say actually that to the common Christian, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is nonsense and incomprehensible, hence Voltaire's famous ridicule of it is so widely enjoyable, because it is so democratically accessible. Two things though about the Holy Trinity: first, it is generally incomprehensible because the common person isn't trained in the categories of Hellenistic metaphysics. Secondly, even in that connection, Catholic doctrine regards the Trinity as an absolute mystery, for which the theologically-correct language of familial imagery serves as a mere shadow representing an inconceivable truth.
The disconnect you describe between the mellow conservatism of the ordinary Christian and the sublime doctrines he purportedly believes is common to all religions which have some popular following. In every major religion there is such a gap between the religion of the priesthood and the folk religion.
As Macaulay once wrote: "Logicians may reason about abstractions. But the great mass of men must have images. The strong tendency of the multitude in all ages and nations to idolatry can be explained on no other principle."
That which is familiar to the Christian canon, and which has implanted some permanent prejudice upon his infant psyche, is a form of nurture which accords with the best habits of our species. In this respect a religious creed inherited differs nothing from the positive patrimony of a civilisation. Contary to common conjecture, I have never been able to discover the principle whereby an adherence to some religious creed injures some phase of higher mental development. That many Christians defend their doctrines with feeble minds and tongues I hold to be entirely incidental, for the fight of the believer against the skeptic does not suggest an equality by the very nature of things.
It is far less exertion upon the mind to be a competent skeptic than to be a competent believer, and that I hold my own skepticism in high reverence is no defense for its innate mediocrity. The superiority belongs to the poet or preacher who inspires you to see the face of perfection in the sun, the moon or the stars.
|
On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 15:23 IgnE wrote:
It has to be misbegotten, otherwise Jesus singling him out is capricious and unjust. If he were truly righteous and followed God's laws, he would already have been following Jesus. Jesus knows that he is not, and that he came to Jesus in front of the crowd as a kind of public relations stunt. He wanted everyone to think he was good and right with the Lord, when, in fact, he was not. This man is unique. If he were meant to stand as a generic rich man, representing the class of rich men, then why would Jesus mark him out? Especially when you say he was otherwise a godly man and could be said to be following in the Lord's footsteps? No. Jesus calls him out and asks him to give up his wealth that he did not deserve to have (either through cheating others or some other unrighteous deed) because He knows that the man is ungodly and needs to atone for his sins. It seems to me that you have a preconception of what is right and just, and then you're reading your own ideas into what the scripture says. How else would you wind up saying something like "Jesus can't have meant this, because that wouldn't be right"? My understanding of scripture is that you're supposed to do it the other way around: read the scripture, try to figure out what it means, and then conclude what is right based on that. There's no indication in the scripture that the man has done anything unjust to earn his wealth, or that when Jesus says it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, he's only talking about this particular wicked rich man. Reading the scripture, it sure seems like Jesus asked this man to give up his wealth, and he would not; that's the only apparent sin he has committed. Jesus then comments that this exact fault is why it is so difficult for rich people to get into heaven – but not impossible, through the grace of God. Edit: read updated version of the blog. I understand your objection to trying to use science to discover when the Second Coming will be, but why is it wrong to try to figure out the age of the Earth (about 4 billion years is the usual estimate, I think)? Again, it seems like you're objecting to legitimate scientific inquiries that aren't even necessarily conflicting with religion, and I'm not even sure on what grounds.
I respectfully disagree sir. I think you will come to agree with me in a bit.
On September 10 2013 20:58 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 14:34 ChristianS wrote:
The idea isn't that heaven discriminates against rich people. The idea is that wealth is such a corrupting force that almost no one who possesses it could get into heaven. You could imagine the same being said of people who abuse drugs – it's almost impossible for them to get their life together, find Christ, and move on to live a better life, but through God anything is possible (indicating that it's unlikely, but it could happen). This is an exaggeration, the gospels and letters themselves demonstrate that neither Jesus nor Paul were shy of associating with people of property. The "religion of slaves" misses the point about the mediating ideal of the gospel. And as Aquinas points out, poverty in itself is an inherent evil, whereas wealth is an inherent good. The aforecited gospel from Mark demonstrates this very well: if wealth were a primary evil, a rich man would be himself doing an evil by disbursing the sources of his sins upon the poor, as he must when he sells all his goods and donates his money. The point is that for a Christian, the primary good is the currency of charity, which, is the only true currency which is infinite. Contrary to the mathematical laws of ordinary wealth, the more charity a man gives away, the more he has. Compared to this wealth of the infinite, the finite wealth of material goods can be considered in the ultimate relation only as a secondary good, the means to a higher end. Therefore what matters is not the ritual act of charity, but the intentions of the man who performs the act. This is what Paul meant in his letter to the Corinthians: Show nested quote +And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. It is only in the higher relation that poverty becomes a special virtue, and wealth a vice.
This guy seems to understand that Jesus can't have been calling out the man and telling him to abandon his wealth, just because Jesus decided to be arbitrary and capricious . Jesus has to be calling him out for being a liar, or for being sinful, because the only just and rational explanation is that the man had to give up his wealth to atone for his misbegotten wealth.
If this were not the case, why would Jesus pick on this rich man alone? What kind of Master and Savior would Jesus be if so many untold millions of rich men throughout history were able to keep and enjoy their wealth while following him, but this man had to give his up to follow Jesus? Why don't we all have to give up our meagre (or substantial) wealth and preach the good news? How do Rick Warren or Billy Graham or Oprah (all godly people, who follow his laws, and do more than most to preach his message) justify holding onto that wealth if Jesus says that you must give up all your possessions to follow him? And don't tell me that they would give up their wealth if they had to. They know in their heart of hearts that wealth is a reward from God, an inherent good, and that their godliness was a precondition for its bestowal.
They also know that Jesus would never ask one of them to give up that wealth arbitrarily. Jesus does not play favorites. Jesus is not a capricious woman, who tests her trustworthy mate for fidelity out of jealousy. Jesus is Lord, and is the source from which all wealth flows.
|
So being rich is potential evidence of godliness?
|
|
|
I don't understand why it's difficult to grasp, and I have no intention of being rude when I say that. Money is not bad. Being rich is not bad. The love of money is, because your life, hope and security are in money and possessions rather than in Jesus which is what this rich man was called to do. The love of money is a root for all kinds of evil. The Bible says you cannot serve both God and money. It seemed firsthand that God was singling out this particular man, yet he ran up to Jesus. When the man walked away, Jesus was speaking in broader terms when he said "how hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God," not any one particular man.
|
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Well i'm baptized too but i wouldn't say that i'm a Christian believer. Quite the contrary actually lol.
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
What does that mean? It means he loves money more than God.
What is love of money? Placing the quantity of your wealth as a priority of your life.
Why would Jesus ask this to prove he could? The point is that Jesus already knew what his answer was be. He asked to show that this man, who although had kept the commandments, still did not love God first.
"Just to prove we would," and "throwing away God's gift" no, but sometimes he does. Consider Abraham and Isaac. It's written quite plainly how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, the son God had promised to give him from whom nations would rise. The fact of the matter is, God deals with individuals differently. You say he's "singling this man out" but he does that to everyone, just in different ways, in ways that need to be addressed. He understands our hearts and what the biggest obstacles are in our life, obstacles that may not be understood by outsiders. For this man, it was his love of wealth. For others who are rich, it may be something completely different. Just because it came from God doesn't mean you get to hold onto it forever even if God tells you to give it away. It sounds a bit childish to me if you say "well it was a gift from you so I'm not giving it back even if you tell me to." How does this not seem like you are loving the gift more than the giver?
|
On September 10 2013 20:58 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 14:34 ChristianS wrote:
The idea isn't that heaven discriminates against rich people. The idea is that wealth is such a corrupting force that almost no one who possesses it could get into heaven. You could imagine the same being said of people who abuse drugs – it's almost impossible for them to get their life together, find Christ, and move on to live a better life, but through God anything is possible (indicating that it's unlikely, but it could happen). This is an exaggeration, the gospels and letters themselves demonstrate that neither Jesus nor Paul were shy of associating with people of property. The "religion of slaves" misses the point about the mediating ideal of the gospel. And as Aquinas points out, poverty in itself is an inherent evil, whereas wealth is an inherent good. The aforecited gospel from Mark demonstrates this very well: if wealth were a primary evil, a rich man would be himself doing an evil by disbursing the sources of his sins upon the poor, as he must when he sells all his goods and donates his money. The point is that for a Christian, the primary good is the currency of charity, which, is the only true currency which is infinite. Contrary to the mathematical laws of ordinary wealth, the more charity a man gives away, the more he has. Compared to this wealth of the infinite, the finite wealth of material goods can be considered in the ultimate relation only as a secondary good, the means to a higher end. Therefore what matters is not the ritual act of charity, but the intentions of the man who performs the act. This is what Paul meant in his letter to the Corinthians: Show nested quote +And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. It is only in the higher relation that poverty becomes a special virtue, and wealth a vice.
Jesus, Paul, and the disciples were also not shy about associating with sinners of all sorts, so that doesn't prove much. And the debate here is what Jesus thought, not Aquinas. Aquinas is basing that view more on Greek notions than Christian ones.
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
Pride. When you are grateful for your income and see money as a gift from God as yourself as the steward of money (care taker), you are not loving its value and instead holding God above it, because everything is God's, including money. This rich man felt accomplished of his self-effort. He was probably well-educated too and thought he had it all put together, with the mentality that could have been that money can buy anything. Even so, Jesus loved him and had compassion on him because he came to him for answers. Instead of seeing Jesus as the provider of all good things, he let his own money and possessions be in that place. The man would not humble himself. His wealth was his lord, not Jesus.
Whether or not he literally meant giving away all his possessions is beside the point. After all, when Jesus found his disciples he said "come, follow me" and they "dropped everything and followed him." While money in itself is a good thing, it is a root for all kinds of evil if it becomes more important than God. Think of an addiction like alcohol. If God told you to stop drinking alcohol, he means it literally. That alcohol is a trigger, and to give up addictions like that you have to get rid of it completely. So I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus was expecting the man to give it up completely.
|
On September 11 2013 02:46 KazeHydra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding. What does that mean? It means he loves money more than God. What is love of money? Placing the quantity of your wealth as a priority of your life. Why would Jesus ask this to prove he could? The point is that Jesus already knew what his answer was be. He asked to show that this man, who although had kept the commandments, still did not love God first. "Just to prove we would," and "throwing away God's gift" no, but sometimes he does. Consider Abraham and Isaac. It's written quite plainly how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, the son God had promised to give him from whom nations would rise. The fact of the matter is, God deals with individuals differently. You say he's "singling this man out" but he does that to everyone, just in different ways, in ways that need to be addressed. He understands our hearts and what the biggest obstacles are in our life, obstacles that may not be understood by outsiders. For this man, it was his love of wealth. For others who are rich, it may be something completely different. Just because it came from God doesn't mean you get to hold onto it forever even if God tells you to give it away. It sounds a bit childish to me if you say "well it was a gift from you so I'm not giving it back even if you tell me to." How does this not seem like you are loving the gift more than the giver?
I like you.
|
also of course you could give away your money because of being too proud, and then feel proud about having given it away. Like monks who derive pleasure from denying themselves pleasure. One of paul's more profound notions imo
|
You realise that in Mark 10, Jesus not only offers rewards for those who abandon their property, but for those who abandon their families? Are we all milleniarians now?
|
Do you think you would have been religious if you had not been raised in a Catholic house?
|
On September 11 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:
You realise that in Mark 10, Jesus not only offers rewards for those who abandon their property, but for those who abandon their families? Are we all milleniarians now?
nah man delayed eschatology is where it's at. Christianity is a family values religion. Just don't tell that to paul 
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
Ever read the book of Job? Ever read about Abraham and Isaac? God has no problem in forcing people to do ridiculously cruel things to prove they would for him.
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
Here's the thing. You're right in saying that God does not ask every rich person to sell everything and give it all away. You're riight in saying that wealth is a gift from God. But it's no perversion to say that if God himself came down and told you to give it all away and you refusing is in fact loving money more that God. Allow me to explain. Idolatry is, at it's core, taking a good gift from God and putting more worth on it that it really deserves. It's a matter of priorities, and wealth does not and cannot come before God. Therefore, Jesus's command to this man, as God himself, should supercede everything else. The only non-sinful thing to do in that situation is say "Yes, Lord, I will" and do it. Now, the passage doesn't actually say what the Rich Young Ruler did after speaking with Jesus. All we know is that he was saddened. Instead of joyfully doing what God had commanded, he wanted to hold his wealth back from God and say "This is mine, not yours". And THAT is why Jesus asked him to do this. Because he wanted to show the man that even if he had kept the Law at it's face value, he was not prepared to give everything to God and trust God to take care of him. He was holding something back, and that is a sin against God.
Also, wealth being a sign of salvation is false. Yes, God will in time give great gifts to his children, but NOWHERE in the bible is that promise part of this life. In God's eyes, a wealthy man is no different from the poorest of the poor. All are sinners and bring nothing to the table. God can just as easily save a rich man as a poor man and there is no guarantee that the poor man's situation will change at all because he knows God.
|
This argument that Jesus has to treat every rich man in all of time the same seems like it will defeat itself pretty quickly, IgnE. Even if you're right that the rich man's wealth was sinfully obtained (despite no actual scriptural evidence to this effect), what about all the other millions of rich men throughout history that obtained their wealth sinfully? Jesus never appeared directly to them and told them to give up their wealth and follow him. The parable of the workers seems relevant here – it may seem unfair to you, but based on scripture, God doesn't seem to have any commitment to treating every human in all of time exactly equally, at least in this life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
