Quick! Say something controversial!

[Caid Ivik]

For God has also said us to subdue the world (Gen 1,28)...

[TMA_1]

Acriku has no moral compass

Because if he did, he would focus more on his own hypocrisies and less on the hypocrisies of others.

[Dude_Doc]

Is it that christians are picky as to what they follow and what they choose not to follow?

It also says that "thou shall not kill". So why do people kill? Why are people drawn to action-movies full of violence and gore? How come killing was so accepted in the old tribes?

You see, the reason people are sceptical towards God, at least one of the reasons I believe, is that humans do not have any sort of "inner/spiritual barrier". I accept that humans were given free choice, but on the long run - everybody can become a dictator, and love being one, provided you use the right tools. We don't have any "inner" mechanism, something that can't be eradicated by any means, that tells us that "this is wrong". Now, if God wants us to be good, why is there not such a mechanism/feeling inside every human?

[Acriku]

Acriku has no moral compass

Because if he did, he would focus more on his own hypocrisies and less on the hypocrisies of others.

Oh, I work out my hypocrisies on my own. I bring to light the hypocrisies of others in the forum because I want an answer to them. In the same light, i would want others to suggest any hypocrisies I might have. So, do tell me if I come across as a hypocrit ;-)

[gunner154]

I had always thought the Universe has infinite Space, but a fixed amount of mass-energy. Thus, the Big Bang referred to the creation of mass from energy, or even more inexplicable, nothingness. Didn't know Space existed in a void. Interesting when you think of it that way though.

Gunwounds has refuted the argument about giving up all worldly possessions. It's about opportunity costs. Also, it's taking the bible out of context. God doesn't want all Christians to live as paupers, but rather be useful people in preaching his word. Besides, God doesn't want Christians to become dependent on the rest of society for their livelihood. It just doesn't make sense if we were to give up everything and live in the village, occasionally visiting some people and preaching the word as he did, because it's unreasonable in this time and age. Besides, won't we be better "fishers of men" if we tapped technology?

God doesn't want us to be hedonists, but neither does he want us be masochists.

[Acriku]

Gunwounds has refuted the argument about giving up all worldly possessions. It's about opportunity costs. Also, it's taking the bible out of context. God doesn't want all Christians to live as paupers, but rather be useful people in preaching his word. Besides, God doesn't want Christians to become dependent on the rest of society for their livelihood. It just doesn't make sense if we were to give up everything and live in the village, occasionally visiting some people and preaching the word as he did, because it's unreasonable in this time and age. Besides, won't we be better "fishers of men" if we tapped technology?

God doesn't want us to be hedonists, but neither does he want us be masochists.

I get really annoyed when people immediately shout "you're taking the bible out of context!" when someone who isn't Christian makes a claim. Especially when it isn't out of context! I've read Mark 10 all the way through, including the verse Mark 10:21:

10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

And the context does not change the meaning of this verse. A guy came up asking what it takes to gain eternal life, and Jesus responded "follow the commandments, etc" and the guy said "aye, I have done so from childhood" and Jesus said "you lack one thing, etc." Tell me where the context changes the fact that Jesus says give up your treasures and give to the poor and follow Jesus? Having +2 computers plus laptops and joysticks are going to give you plenty of trouble trying to get into heaven, according to Jesus.

Also, when you say live in the village, you wouldn't be "occassionally visiting some people and preachign the word." You'd be devoting your life to Jesus and spreading his word, while having very little 'treasures' to own after having given the rest for money to give to the poor. Look at the monks, they do it. Why can't you?

Because people take what they want from the Bible and ignore what they don't want.

[gunner154]

Wrong. Atheists expect Christians to take the Bible literally. Tell me what was the culture back then there and what it is like right now. Tell me how literate the people were back then and how literate they are now. Certain things have to be misconstrued, and Jesus himself did quote from scriptures and takes them out of context to garner believers and silence his critics. But if we were to put everything metaphorically, or explain matters in intangible terms, would the people understand what God's key commandments were? Hell, when a simple love your neighbour as you love yourself (forgot the exact wording) could have done it, God had to spell out in precise terms what he had intended, eg. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.

If we were to take the bible literally, wouldn't we be little different from extremist Islamists who intend to stay on in their backward society?

[Caid Ivik]

Wrong. Atheists expect Christians to take the Bible literally. Tell me what was the culture back then there and what it is like right now. Tell me how literate the people were back then and how literate they are now. Certain things have to be misconstrued, and Jesus himself did quote from scriptures and takes them out of context to garner believers and silence his critics. But if we were to put everything metaphorically, or explain matters in intangible terms, would the people understand what God's key commandments were? Hell, when a simple love your neighbour as you love yourself (forgot the exact wording) could have done it, God had to spell out in precise terms what he had intended, eg. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.

If we were to take the bible literally, wouldn't we be little different from extremist Islamists who intend to stay on in their backward society?

Literal sense was first criticized by Origenes (btw, he who castrated himself due to it), and since then was Bible explained allegorically. Origenes himself thought, that most books have three meanings - literal, contextual and moral; plus holy books have a fourth, "futural meaning", which is to "become" true when the time's fulfilled. Certain typological commentaries of Moses, Songs and Prophets could be found already in New Testament (ie corinthian epistoles). Such commenting dominated catholic catechism until 18th century, altough already in 15th century was raised way "critica sacra", which was based on analysis of literal meaning. This tradition was followed by Luther and Calvin as well, altough in a more radical form.

Allegorical scripture was accepted, because in view of the ancients, knowledge was a thing of "sudden illumination", so the writer couldn't think much of exact terms. Thus a commentary, searching and exposing allegories, leads to place it in a certain position in the universal truth-complex, identic with the meaning, why it had been written. Commentaries are expansions of the original text, so they claim a same meaning. Since the 17th century, with new forms of self-building science, able to reduce "truth" into elementary "facts", became, of course, literal meaning more important in every form of text. Such texts aren't aimed for an universal truth, every one has own world and own meaning. But still, the Bible was written in the old way, so I can't say it is possible to understand meaning why it was written if we don't read its commentaries as well.

[Acriku]

Wrong. Atheists expect Christians to take the Bible literally. Tell me what was the culture back then there and what it is like right now. Tell me how literate the people were back then and how literate they are now. Certain things have to be misconstrued, and Jesus himself did quote from scriptures and takes them out of context to garner believers and silence his critics. But if we were to put everything metaphorically, or explain matters in intangible terms, would the people understand what God's key commandments were? Hell, when a simple love your neighbour as you love yourself (forgot the exact wording) could have done it, God had to spell out in precise terms what he had intended, eg. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.

If we were to take the bible literally, wouldn't we be little different from extremist Islamists who intend to stay on in their backward society?

We expect you to take it literally because it is the Holy Book of Truth, God says his word is the Truth, and how to get into heaven is laid out in different commands that we assume you would want to follow. If you don't take it fully literally, then what filtering do you use to say which is to be literal and which is to be allegorical? Basically whatever is convenient for you? That's not being a very good Christian.

[gunner154]

We expect you to take it literally because it is the Holy Book of Truth, God says his word is the Truth, and how to get into heaven is laid out in different commands that we assume you would want to follow. If you don't take it fully literally, then what filtering do you use to say which is to be literal and which is to be allegorical? Basically whatever is convenient for you? That's not being a very good Christian.

I'm forced to resort to nitpicking. The very fact that we're talking about the 'Holy Book of Truth' and not the "Holy Book of truth" makes a lot of difference. If the focus of the debate has shifted to the principle in the argument of "taking the bible out of context", then stop taking the bible out of context, because using an argument to justify itself isn't a very good way to argue. But anyway, I'll just meet you on your grounds.

Suppose to go to heaven you must save 10 lives in your lifetime. Does that mean that if I live in a village whereby there are only 5 inhabitants, and assuming each of them only meet a life-endangering scenario once in their lifetime, I would not be able to get to heaven because there aren't enough people to save?

A blunt analogy (I'm rather tired to come up with something better) but the message it conveys is this: Scenarios now differ from scenarios a thousand years ago. If the population expanded, and you now have enough people to save and meet the quota to get to heaven (oh, if it were ever that simple :-), you would be able to meet the quota. What would be considered inappropriate back then would be requiring to save 10 lives when you can't save that many lives anyway. Thus we see that just as standards change, so do interpretations as the context changes. What seems appropriate then and what seems appropriate now differ and thus this distinction in the interpretation must be made. Of course we would be invalid in saying you are taking the bible out of context if the context didn't change, but you aren't living in a time capsule in stasis. Get back to the real world man.

(And the analogy is simplified to explain my point, just in case you didn't know what an analogy was, it explains, it doesn't grant a perfect simulation. Think of ceteris paribus)

Filtering? Easy. There isn't really much that was literal. If anything was literal, it is the accounts of the events that took place then. If it's literal, it's what God told the Jews. If it's allegorical, it's the essence of the chapters of the bible - what the bible teaches us. It's what makes sense in the real world. Does it make sense to give up everything? I had mentioned before, God doesn't want his people to be miserable poor fellows who end up relying on others because they gave up everything. The implication of asking people to give up everything was to explain how important God is and how we should be placing him over all other material posessions, but that doesn't mean we should dump everything then. If you like taking everything out of context so much, why not just say "give up everything, including your life, and follow me"? Now tell me, how logical is that?

Even if we were to go along with your argument and say "well fine, we should give up everything and follow God." To some people, it does make sense. That's why some people become priests. To others, it's far from feasible. Ultimately, it simply boils down to choice. Look at the monks, they do it, that's easy to say. If you intend to make a comparison between religions, which religion has 100% followers giving up everything? What if you contribute in other ways? What if you simply prefer not to give up everything (which isn't a problem anyway)? Giving up everything isn't even a criterion for believing in your faith. The only criterion in being a Christian is to believe. Not to give up 100.00% of your material possessions and what-other disposable items you have there to get rid of. My point? Nobody forces you to do so. The bible doesn't even say so.

[nemafakei]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4350254.stm

It comes across as if some of the problems of Chavez' government are due not to cynical political manoeuvring, but to him being a little bit simple. Humorous, but worrying. I hope someone can replace him as MVR presidential candidate.

[Acriku]

I'm forced to resort to nitpicking. The very fact that we're talking about the 'Holy Book of Truth' and not the "Holy Book of truth" makes a lot of difference. If the focus of the debate has shifted to the principle in the argument of "taking the bible out of context", then stop taking the bible out of context, because using an argument to justify itself isn't a very good way to argue. But anyway, I'll just meet you on your grounds.

What? You make no sense. I have shouted for any support of me taking the bible out of context. You have ignored it. I have supported my claim that it is not out of context, and stands for itself. So if you're going to meet me at my grounds, you need some emergency rations of support or you will perish (hey that sounded cool).

Suppose to go to heaven you must save 10 lives in your lifetime. Does that mean that if I live in a village whereby there are only 5 inhabitants, and assuming each of them only meet a life-endangering scenario once in their lifetime, I would not be able to get to heaven because there aren't enough people to save?

So you're physically unable to sell your belongings and sell it to the poor? Yeah, didn't think so. False analogy.

A blunt analogy (I'm rather tired to come up with something better) but the message it conveys is this: Scenarios now differ from scenarios a thousand years ago.

Seems to me greed has survived that timespan. Your greed. The same greed that will keep you from heaven (so says the bible).

If the population expanded, and you now have enough people to save and meet the quota to get to heaven (oh, if it were ever that simple :-), you would be able to meet the quota. What would be considered inappropriate back then would be requiring to save 10 lives when you can't save that many lives anyway. Thus we see that just as standards change, so do interpretations as the context changes.

So you can kill whoever you want? No? Well, is that because there is still that concept in standards? Hmm, looks like you're making it seem the context changes simply because you do not want to do it. That's not the Christian thing to do, tsk tsk.

What seems appropriate then and what seems appropriate now differ and thus this distinction in the interpretation must be made. Of course we would be invalid in saying you are taking the bible out of context if the context didn't change, but you aren't living in a time capsule in stasis. Get back to the real world man.

Yeah. The real world where people must live with two laptops, joysticks, copies of games that are 50$ +. People just cannot live without that ::) You can live a very modest and humble life, by paying rent, food, gas, and a nice copy of the good old Bible. But you don't. Why? Because you're a bad Christian and you won't get into heaven my friend. You're stuck here with me.

(And the analogy is simplified to explain my point, just in case you didn't know what an analogy was, it explains, it doesn't grant a perfect simulation. Think of ceteris paribus)

Oh I understand, but when it misses a crucial point, your analogy becomes false and unable to further explain it. sorry man, it just isn't cutting it.

Filtering? Easy. There isn't really much that was literal. If anything was literal, it is the accounts of the events that took place then. If it's literal, it's what God told the Jews. If it's allegorical, it's the essence of the chapters of the bible - what the bible teaches us. It's what makes sense in the real world. Does it make sense to give up everything? I had mentioned before, God doesn't want his people to be miserable poor fellows who end up relying on others because they gave up everything.

That's so funny, because that's straight out of the Bible, word for word. Oh wait... it's not. It's from the Gunner154 version of the bible (GV vs KJV, on pay-per-view tonight!). Even if you cannot give up everything (since even monks need shelter and clothing), you can still give up 90% of your belongings and keep your job. Just because you don't want to (not can't, WON'T) does not mean you can just say "oh the times have changed, we don't have do follow this this and that, man I feel better now that being a Christian is fun and easy!"

The implication of asking people to give up everything was to explain how important God is and how we should be placing him over all other material posessions, but that doesn't mean we should dump everything then.

It doesn't? So saying give everything you have to people who are poor does not mean give everything you have to people who are poor?

If you like taking everything out of context so much, why not just say "give up everything, including your life, and follow me"? Now tell me, how logical is that?

Oh, I am a full supporter of Christians taking the quick route and getting to heaven as quickly and painlessly as possible (not really, just poking fun). But, some can argue that your life is not your own, and therefore you would be breaking a commandment. But like you said times have changed and we actually don't have to follow that! So, BY ALL MEANS!

Even if we were to go along with your argument and say "well fine, we should give up everything and follow God." To some people, it does make sense. That's why some people become priests. To others, it's far from feasible.

Oh the hardships of finite life. Dang, and I thought getting eternal reward wouldn't have to cost anything! ::)

Ultimately, it simply boils down to choice. Look at the monks, they do it, that's easy to say.

And you  choo-choo-choose to spend your eternal life in hell. You're right, it boils down to choice.

If you intend to make a comparison between religions, which religion has 100% followers giving up everything? What if you contribute in other ways? What if you simply prefer not to give up everything (which isn't a problem anyway)? Giving up everything isn't even a criterion for believing in your faith. The only criterion in being a Christian is to believe. Not to give up 100.00% of your material possessions and what-other disposable items you have there to get rid of. My point? Nobody forces you to do so. The bible doesn't even say so.

If you think belief is all that gets you into heaven, then you're right. who cares? But if following Christ (man, I hope he didn't mention following him were what's required to get into heaven) does matter, then you're dead wrong (spiritually, quite).

To make it clear: I can kill some people now right? Since times have changed, of course. I have to fit into my atheist image someday :-D

[Caid Ivik]

I think an unbeliever isn't fully a human being. Thus, to kill one is no greater sin than if you kill a dog or cat...

[gunner154]

What? You make no sense. I have shouted for any support of me taking the bible out of context. You have ignored it. I have supported my claim that it is not out of context, and stands for itself. So if you're going to meet me at my grounds, you need some emergency rations of support or you will perish (hey that sounded cool).

If you had paid careful attention to my previous post, you would have realised I was refuting your entire claim and meeting you at your grounds (if you know the meaning of "meeting you at your grounds", my friend). You did try to refute me, so saying I ignored you is completely wrong.

As for what you didn't understand, let me re-explain. If we are debating about argument A, and you use argument A to justify argument A, you are not proving anything, ie. tautological.

In case you haven't noticed, I am debating 2 main points of contention, 1.) Taking the bible out of context, 2.) The more specific case of giving everything up. I hope you do see these contentions and argue them appropriately, rather than go all over the place like you've been going on for a good while.

So you're physically unable to sell your belongings and sell it to the poor? Yeah, didn't think so. False analogy.

That statement is of little relevance to the analogy. The rest of my post had covered that.

Seems to me greed has survived that timespan. Your greed. The same greed that will keep you from heaven (so says the bible).

It is very easy to come up with a whole list of examples and then tell me "look, one of them is still wrong. So you're wrong." Stop arguing by counter-examples and simply quoting them. In any case, just as greed is undesirable, greed didn't change. And there is, once again, no relevance. You try to argue on values. I'm arguing scenarios. Values don't change overtime. The action changes, and that's because the context changes. So not only are you arguing by counter-example (which is essentially no argument), you use the wrong example.

So you can kill whoever you want? No? Well, is that because there is still that concept in standards? Hmm, looks like you're making it seem the context changes simply because you do not want to do it. That's not the Christian thing to do, tsk tsk.

You've obviously misunderstood my usage of the word 'standards'. To clear up this misunderstanding, allow me to use the word 'yardstick' instead. A hypothetical, quantity-based 'yardstick' to determine what you need to do to go to heaven, in my analogy. Context is based on common sense. Common understanding. Stop evading the point by refuting it with something that doesn't make sense anyway. I can't kill whoever I want, because 1.) Ten Commandments (I do not discredit this. I was using the example earlier to demonstrate the difference in context. It doesn't invalidate the commandments.) 2.) General principle of freedom: Do whatever you want without infringing on the rights of others.

Yeah. The real world where people must live with two laptops, joysticks, copies of games that are 50$ +. People just cannot live without that ::) You can live a very modest and humble life, by paying rent, food, gas, and a nice copy of the good old Bible. But you don't. Why? Because you're a bad Christian and you won't get into heaven my friend. You're stuck here with me.

Assertion after assertion. Rather than refute my logic, you just keep repeating your point.

Oh I understand, but when it misses a crucial point, your analogy becomes false and unable to further explain it. sorry man, it just isn't cutting it.

Guess what? It does not miss a crucial point.

That's so funny, because that's straight out of the Bible, word for word. Oh wait... it's not. It's from the Gunner154 version of the bible (GV vs KJV, on pay-per-view tonight!). Even if you cannot give up everything (since even monks need shelter and clothing), you can still give up 90% of your belongings and keep your job. Just because you don't want to (not can't, WON'T) does not mean you can just say "oh the times have changed, we don't have do follow this this and that, man I feel better now that being a Christian is fun and easy!"

Of course I can give up 90% of my belongings and keep my job. I can do all kinds of things I want. Good for you if you can do it. Not so good for you (by your argument) if you don't. But guess what? Nobody really asked you to give up everything. Place God over everything is not equivalent to damnation of everything material. What is the key issue here? If you get so caught up with material life that you totally forget God, than you're in trouble. It's all about moderation, except when it comes to God. When it comes to God, always think of him and remember him.

It doesn't? So saying give everything you have to people who are poor does not mean give everything you have to people who are poor?

See above. God's message isn't telling you to give up everything. God's message is telling you that you should place him over all else. And it's not my interpretation. I repeat this point: If we followed everything literally, we're probably living in ancient times. And if we aren't living in ancient times, we'll be getting there!

Oh, I am a full supporter of Christians taking the quick route and getting to heaven as quickly and painlessly as possible (not really, just poking fun). But, some can argue that your life is not your own, and therefore you would be breaking a commandment. But like you said times have changed and we actually don't have to follow that! So, BY ALL MEANS!

Obviously you don't get my point. What happened to Interpretation?

Oh the hardships of finite life. Dang, and I thought getting eternal reward wouldn't have to cost anything! ::)

Doing nothing about your faith doesn't get you anywhere near heaven. If you don't even pray, you're effectively not a Christian because you aren't even communicating with God. Don't put words into my mouth.

And you  choo-choo-choose to spend your eternal life in hell. You're right, it boils down to choice.

Choice? Yes. But nobody said you'll be damned in hell. I remember mentioning somewhere that even atheists can get to heaven. It's not your fault that you are an atheist, and God respects that.

If you think belief is all that gets you into heaven, then you're right. who cares? But if following Christ (man, I hope he didn't mention following him were what's required to get into heaven) does matter, then you're dead wrong (spiritually, quite).

Refuted. See arguments above.

To make it clear: I can kill some people now right? Since times have changed, of course. I have to fit into my atheist image someday :-D

That's bullcrap. Dealt with above.

[Dude_Doc]

Choice? Yes. But nobody said you'll be damned in hell. I remember mentioning somewhere that even atheists can get to heaven. It's not your fault that you are an atheist, and God respects that.

I disagree. Let me take an example. Let's say that I have some kind of machine that could completely brainwash every human on the planet, and activated it. Then, I placed thoughts of murder, rape, violence and every other sin one could ever think of. People would act this way - killing and doing all kinds of unthinkable horror. Would anyone every stop and think of what they were doing to be wrong? No. The argument against God here is that we don't "feel" what's right or what's wrong. As I said above, everyone can become an Adolph Hitler, and love being one.

So, what about atheists? Well, the answer is that every country has it's laws. In this case, Acriku (I'm taking you as an example now, hope it's okay :) ) must follow the laws of the United States, which includes not to kill people, not to rob, run naked around the White House, and whatever you have.

The example also applies to previous historical events. How come people never respected other, "different" people? How could people so easily kill at least one person a day (the Aztecs), and believeing it was okay? How could one man's views make create so many atrocities (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union etc)? The answer is simple: people simply do not have this "inner feeling", something that never can be erased by any means, that tells them what's wrong and what's right. Wouldn't God put such a thing in humans to make them good? I'm not talking about barriers that prohibit people from killing, just the plain feeling or chock of being "wrong".

[Acriku]

If you had paid careful attention to my previous post, you would have realised I was refuting your entire claim and meeting you at your grounds (if you know the meaning of "meeting you at your grounds", my friend). You did try to refute me, so saying I ignored you is completely wrong.

As for what you didn't understand, let me re-explain. If we are debating about argument A, and you use argument A to justify argument A, you are not proving anything, ie. tautological.

What is Argument A? I'd understand it if you were more specific.

In case you haven't noticed, I am debating 2 main points of contention, 1.) Taking the bible out of context,

Which I argued against, because saying times have changed is a subjective, arbitrary, and convenient method of filtering.

2.) The more specific case of giving everything up.

Not everything up. Just everything you can afford to give up, and live a safe life. that means give up your fancy car, your computer, your cd player, etc etc, that are all unnecessary to live a life for God. Yet you don't...

It is very easy to come up with a whole list of examples and then tell me "look, one of them is still wrong. So you're wrong." Stop arguing by counter-examples and simply quoting them.

Stop finding counter-examples to your examples? That's not really fair, is it? I'd just as well say stop arguing. I'm right. ;-)

In any case, just as greed is undesirable, greed didn't change. And there is, once again, no relevance.

Your greed is what keeps you from heaven, so it's of great relevance. Rich man through a camel needle (something like that lol). In Mark, the man says what does it take for me to get into heaven? Jesus says "follow your commandments" - which is what you state. But Jesus continues! He goes on to say that you also need to sell your stuff and give it to the poor. Now why do you follow one part of the requirement and not the other? I've explained to you it is feasible as humanly possible, yet you do not do what is as humanly possible. You ignore it completely.

You try to argue on values. I'm arguing scenarios. Values don't change overtime. The action changes, and that's because the context changes. So not only are you arguing by counter-example (which is essentially no argument), you use the wrong example.

I'm only being consistent with your arguments. You say it's unfeasible to do what is required to get into heaven, so you can ignore it. I say that is so arbitrary and subjective that you can extend that to breaking the commandments. If it is so arbitrary, there's no way you can argue against it.

You've obviously misunderstood my usage of the word 'standards'. To clear up this misunderstanding, allow me to use the word 'yardstick' instead. A hypothetical, quantity-based 'yardstick' to determine what you need to do to go to heaven, in my analogy.

You're making an analogy to quantitification, when it is qualification that gets you into heaven. The quality of your life (works), and not the quantity in any sort, gets you into heaven. That's why your analogy is wrong.

Context is based on common sense. Common understanding.

Please don't bring common sense into this. It's so easy to argue that the bible goes against any common sense ever 'sensed.' Talking animals, Noah's Flood, talking bush, these are not common sense material.

Stop evading the point by refuting it with something that doesn't make sense anyway. I can't kill whoever I want, because 1.) Ten Commandments (I do not discredit this. I was using the example earlier to demonstrate the difference in context. It doesn't invalidate the commandments.) 2.) General principle of freedom: Do whatever you want without infringing on the rights of others.

You know, there are more commandments than the Ten Commandments. There are commands that Jesus gives as part of Jesus' teachings. Yet, you feel it is okay to filter some of them out because it is "out of date." I've argued that it isn't, and I'm arguing now as well that the Bible was written by God and is the word of God, therefore cannot go "out of date." If it can, then time will eventually void any part of Christianity left. The Bible is supposed to be timeless, and unaltered. You're arguing that it is not the truth, nor literal, nor timeless. It ages, it grows old, and some concepts die due to time. I'm not quite sure God is okay with that...

Assertion after assertion. Rather than refute my logic, you just keep repeating your point.Guess what? It does not miss a crucial point.Of course I can give up 90% of my belongings and keep my job.

Great! Then it is not out of context if you can do it! Hooray for Gunner who can now follow Jesus completely and enter into heaven.

I can do all kinds of things I want. Good for you if you can do it. Not so good for you (by your argument) if you don't. But guess what? Nobody really asked you to give up everything.

No, Jesus told the man to give up his possessions in order to enter into Heaven. Would you like the verse quote? I'd love to give it to you:

10:17  And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

10:19  Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

[TMA_1]

notice Christ says 'and follow me.' right after he says to give up all of his possessions? This is what the verse hinges on.

Remember that Christ did not die and rise from the dead yet. Technically it is still in the Age of the Jews, where the messiah was yet to fulfill his work. The concept of grace through the suffering servant had not yet been fully realized, and so God asked of this rich young man to sacrifice all of his possessions as a sign of pure faith. If this rich young man decided to follow Christ, he would then walk along the path as a righteous son of God. Instead he took to his wealth, and it shows us all now that money is the most direct path to the abyss, not because money is evil, but because of the evil within all of us. Money is just a key that opens up the doors to possibilities. Money is power, and power breeds independance, especially from God.

Christ wished for this rich young ruler to become a disciple, but the rich young man chose not to follow. Christ simplified his own walk in life. He had two choices. Temporal gain, or spiritual fulfillment.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Thanks for all your posting Gunner.  Excellent post TMA ... brief and simple yet right to the point. 

     In addition, i would like to add that this verse is also symbolic of idolatry.  Jesus knew that Money was the rich man's "god" ... therefore he asked the rich man to give up what he idolized.  If it had been a pimp or a prostitute instead, with lust and sex for idols, he would have asked them to give up flesh desires totally.  Which is what monks do too.  Monks give up sex and money... but why?  Is sex and money evil?   No... its just that if you remove sex and money from your life then you have far less temptations in your life and are able to walk an easier path to God. Jesus knew this and basically offered it up as advice to the man.  Basically... live a simple life and it is easier to get into heaven. It doesnt mean you HAVE to.  Live a more complicated life and heaven is still attainable... but you will suffer through more temptation.  Basically its harder to keep your virginity if you live in a whore house.  And its easier to keep your virginity if you live on a deserted island.

     Living on a farm like an Amish person with minimal resources or live in a monastary with Monks will make it very easy to read your bible, worship in peace, and avoid most temptations and evils.  Therefore it is not right or wrong to become a monk.... it is just an easier route to take.  I dont think a Monk has to worry about getting addicted to internet porn.... since he doesnt even own a computer.

So its not "wrong" to lead an average middle class american life... and its not "wrong" to become a monk or a nun.  Its just a different way of interacting with the world.  I choose to use money, use computers, use cars, have sex, eat nice foods, etc, and therefore i choose to live a life that is more difficult in terms of being spiritually pure.  I am tempted daily by all sorts of things. And that is the price i must pay for living an american life and not flying to Tibet and becoming a monk.  It is up to me to be strong... live my life and deal with all the temptations and possible problems that come along with an american life.  However as TMA stated... that verse was before the sacrifice of Jesus.... we now have grace and are able to call upon Jesus to help purify us.  So yes you can live a good life and still get into heaven.  However, its still true that if you "worship" money you cannot enter heaven because you can only have one God. Hence the "Rich man enter heaven like a camel thru eye of the needle" verse.

Is money bad? No.  Is worshipping money bad? Yes.  Do i worship money?  I dont think so.  Is owning two computers wrong?  No. I actually use them as part of my bible study.... lots of wealth of knowledge on the internet.  Are games wrong? No.  God knows that not only do we need physical health but we also need mental health.   Do i spend too much time gaming?  Probably.  Is it possible that "gaming" could be a candidate for an "idol" in my life?  Probably.  Is it something i am aware of?  Yes.  Is it something i will remedy?  Yes.    Worship is all about what you spend your time doing.  If too much of my time is spent gaming.... then yes i need to back off the games a bit and do some bible study or meditation in prayer.

I shouldnt let anything become an "IDOL" in my life which is what the real meaning of this verse is along with what TMA has stated about It being a "test" for the rich man to show a pure sign of faith since the grace of Jesus had not been instituted yet.

I thank you for bringing this subject up tho Acriku as it is something i have thought about for a long time which surprisingly not many people have really brought up till recently.  And i am sure many people were as curious as you were about this particular verse and the application of these principles to our lives in these times.

Regards,

Guns

[Acriku]

notice Christ says 'and follow me.' right after he says to give up all of his possessions? This is what the verse hinges on.

By following Christ would mean to listen and follow his teachings, and since they didn't have the Bible as we know it then, he would have had to actually follow Jesus to hear of all the lessons and teachings. Now that we have the bible, we can still follow Jesus by reading the bible and what he has to say and teach to us. So, this verse can still apply to us, the only difference is the lack of the physical Jesus guiding us. So, saying follow me is very important, you're right. And just as important is the telling of the man to give up his possessions. When Jesus mentions the camel through a needle, he isn't saying that it would be harder to get into heaven with riches, he's saying that it would be impossible (assuming a camel couldn't have gone through a needle back then, they had talking asses so who knows what was possible back then).

Christ wished for this rich young ruler to become a disciple, but the rich young man chose not to follow. Christ simplified his own walk in life. He had two choices. Temporal gain, or spiritual fulfillment.

And so we all have two choices, such as these. A lot of people in here have "great possessions" and would be saddened to be told they would have to give them up and sell them in order to reach heaven. You would also have to follow Christ after selling whatever they have. And the commandments. Etc.

People don't have different rules to get into heaven, at least it doesn't mention of any, so telling this man what it would take for him to reach heaven would also mean what it would take for us to reach heaven. We become disciples of Christ by 'following' him and living through his teachings (which is what his disciples did). Surely Jesus wants us all to become disciples. And that is why this story is in the bible.

    In addition, i would like to add that this verse is also symbolic of idolatry.  Jesus knew that Money was the rich man's "god" ... therefore he asked the rich man to give up what he idolized.

Where does it say that the rich man worships his money? his possessions? If by being saddened that he would have to give them up means he worships the riches, then we all worship money. But that's not how we use worship normally. I don't praise USD, but I do like it. I don't waste any of my time putting the money on a mantle and bowing to it. If anything, we would worship giving the money away then receiving it, because the only use of it is to give it to people in exchange for something. But yet, I disagree with the usage of worship there. Anyway, this man worshipped money as much as you do currently, since you would have the same reaction if you were told this.

If it had been a pimp or a prostitute instead, with lust and sex for idols, he would have asked them to give up flesh desires totally.

Which we are victim of, as well. And yet you give neither up.

Which is what monks do too.  Monks give up sex and money... but why?  Is sex and money evil?  No... its just that if you remove sex and money from your life then you have far less temptations in your life and are able to walk an easier path to God. Jesus knew this and basically offered it up as advice to the man.  Basically... live a simple life and it is easier to get into heaven. It doesnt mean you HAVE to.  Live a more complicated life and heaven is still attainable... but you will suffer through more temptation.  Basically its harder to keep your virginity if you live in a whore house.  And its easier to keep your virginity if you live on a deserted island.

You don't have to? Just how does a camel go through a needle then? It's in the bible gunwounds, a man with great possessions can get into heaven as easily as a camel through a needle, which is impossible.

    Living on a farm like an Amish person with minimal resources or live in a monastary with Monks will make it very easy to read your bible, worship in peace, and avoid most temptations and evils.  Therefore it is not right or wrong to become a monk.... it is just an easier route to take.  I dont think a Monk has to worry about getting addicted to internet porn.... since he doesnt even own a computer.

So its not "wrong" to lead an average middle class american life... and its not "wrong" to become a monk or a nun.  Its just a different way of interacting with the world.  I choose to use money, use computers, use cars, have sex, eat nice foods, etc, and therefore i choose to live a life that is more difficult in terms of being spiritually pure.  I am tempted daily by all sorts of things. And that is the price i must pay for living an american life and not flying to Tibet and becoming a monk.  It is up to me to be strong... live my life and deal with all the temptations and possible problems that come along with an american life.

So what's keeping you attaining heaven? Your belief? The rich man had that. Your following of the commandments? The rich man did that. Following of all of Jesus' teachings? The rich man didn't want to follow all of them, and neither do you. So, how do you get into heaven (ignoring the fact that Jesus already answered this)?

However as TMA stated... that verse was before the sacrifice of Jesus.... we now have grace and are able to call upon Jesus to help purify us.  So yes you can live a good life and still get into heaven.  However, its still true that if you "worship" money you cannot enter heaven because you can only have one God. Hence the "Rich man enter heaven like a camel thru eye of the needle" verse.

You keep saying the money is a rich man's god, so aren't your joysticks and possessions your god(s)? How do you expect to attain heaven's treasures when you still have all of your stuff?

I shouldnt let anything become an "IDOL" in my life which is what the real meaning of this verse is along with what TMA has stated about It being a "test" for the rich man to show a pure sign of faith since the grace of Jesus had not been instituted yet.

So... when do you plan on giving up all of your possessions? Jesus didn't say give up just the things that were just too overboard, he said sell everything. So instead of just 'backing off of gaming' which you prescribe as your possible idol (the method of determining that seems very arbitrary), you should give up gaming entirely. Test of true faith gunwounds, let's have it.

But that's not very convenient for you, is it?

[TMA_1]

the jewish people had all of the scriptures of the old testament at the time of christ. Almost all jews believed that the books we know of now in the old testament were inspired by God, and only a few heretical jewish people believed in the apocryphal texts (withholding the Book of Enoch). The Sadducies actually went even further and believed the only holy texts that could be trusted were in the Torah.

anyways what I am saying is the theological dogma of jewish believers was extremely complex at the time and it was well understood. Before Christ died on the cross and was raised from the dead, his disciples still followed the old testament concepts with the view that they were following the messiah. It was not yet the time where people believed Christ died for the sins of the world. It was only understood during his ministry that christ WOULD die for the sins of the world.

Christ asked the rich young man to follow him because to follow Christ was to follow the one who WOULD redeem the whole of the world. Once the rich young man followed Jesus, he would then have this wisdom. You cannot confuse the different dispensations. The Age of the Jews and the Age of the Church are different, and the Age of the Church technically didnt start till after Penticost when the holy spirit was given to the believers that believed in the message of Christ.

Its understandable that you have doubts, but your doubts are creating a bias that cannot be defeated. Your mind isnt open to the concept of the Christ. You are questioning these beliefs, but you are questioning them without any desire to change. You sound like you just want to argue the concepts for fun, but because of delusion you feel you are in search of truth.

[GUNWOUNDS]

     I would also like to add that it is very possible to take things out of context in the Bible due to it being a gigantic book.  Satan even attempted to tempt Jesus in the desert by saying "Cast yourself off one of the highest towers... for God says he will protect you... surely he will not let you perish."   But Jesus recognizing this verse to be taken out of context replied "The Word also states that you shall not put the Lord thy God to foolish tests"

     So there are multiple verses throughout the Bible that must be used in conjunction in order to fully understand what God is about.  In the Book of Job... God takes away everything Job has... Job refuses to spite Him... and then he gives Job even more cattles, children, and riches than before.  Now why would God give one of His best servants MORE riches if it would be equivalent to condeming Him? Obviously there is more to it.

     The Old Testament states that if your right hand causes you to sin .. cut it off...same goes for anything else... if you cant handle sex... then stop.. if you cant handle modern society and you feel it is causing you to sin uncontrollaby... then go be a Monk in Tibet.  However it doesnt mean that it is the ONLY way to live.  Obviously when the Old Testament says to "cut off your hand"  it doesnt mean you HAVE to cut off your hand... obviously your hand was given to you for a purpose as was your material possessions.... but if either of them cause you to sin uncontrollably... remove them. Sorta like sex offenders.... some of them get voluntarily castrated because they cannot stop molesting children. It doesnt mean they HAVE to.  God doesnt want us to be consumed in sexual sin... but He also commanded us to "be fruitful and multiply".  So if we think hard here we can decipher that God is saying that sex is ok... you dont HAVE to be celibate.... but if you feel like you cant handle it then by all means refrain.  So then the Monk is minimizing his ability to sin sexually by avoiding women and becoming celibate ...thats the easiest way out.... but you dont HAVE to do that... you can get married and have all the sex you want so long as you enjoy it responsibly.  Thats the whole POINT.  Enjoy things that God created RESPONSIBLY. 

     God created photons and molecules and if we can fashion them into cars and computers... then yes we can enjoy them responsibly  (use the car for useful travel, use computer for relaxation or work)... but as soon as these things start consuming our lives and takes our eyes off God ...or when we use them for evil deeds (like running people over in your car, viewing child pornography) then it becomes a sin.  Its basically a matter of are you responsible enough?

     The point here is that  Riches (or the absence of) is not what your salvation is based on.  Its only God's grace that he chooses to give when He looks at your heart.  In the Old testament riches are considered a blessing from God.  But the Old testament also says the wicked sometimes prosper as well.  "It rains on the Just as well as the Unjust".  Scripture is dynamic and has to be thought about for more than the few seconds it takes to read the verse and must be cross-referenced.

     I think what Jesus was trying to Get across to the disciples and the rich man when he said "Camel through eye of the needle"... is that it is impossible to enter into heaven ....period...even if you are blessed with riches. (Jesus even told the Rich man in that same passage that only God was good...there was no good man).

     Since riches were considered a blessing from God back then (meaning if you are rich then you were believed to be righteous).... the disciples were baffled and said to God "WELL THEN WHO can possibly enter?"  The Rich man in that example is to portray a "good" man who was blessed by God. (altho i think a little idolatry was going on but anyways) Jesus is saying... even a man greatly blessed by God will still have an impossible time getting into heaven UNLESS God gives him Grace. He didnt mention poor people because poor people were not considered to be blessed.  So if he had said poor people wont get into heaven nobody would have batted an eyelash.  So He said "rich" people will not enter heaven and that raised some eyebrows! This is what prompted them to say : "WELL THEN WHO can possibly enter?"  By saying that a rich man could not enter Heaven Jesus was getting it into their skulls that nobody... no even those blessed by God with possessions on earth can enter unless grace is given.  I think its obvious that He was trying to introduce the concept of spiritual "grace" to the disciples as it seemed to be quite a foreign concept to them.

      The point he was trying to make was that you dont "earn" your salvation.  Deathrow inmates in the electric chair dont "earn" a reprieve from the governor. I believe Arnold Swarzenegger allowed a man to be executed in California... he was like the founder of the crypts..... he claimed he was reformed... wrote children books but these good works didnt save him... Arnold didnt give him a reprieve... he was executed as scheduled and justly so.  He received his just punishment for his crime of murdering 4 people.  No matter how many children's books he wrote, it didnt get him out of the lethal injection chair....unless Arnold gave him a pardon out of the grace of his heart.   Same goes for us and God.  We can try to be "good" all we want... but unless God decides to give us grace we are doomed to accept our just punishment.  The catch is that the grace is already there.  Christ is the Pardon.  You just have to accept it.  But unbelievers are like inmates who say "I dont believe the Pardon Document exists therefore i wont take it from your hand.... execute me if you will" 

.....But i digress....

AS far as this "rich man verse" being a test in the Age of the Jews ....thats exactly what i think it was... a classic "Old Testament Sign of Faith Test".... it happens all throughout the Old testament in the Age of the Jews.  Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son as a test of true faith.  It doesnt mean we have to sacrifice our children when we come upon this verse.  TMA is correct when he states you cannot confuse the different dispensations.

the Age of the Church technically didnt start till after Penticost when the holy spirit was given to the believers that believed in the message of Christ.

Thanks for bringing that up....you are absolutely correct....havent heard anyone mention that in awhile.

Guns

[Acriku]

Well, there doesn't seem much to say without being too repetitive, but I will say one final thing. You make an analogy with the rich man verse with other tests of faith, such as Abraham's son test. I would say these are not the same in any crucial aspect because in the rich man verse, he blatantly asks what does it take to get into heaven. He asks JESUS. Not God. Jesus has a very different outlook on life, it seems. And a different outlook on the commandments. Even Jesus differentiates himself from God in the rich man's verse, asking why did the rich man call him good, only god is good. In the abraham story, God tests his faith and it is obviously a test a faith. He did it to see if Abraham feared God. He didn't mention anything about getting into heaven, or rules for getting into heaven. So they are quite different.

    Since riches were considered a blessing from God back then (meaning if you are rich then you were believed to be righteous).... the disciples were baffled and said to God "WELL THEN WHO can possibly enter?"  The Rich man in that example is to portray a "good" man who was blessed by God. (altho i think a little idolatry was going on but anyways) Jesus is saying... even a man greatly blessed by God will still have an impossible time getting into heaven UNLESS God gives him Grace. He didnt mention poor people because poor people were not considered to be blessed.  So if he had said poor people wont get into heaven nobody would have batted an eyelash.  So He said "rich" people will not enter heaven and that raised some eyebrows! This is what prompted them to say : "WELL THEN WHO can possibly enter?"  By saying that a rich man could not enter Heaven Jesus was getting it into their skulls that nobody... no even those blessed by God with possessions on earth can enter unless grace is given.  I think its obvious that He was trying to introduce the concept of spiritual "grace" to the disciples as it seemed to be quite a foreign concept to them.

To say another thing, I've gone back and read the verses and nowhere does it mention grace. It says 'with God all things are possible'. Doesn't say Jesus, it says God (to further my point, he differentiates himself from God earlier). Since you say God doesn't give grace, and Jesus does, I don't know where you got your stuff in this quote. It seems like a lot of this is your interpretation. For your convenience.

Oh and I find it interesting that you detest atheists ganging up on you when you are doing quite the same (cheerleading in packs is what I call it).

[nemafakei]

I've had a look at the Greek, and I've got to say, if he meant in 19.23-4 that it was this rich man alone, then he would have said 'the' rich man. But as it is, the indication is that πλουσιος is no less generic than καμηλος.

[TMA_1]

well it sounds like you have already convinced yourself of the matter. Why do you need others to discuss these things? You are constantly asking questions and then answering them by yourself.

Just create an Acriku thread with all of your beefs, so you dont have to use others as punching bags.

can you explain that to me via IM Nema? I would like to know what your driving at. :)

[Acriku]

well it sounds like you have already convinced yourself of the matter. Why do you need others to discuss these things? You are constantly asking questions and then answering them by yourself.

Just because I haven't come upon an argument against mine that satisfies me does not mean I am convinced. I just don't easily sway from what I think is correct. That should be cherished. Who would learn a thing when I argue something, but the second somebody argues against it I cave in and agree? Seeing how far arguments can be argued is important, even if they aren't necessarily yours wholy.

Just create an Acriku thread with all of your beefs, so you dont have to use others as punching bags.

The only person I could be argued to have made a punching bag out of was gunner, but he was asking for it. ;-)

can you explain that to me via IM Nema? I would like to know what your driving at. :)

Or he can say it in here so we all benefit. Why keep it between the two of you? Are you afraid of something?

From what I read, I could see what he was driving at.