The paradox of American Christianity

[Justforfun000]

Where? I would note that he had followers he did not do exactly that and yet they were sainted by the church (and never rebuked by Jesus in any gospel I've ever read).

What are you talking about? There were no "saints" until long after Jesus was gone. How the hell could he have rebuked them??

Whoop-de-doo. They exist, those contradicting examples are given weight within Christian theology, and they DO attempt to reconcile them. If you want to say Christians are being idiots for not doing this which happened in the Bible, you cannot reject out of hand a contradictory passage elsewhere in the Bible.

Except that there IS no contradictory passage about this specific thing. If you can come up with some edict that says something like "Gather thy wealth to thee, as only the prosperous are truly exemplifying God's kingdom", then you'd have an argument.

Following Jesus to the absolute literal letter makes society completely impossiblem further as you yourself point out there are contradictory passages. Hench the fact that they don't follow "to the letter" is irrelent - it cannot be done.

Well we have no disagreement here. Of course not. This is again why it's very easy to demonstrate that being a "true" Christian is damn near impossible. Certainly in today's society.

Does basic necessities mean just those required in the first century AD? Or does it include things like indoor plumbing, electricity, cars (for large swathes of North America), etc.? Middle class of the 1st century are DIRT poor today, and virtually no one in the world lives below that level today.

Tharkun.....please. You're far from an idiot. You know perfectly well what I mean. Enough assets to have a good roof over your head, supply yourself and family with adequate nutritional food and clean water. Medicine when you are sick, social networks and good education, etc.

Buying speedboats and luxury cars, no. A computer in every room and two Playstations for the kids, no.

Of course it's nice to have luxuries, but it's not difficult to distinguish between necessities and luxuries.

Are you just playing devils advocate? I doubt that we disagree on wealth being a neutral thing. I have no belief that it's inherently bad. I'm not bashing people like Bush for that reason. I bash them for being fucking hypocrites that will follow obscure, infrequent Bible passages like homosexuality and hold them up to the highest level of gospel inerrancy and then ignore much CLEARER passages decribing a true Christian lifestyle that they conveniently ignore or interpret to be less then what they oh so simply say.

[Darth Wong]

Except for one: Jesus. And guess what: Christianity is supposed to be about emulating Jesus. Not Moses, not Job, not Abraham, not Jacob, not Solomon, not any of the other Old Testament leaders. And not the early Popes either. But thanks for proving, yet again, that you will say anything in order to deny the simple and obvious truth that Jesus was anti-wealth.

This is the same Jesus who gives us the parable of the talents, rebukes Judas who suggest selling perfume so the proceeds could be given to the poor, and the same Jesus who counted Nicodemus (wether member of the clergy) and Joseph of Arimathea among his followers. Like it or not there are inconsisitencies in the "anti-wealth" position.

So the behaviour of people who followed him somehow refute his own words about having to give away your money to enter Heaven?

In other words, you are looking for loopholes to get around an obvious face-value interpretation of Jesus' position on rich people. Exactly as I said you would. Once again, thanks for confirming that I'm always right about Republitard apologism.

[Justforfun000]

In other words, you are looking for loopholes to get around an obvious face-value interpretation of Jesus' position on rich people. Exactly as I said you would. Once again, thanks for confirming that I'm always right about Republitard apologism.

What? He's seriously arguing this? I truly thought he was just playing Devil's advocate in a needling way to get people to argue to the bone.

Tharkun, are you really trying to defend the Bible and it's clear cut message on this as spoken in the New Testament? I don't give a damn about how the Jews think because they don't pay attention to the New Testament, but to a CHRISTIAN, it's the primary book and it trumps the first one. Even though they ALSO have contradictory quotes on that little piece of selective "It's ok now, Jesus said so" when he also said not one word of the old law would change.

Are you really trying to SERIOUSLY argue that Jesus did not mean what we have been arguing against you as to wealthy and simply enough to live normally and comfortable?

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you are looking for loopholes to get around an obvious face-value interpretation of Jesus' position on rich people. Exactly as I said you would. Once again, thanks for confirming that I'm always right about Republitard apologism.

What? He's seriously arguing this? I truly thought he was just playing Devil's advocate in a needling way to get people to argue to the bone.

As far as I can tell, he's trying to deny that his Republican heroes are a bunch of lying hypocrites on this issue, just as he does on any other issue. I suspect he does it because he doesn't like to think of George W. Bush as a lying hypocrite when he's jerking off to his portrait at night.

[tharkûn]

As far as I can tell, he's trying to deny that his Republican heroes are a bunch of lying hypocrites on this issue, just as he does on any other issue. I suspect he does it because he doesn't like to think of George W. Bush as a lying hypocrite when he's jerking off to his portrait at night.

You know that to be BS. If you will recall 2004, you disagreed with me when I said neither Bush nor Kerry were worth voting for.

Frankly it perplexes me, you readily state that Fundies will do whatever they beleive God tells them - up to and including killing babies; yet then turn around and say fundies won't do what you claim to be a ridiciously simple command from God. It seems to me that your position lends itself to the logical conclusion that either fundies aren't so literalistic and dogmatic; or are too ignorant/irrational/whatever to be hypocritical anyways.

So the behaviour of people who followed him somehow refute his own words about having to give away your money to enter Heaven?

Well when he, himself, says Abraham is in heaven, yet did not give away all his money, something has to give.


JFF:

What are you talking about? There were no "saints" until long after Jesus was gone. How the hell could he have rebuked them??

Joseph of Arimathea was alive concurrently with Jesus. At one of the early church councils he was officially canonized by the church when the weeded through all the antiquitious saints and rejected others (like Buddha who was mistakenly sainted).

Despite being a contemporary of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea was rich and never condemned by Jesus for hoarding wealth while both were alive (in any record we have).

Except that there IS no contradictory passage about this specific thing. If you can come up with some edict that says something like "Gather thy wealth to thee, as only the prosperous are truly exemplifying God's kingdom", then you'd have an argument.

No it would be something more like this "Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God."

Well we have no disagreement here. Of course not. This is again why it's very easy to demonstrate that being a "true" Christian is damn near impossible. Certainly in today's society.

This is sounding very much like no true Scotsman.

Are you just playing devils advocate?

Mostly. I find it amusing that the board thinks fundies to be so dogmatic they'd readily kill babies, yet not dogmatic enough to give up money. I'm attempting to use the best arguements I've heard others employ or have showed up with a bit of googling, rather than just have another rah, rah fundies = scum of the earth thread. I have already stated my best guess why fundies don't like the welfare state - they don't like losing control of "charity".

I don't give a damn about how the Jews think because they don't pay attention to the New Testament, but to a CHRISTIAN, it's the primary book and it trumps the first one. Even though they ALSO have contradictory quotes on that little piece of selective "It's ok now, Jesus said so" when he also said not one word of the old law would change.

It is not quite a simple trumping effect as I understand most Christian theology. Even within the New Testament when Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding the rich he says: "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." Notice what is conspiciously absent, you know the whole give away all your worldly possession line.

As to which rules changed with Jesus - that is ridiciously complex and varies by denomination, sect, and creed - there is no simple catchall that pigeonholes all or even most Christians. The plurality follow the Pope and his position is decidedly different on this issue than yours. On this issue, most put more stock in "For the love of money is the root of all evil" than "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "

[Justforfun000]

Joseph of Arimathea was alive concurrently with Jesus. At one of the early church councils he was officially canonized by the church when the weeded through all the antiquitious saints and rejected others (like Buddha who was mistakenly sainted).

But wouldn't he have been deceased and sainted AFTER Jesus was gone?

Despite being a contemporary of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea was rich and never condemned by Jesus for hoarding wealth while both were alive (in any record we have).

This may very well be. This would seemingly make Jesus look like a hypocrite wouldn't it? Chalk up another strike against the amazingly "infallible" Bible.

No it would be something more like this "Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God."

so there IS another quote in direct contradiction. Well this justifies your earlier argument and at the same time proves again that the Bible is a mess. Chalk up another strike against the amazingly "infallible" Bible. LOL.

This is sounding very much like no true Scotsman.

Well......yes and no actually....There is some definite truth to that. The problem here is that the Christian faith is so nebulous because of the contradictions and confusions arising from the Bible.

No, you know what? You are absolutely right. I guess you have to draw the line in the sand and say that a Christian believes in Christ and his ultimate message. However you interpret everything in between is irrelevant to that point. Conceeded.

Mostly. I find it amusing that the board thinks fundies to be so dogmatic they'd readily kill babies, yet not dogmatic enough to give up money.

I thought so. heh.

Now of course the average person here doesn't REALLY think every second christian would kill babies. That is reserved for truly fanatical fools.

I'm attempting to use the best arguements I've heard others employ or have showed up with a bit of googling, rather than just have another rah, rah fundies = scum of the earth thread. I have already stated my best guess why fundies don't like the welfare state - they don't like losing control of "charity".

Fair enough. You have to admit that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy in a lot of these people though. Here we have these very clear quotes against wealth and I'll bet you dollars to donuts you could find countless christians that by almost any stretch of the imagination are rich, but ask their opinion on homosexuality and all of a sudden it's as if the couple of lines written against it were mimeographed by God and dropped into their living room on a stone tablet! I hate hypocrisy and so many are guilty of it when dealing with religion.

It is not quite a simple trumping effect as I understand most Christian theology. Even within the New Testament when Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding the rich he says: "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." Notice what is conspiciously absent, you know the whole give away all your worldly possession line.

Again. It seems like a deliberate watering down of Jesus' words. My opinion is they would not have gotten people with wealth to convert to the religion without assuring them that Jesus COULDN'T have meant give away all of your extra wealth...why that would be...financially unsound.

As to which rules changed with Jesus - that is ridiciously complex and varies by denomination, sect, and creed - there is no simple catchall that pigeonholes all or even most Christians. The plurality follow the Pope and his position is decidedly different on this issue than yours. On this issue, most put more stock in "For the love of money is the root of all evil" than "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "

And with all of this confusion and disagreement it's amazing to me that some people still argue for sola scriptura. Ah well.