Jesus said this to one rich man. One. If you can show me where he commanded in general "ALL rich people must give ALL they have to the poor, or go to hell" then I am all ears.... but I'm reasonably sure He never said that as a general commandment.
Like many, you're taking one isolated instance and expanding it beyond what was intended. Jesus told the rich man to sell all that he had, "take up the cross and follow me," because the man was hung up on his wealth... it was an idol to him, something that stood between him and God. In other passages, Jesus taught that none should let anything stand between them and Heaven... that if they could not follow God because of the lust of the eyes, it was better they gouge their eyes out than go to hell for being unable to control their idolotry of lust.
Well funny you should say that, considering the OP, since the charity of which Jesus taught was chiefly managed by the clergy.
Do you consider yourself a Christian, Sangha?
Hm. I shouldn't trust private charity because they aren't big enough to solve the problem of poverty.
Socialism/Communalism is the default state of families, just as it was common among small tribes and hunter-gatherer-herder bands. It works at that level because the group is small, tightly-knit, interdependent, and slackers face the ultimate sanction: being kicked out to starve on their own or fall prey to other tribes or animals.
On national scales, it doesn't work so well. There's the "free rider" problem. There's the "tragedy of the commons". There's the example of the USSR, China before it began free-market reforms, and heck there is the USA, currently spending its way into cheerful bankruptcy because our politicians are too chicken to admit that we can't keep spending on social programs at this level and survive. Point to Europe if you like: many European countries are in financial trouble and having to implment "austerity programs", cutting social spending, to avoid bankruptcy.
Don't misunderstand me: I think we should definitely act to keep folks from starving to death. In principle I don't object to state governments being involved in "hand UP" programs to help people down on their luck get back on their feet and be self-supporting. I don't object to society taking care of those who are GENUINELY disabled. But a full-blown Socialist State.... that tends not to end well.
Jesus said this to one rich man. One. If you can show me where he commanded in general "ALL rich people must give ALL they have to the poor, or go to hell" then I am all ears.... but I'm reasonably sure He never said that as a general commandment.
Like many, you're taking one isolated instance and expanding it beyond what was intended. Jesus told the rich man to sell all that he had, "take up the cross and follow me," because the man was hung up on his wealth... it was an idol to him, something that stood between him and God. In other passages, Jesus taught that none should let anything stand between them and Heaven... that if they could not follow God because of the lust of the eyes, it was better they gouge their eyes out than go to hell for being unable to control their idolotry of lust.
You're teaching half a sermon and neglecting the rest.
I wonder if communists have/will use this argument as well..
Do you really think that Jesus' teachings only applied to those he was speaking to at the time?
Really?
Applying what Jesus said to one person to all people is a standard method of interpreting the Bible. I realize that the Talibornagains prefer a literal reading of the Bible (except when they don't) but most people, including most christians, have rejected that rigid method.
And my post wasn't meant to explain everything Jesus said.
I don't know of any Christian denomination that teaches "God requires all rich people to give away ALL their wealth to the poor, or go to hell." There's a reason for that.
Do you think "the rich young ruler" was the ONLY rich man Jesus ever spoke to? He spoke with many people who were of all states, including several who were certain high-status, therefore probably rich. Yet the "rich young ruler" in the passage to which you refer was the only one he told to give away ALL his wealth if he wanted to go to Heaven. Why? Because that particular rich man made an idol of his wealth; it was getting in the way of him following God.
This is how that passage is interpreted by most Christian denominations. I find that more compelling than to assume that some random person on the Internet has suddenly figured out something that eluded millions for millenia.
Luke 18:22
Jesus is offering advice. It was the man's option to do it or not....how many socialists would give the populace the option of giving up 60% of their income?
One could probably reasonably make the argument that Jesus supported ideas designed to promote the welfare of all or most people, supported generalized notions of equality, sharing, and individual responsibility for the welfare of the community; and he didn't put a whole lot of stock in the selfish acquisition of personal wealth at the expense of others. Was he a socialist? I don't see how he could have been, for the simple reason that that concept didn't exist 2000 years ago. You might say that his ideology was not inconsistent with socialism, and could be read to support certain aspects of socialism.
Obviously you'd never hear a conservative argue that Jesus was a socialist, because their ideology would be at odds with such a thing.
No, when Jesus said the rich should sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, he said nothing about having the clergy manage the process.
And why do you want to know if I'm a christian. What does that have to do with the discussion?
All conservatives are Christians?
Many Socialists would have these decisions made through the democratic process
You've been too selective in your reading. Among most 1st century church fellowships, tithes and offerings were brought in and put under the management of the "shepherd" (pastor) and/or Deacons (Elders) in some cases.
It would tell me whether you have an honest spiritual concern for whether Christians are truly living up to Jesus' teachings, as a fellow-follower of Christ..... or whether you're simply another non-believer who thinks he's found something with which to poke Christendom in the eye.
If you are not a Christian.... why do YOU care what Jesus said about something? What makes you think you know more about this passage of scripture than hundreds of highly-educated theologians and scholars who have commented on it?
That's because Jesus did not say that "God requires all rich people to give away ALL their wealth to the poor, or go to hell." and neither did I
Right. And the wealthy today are making an idol of their wealth.
And millions have interpreted Jesus' teachings to mean that if they're rich, it's because God is rewarding them. But millions of other christians have interpreted to mean exactly what I said it meant. As I've said earlier in this thread, the Bible is like a jewel; its' true beauty can only be appreciated by looking at it from many angles
That does not make it any better or optional.
For all intents and purposes you did, quibbling aside.
Ah, so you know the hearts of all men, do you? What's on Bill Gate's mind just now?
Do you believe in the Bible, Sangha? Do you believe in the God of the Bible? Since you're so concerned with this particular passage of scripture, are you equally concerned with "... ye must be born again. Except a man be born of water, and of spirit, he shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven"?
Or is this simply "let's see if we can put on over on the Christians by telling them Jesus is socialist" ?
So what? It doesn't prove that Jesus approved of that. If you want prove that Jesus wanted the clergy to oversee the process, you should provide a quote from Jesus.
If you want to attack my motives or intent, I suggest you take it to PM. My understanding is that such a discussion is against the rules. Let's discuss the issue, and not the posters.
One doesn't have to be a christian in order to care (and respect) Jesus' teachings. And I did not see any requirement that I know more than highly educated theologians, etc in order to discuss this on DP, just as you need not be so educated either. We are both expressing our opinions on what the text means. Your argument by authority is inappropriate and discourages civil discussion IMO.
Not at all. I'm being entirely civil... I'm asking because knowing where you're coming from with this argument tells me a lot about your motives and concerns. I've noted a trend, among those who are not Christians, to try to use isolated passages out of context to give Christiandom a poke in the eye.
I'm also saying that on one side of the argument are millenia of educated theologians and bible-scholars and their opinions and interpretations. On the other side is... you, and your opinion about a religious teaching of a religion that, I strongly suspect, you neither believe in nor subscribe to.
No, I did not. I said nothing about it being required
Jesus advocated for much more than simple charity. He proposed that the rich sell EVERYTHING they owned. It was a warning about accumulating material wealth when others were going without the basic necessities
According to Jesus, if you didn't sell off your excess wealth and give it to the poor, you would be damned to Hell. That sounds pretty coercive to me.
Sangha said:I did not say that I know the hearts of all men. I am not going to defend something I never said
I am honestly discussing my opinions on what Jesus said. If you think that is in any way inappropriate, I know that you know what to do
My motive for discussing this are several. They include, but are not limited to
1) enjoyment
2) curiosity
3) education
No, my position has just as much support from biblical scholars are yours does, and your suspicions are not the issue in this thread, so I will not be discussing them
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?