Darth Wong wrote:
Because nowhere do you provide evidence that Jesus thinks wealthy men can retain their wealth and go to Heaven. Instead, you provide an alternate interpretation which adds extra layers which are not strictly necessary. That is not rational. Jesus says simply that rich men cannot enter heaven; you can concoct some kind of alternate interpretation to argue that this statement should not be taken at face value, but not without knowingly diluting it and changing its meaning in order to fit in with your "bigger picture".
I haven't changed anything, that is the whole meaning of that entire chapter of the bible. And the idea that merely being rich prevents him from entering heaven is contradicted by so many scriptures that it isn't even funny. It may say something it being impossible for rich men to turn to Jesus, which sadly is reflected in reality. But it does not say a man can't follow Jesus and be wealthy, because many faithful are blessed with wealth.
One can also interpret it my way without violating any of the text, therefore the extra convolutions sound an awful lot like rationalizations for hanging onto wealth.
There is no place that the bible says that the mere possession of wealth results in damnation.
That doesn't change the fact that he says it's impossible for a rich man to go to Heaven. He doesn't just say it's hard; he says it's impossible (unless you think it's possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle).
I suggest you re-read the entire chapter. The whole discussion about wealth and heaven is a direct result of the rich man unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to be one of his disciples. And at that time that was the only way to go to heaven. (Jesus die for man yet, he was still alive). You can't draw a direct relation between wealth and heaven, without addressing the middle step, becoming a desciple. Clinging to money makes it extremely hard for a person to commit to the rigors of being a desciple, so hard in fact that Jesus said it would be easier for a "Camel to go through the eye of a needle." The reason he said that is because he knows people, and how they behave.
Then perhaps you could find quotes from Jesus directly indicating that he can see wealthy men going to Heaven. Because the only quote we have is him explicitly stating that it's impossible for a rich man to enter Heaven, and your interpretation requires that we dilute/modify that statement to make it less inclusive.
There is no modification at all. The only way to truly understand what Jesus meant, is to understand the process of salvation. Which is pretty complicated since it is spread over so many places, that even bible experts have been debating at length about it. (Further proof of my theory that the scriptures were merely inspired by God. Though not the private interpretation of man, were still put into writing by different men, and as a result there would be some discrepancies.)
You must also take in to account that this scripture took place in the 1st Century BC when Jesus was still alive, and before salvation was created. And following Jesus meant physically following him across Isreal. They didn't have the intricate financial systems that we have today, so a person could not very well keep a hold of his wealth and go journeying throughout the Isreali desert.
Why not? They had bankers back then, and families. One could easily sock his money away for safekeeping and then go trekking off with Jesus.
Not really since in this particular journey he was actually going to have to give his life up to traveling with Jesus, with absolutely no garauntee of return, and the other commitments involved, kind of prevented him to holding on to his possessions.
However, what is mentioned elsewhere is that with wealth comes responsibility, a responsibility to use that wealth in a manner that is righteous.
Well not all to the church but to the community. But we must define what church is, the church is merely the community of desciples, not a separate self perpetuating institution as many people have gotten in to thier head. If the Church is a decent Church then by all means give your money to the Church, but if it isn't decent, there are other ways to use your wealth righteously without giving it to the Church. I for one, if I even became rich, would use a large part of my wealth to help children, espescially minorities to pursue education in science and engineering, since the federal government is not making it any easier for people to go to school these days.
The parable of the rich man and poor woman donating to the church does not support this interpretation. Jesus is completely unimpressed by his donation because it does not bring him genuine hardship; it is large but it is easy for him. He wants a rich man to donate so much that it's financially painful, which is not the way to remain a rich man.
Actually that parable has absolutely nothing to do with suffering, or the idea of wealth and heaven. This has everything to do with heart. In this case the rich man and the poor woman decided to give a token donation. Thinking that just by giving a donation, they have done thier part. That is not the case, since thier heart was not really in it, and they had the capability to do much more.
I like to draw a parallel to NSBE. We encourage all of our members to be a positive impact to the organization. Now suppose all I did was attend one commitee meeting, and said, "There I did my part." That would really be a sham because I did the bare minimum, and chances are people would see through that charade.
That's not what I did at all, I committed myself to serving the organization and my community, and I decided to put my heart into NSBE.
The whole point of that parable is to demonstrate that it is NEVER ok to give the bare minimum to ANYTHING your involved in.
Jesus wasn't going to tolerate it, and guess what, most people wouldn't tolerate it either, espescially if the giver is going to turn around and boast about his "contributions."
I run my own business with other Georgia Tech students, all of which have other concerns. I would rather have someone that's committed but has little free time to give, then to have someone with lots of free time, but is uncommitted and gives the bare minimum.
